Political Trade-Offs

There is a trade-off in every political structure between what the government provides and what it controls. Though long and nuanced academic debate exists on this topic, simpler, more accessible discussion still presents seemingly unsolvable problems.

From the obvious contradictions in the American activist that uses the publicly financed highway to drive to an anti-government-spending rally, to the citizen of China who seeks spiritual and religious exploration but is denied, every nation deals with this balance differently.

As NATO and Afghan forces prepare for an offensive in Marjah, the last big Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan, questions about the role of government in people's lives and well-being loom large.
The Taliban alternates between a staunch and reliable provider, and a vicious, demanding tyrant to the people of Helmand. With the money form selling (illegal) poppy, residents are able to survive. When this revenue disappears with the Taliban, people will starve, even as they no longer have to fear violence at the hands of Taliban forces, many residents will not welcome the change.
Corrupt as it undeniably is, the Afghan government is supported by NATO, and recognized around the world as the better and safer option for all of Afghanistan.

However, for individual people, towns, and even regions, the vicious but substantive Taliban leadership might be the better option. If the change of control will mean months or even years without steady income and slow and inept development projects providing meager resources and jobs, continued Taliban control is in residents' best interests.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill