The lottery as the new model for political justice

The VVD propose the founding of a lottery to sponsor the arts. Their proposed cuts in subsidies are thus compensated for. The lottery provides a new model for political justice. It realises the identity of personal greed and the public good or to be more precise: it claims that personal greed results automatically in the public good. This is of course another version of Smiths invisible hand that promotes myopia for the general. The lottery as a means for funding good causes follows the logic of exchange and surplus value: one pays money for a chance to win a price be it an improbable one. Because the price-money is less than the total price of lottery-tickets there is a surplus value. This surplus is reserved for the arts. In this model nobody needs to care anymore for the public good. No longer the politician has to persuade the tax payer that the taxes are spent for the public good. There is no public good. One only has to take his chances and buy a lottery ticket once in a while. There is a catch though. If the VVD will consistently pursue this logic of exchange, self-interest and free choice this will bring forth lotteries to fund the army, health care, schools, roads and why not: banks. If the logic only applies to the domain of the arts, their proposal is anti-democratic. Real democracy dictates that the lottery should govern all of government! Everyday the citizen can realise his political power by choosing this or that lottery ticket. Buying will replace elections. This will bring back the question of the public good. It is not a coincidence that lottery served as the principle to appoint representatives in the Athenian democracy.

Student bodies that represent the interest of the youth propose the institution of a black list for studies that offer no job perspective. In line with the utilistic calculus they demand percentages. The probability of acquiring a job should be attached to a study as if it concerns a commodity with a price tag. This market logic reaches even further: studies that are without perspective deserve budget cuts. The youthful subject themselves to the voice of reason. A warning is issued to those reckless young people that are deaf and dumb and choose that which no rational person can choose: a study that offers no job perspective. Money is the only criterion here. Another choice - the wish to develop a certain talent and pursue a personal interest - is false and deserves punishment. Those irresponsible that choose the path of unreason are responsible for a 'mismatch' in society. This economic rationality forms the criterion between black and white, bad and good, no future and future, punishment and reward. There seems to be no outside. Even, or should we say especially, knowledge, that sublime good that should be, according to Aristotle sought after as a goal in itself, does not escape the economic calculus. This rings true even for young people. There is no more space for a reckless age. The future already demands discipline from those that once had their future before them as an open space. The youth revolt against this openness. The current pedagogical truth hat parents so willingly offer their children; the assurance that your precious child should do what he wants, that he should develop his talent and become who he is, is false. The youthful refuse this false hope: it can only result in a mismatch, poverty. They who choose a study without perspective are the futureless, the hopeless, the impossible.