Friday, May 20, 2005

Deep thoughts

What if certain items, things which have yet to be considered those which one simply must upgrade on, were provided free of charge by the government? Things that people really ought to be using, regardless of their income. Things for which innovation may not be so important. Things such as, in alphabetical order:

Condoms
Deoderant
Tampons
Toilet paper
Tooth brushes

And so on. Would that be communism? Any more so than public schools? Hmm...

Consider the above a result of what happens when "I should take a nap" becomes "I should take a nap, but first, some incoherent blogging."

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Condoms, that's a tough sell to the general public. The tampons, however, should be fairly easy: "Honey, if the government gave out tampons you wouldn't have to go to the store for me..."

agm

Anonymous said...

Communism is more aromatic.

Libby Pearson said...

Do condoms contribute to democracy? Because apparently public education does.

Phoebe said...

Of course condoms contribute to democracy. Without them, citizens are on a far less than equal footing in a very basic way: women (and receptive partners in general) run a greater risk from sex than do others. Same situation as with tampons--all of society wants them used, but only half ends up paying the price. Equality, sister!

Amber said...

Those are all things that have been dramatically improved upon in the last few decades and which will probably continue to improve. The rubber equivalent of government cheese should not be part of anyone's sex life.

Phoebe said...

Better for all to be using less-than-ideal condoms than for some to use the most innovative and others to use none. Cost shouldn't be an issue. That's not to say that, as with private schools, there couldn't be some fancier condoms for the connoisseur (sp? what kind of French major am I ,hmm?).

Anonymous said...

All of society wants used tampons?

I'm pretty liberal, but I hardly think providing these things free is a good idea. One, because we can't afford it. Two, because it's just patently ridiculous. And yes, it would be socialism, more so than having public schools. I wouldn't be completely averse to making these things tax-free, though.