It's the difference between 'deterministic government' and 'opportunity government', at least it was, but the Tory administrations have adopted the former style. Digital ID, if universally applied, will cement in the 'determinism' of government.
It would seem that a government with a 'mission' will use whatever tools of control....sanctions, 'nudges', appeals to the 'greater good', (which are actually to the people's detriment), crises ( likely manufactured by 'mission control') to determine its ( unrealistic) targets are reached.
However, as Accipter points out below 'missions' can be degraded and blown off course. People already have 'mission fatigue' from the 'Covid-19' Two Year Plan - March 2020 to March 2022. Each Council had its 'pandemic plan' to run for 2 years, even if it all fizzled out in a few weeks (it did, as seasonal flu like illnesses do). The hastily passed, very very detailed, Coronavirus Act March 23rd? 2020, had at its core a moral imperative - these 'rules' are for the greater good because " no one is safe until everyone is safe" ( partic ref to the 'injections).
The 'moral imperative' of that Act asked too much of people as they saw their relatives' mental and physical health degraded/ destroyed, likewise businesses and children's education.
Who could trust any government with 'missions' imbued with moral purpose? Who could put any store by the UN Sustainable Goals 2030.....well, only those determined 'we' reach those targets therein, those leaders 'on a mission'.
To act with free will, and make individual moral choices, benefiting our families, neighbours and local communities, will be to shun the 'mission du jour'. I believe that many individuals are rejecting the " parasitical overreach" ( from Accipter's post), and, as more do, will provide the bulwark against the far reaching power the State imagines it has/ will have.
I was going to object that the morality of the populace needs to be there to begin with and when I look at at least some of the efforts at legislation at the municipal level, say, I see folks clamouring for rules owing to abuses. In my neighbourhood for instance we're watching a housing crisis take place whilst apartments and houses sit vacant for air b'n bs. I won't go into detail on this subject. Suffice it to say that I'm witnessing trouble that originates in the lack of civic responsibility on the parts of the population. As a consequence, folks have to go crying to mummy and daddy to make things right. Surely this has much to do with nanny state interventions.
Like I said, I was going to make this objection, and I guess I still have. But then you gave your education example, and I see no direct connection there to any lack of morality. It may however be a downstream consequence of having to run to mummy in the first place.
All very philosophically erudite. Now to the practicality: 'mission -led' is a risible, indeed old-fashioned, out-of-date, management trope. Perfectly apt then for today's managerial politics, except that of course there is barely a politician who has the administrative experience, business sense or native ability to execute. So in carrying out their 'mission', the new Government will do immense damage, both on purpose, and accidentally, as they blunder through the mire and minefield of governance.
One therefore does have a moral choice: whether or not to go along with it. My own intention is to oppose and impede Labour's farcical, but nevertheless harmful, 'missions', whenever I deem it necessary, however I think fit, and as the opportunity occurs, as is my democratic right.
It's the difference between 'deterministic government' and 'opportunity government', at least it was, but the Tory administrations have adopted the former style. Digital ID, if universally applied, will cement in the 'determinism' of government.
It would seem that a government with a 'mission' will use whatever tools of control....sanctions, 'nudges', appeals to the 'greater good', (which are actually to the people's detriment), crises ( likely manufactured by 'mission control') to determine its ( unrealistic) targets are reached.
However, as Accipter points out below 'missions' can be degraded and blown off course. People already have 'mission fatigue' from the 'Covid-19' Two Year Plan - March 2020 to March 2022. Each Council had its 'pandemic plan' to run for 2 years, even if it all fizzled out in a few weeks (it did, as seasonal flu like illnesses do). The hastily passed, very very detailed, Coronavirus Act March 23rd? 2020, had at its core a moral imperative - these 'rules' are for the greater good because " no one is safe until everyone is safe" ( partic ref to the 'injections).
The 'moral imperative' of that Act asked too much of people as they saw their relatives' mental and physical health degraded/ destroyed, likewise businesses and children's education.
Who could trust any government with 'missions' imbued with moral purpose? Who could put any store by the UN Sustainable Goals 2030.....well, only those determined 'we' reach those targets therein, those leaders 'on a mission'.
To act with free will, and make individual moral choices, benefiting our families, neighbours and local communities, will be to shun the 'mission du jour'. I believe that many individuals are rejecting the " parasitical overreach" ( from Accipter's post), and, as more do, will provide the bulwark against the far reaching power the State imagines it has/ will have.
I was going to object that the morality of the populace needs to be there to begin with and when I look at at least some of the efforts at legislation at the municipal level, say, I see folks clamouring for rules owing to abuses. In my neighbourhood for instance we're watching a housing crisis take place whilst apartments and houses sit vacant for air b'n bs. I won't go into detail on this subject. Suffice it to say that I'm witnessing trouble that originates in the lack of civic responsibility on the parts of the population. As a consequence, folks have to go crying to mummy and daddy to make things right. Surely this has much to do with nanny state interventions.
Like I said, I was going to make this objection, and I guess I still have. But then you gave your education example, and I see no direct connection there to any lack of morality. It may however be a downstream consequence of having to run to mummy in the first place.
All very philosophically erudite. Now to the practicality: 'mission -led' is a risible, indeed old-fashioned, out-of-date, management trope. Perfectly apt then for today's managerial politics, except that of course there is barely a politician who has the administrative experience, business sense or native ability to execute. So in carrying out their 'mission', the new Government will do immense damage, both on purpose, and accidentally, as they blunder through the mire and minefield of governance.
One therefore does have a moral choice: whether or not to go along with it. My own intention is to oppose and impede Labour's farcical, but nevertheless harmful, 'missions', whenever I deem it necessary, however I think fit, and as the opportunity occurs, as is my democratic right.