4 ms·

You buy a recurring ticket for your phone and it's billed for anything else. It's like a tax plus extra use fees. Privatization is not a general solution thoug

by cm3 11y ago

You buy a recurring ticket for your phone and it's billed for anything else. It's like a tax plus extra use fees. Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. I totally get why you'd not want to finance many things, and I'm with you on most of those, but the world isn't that simple and human behavior/psychology surely isn't. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7) Totally with you here. The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up. This is totally different in a company. Steve Jobs got kicked out but that won't happen to a politician let alone made to pay for losses created. This needs to start with the people. First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. They should just use Hollywood stars for that and buy their t-shirts or whatnot instead. I'd argue that feudalism still exists in the minds of most if you look at the way governors, ministers (not the religious kind) are treated with a red carpet, awe and looking up to. They're representatives voted into an office to manage things and are still just nothing more than a city clerk but with more decision power in the chain. People have a fascination with those in power and won't stop living in virtual feudalism because of that. Also that a US candidate has to look for campaign money and cannot focus on the agenda (s)he is trying to get votes for is a huge defect in the system. This is less of a problem in other countries. The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. We could be living on Europa by now if we spent just 0.1% less on wars. 5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society.

snitko 11y ago
> Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. That's a statement, not an axiom, although it's taught as an axiom. Did you know that the US military is the biggest polluter? Who regulates it? If government can't regulate itself, what kind of regulation of private companies do you expect from it, when said private companies have money to bribe it? In reality, what regulation comes down to in 90% of the cases is just granting monopoly rights and artificially increasing barrier for entry. That is all. Give me any example of a good (in your opinion) regulation and I will almost certainly find how it works to the benefit of a small group of people. > The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up Precisely. > First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. My argument is that you should show a reliable mechanism of how we can elect the right people first. If you can't show the mechanism, I'm defaulting to the assumption that politicians will always be incentivized to be corrupt. And I'd argue that there is no such mechanism, because lying to people will always be easier and more profitable than telling the truth, and so only liars will get elected. In fact, that's the difference between a businessman and a politician: a businessman has to provide a service or product first, then he gets paid. A politician just promises things to get elected and then is in no way legally bound to keep the promises. And you can't just say "we should...". I think we should all not work and just chill and enjoy life. If I find out a reliable way to replicate that, I'll be the first to share. > The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. And it will stay this way. How do you expect government to behave when they spend somebody else's money (taxpayers) on somebody else (government employees and subcontractors) (see Milton Fridman "4 ways to spend money) and are not accountable for any of it? >5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society. Not convinced. If the majority agrees with you, but I disagree, does it mean you have the right for the chunk of my money that will go into financing those things? I'd say no, you don't have that moral right, even though the majority agrees with you.
- cm3 11y ago
  Regulation bodies: Of course regulators need oversight and regulation and it's hard to get right. Total transparency is the first step in everything. No penny can cross a table visibly without being accounted for. But it's easy to involve malevolent parties in oversight, looking for their own outcome rather than find a universally beneficial regulation. Hard nut to crack. Election: Probably getting rid of all the financial madness and imitate countries where even right wing idiots can get into congress is a start. That is a reflection of the people's opinions after all. But you need to educate people and eradicate unfounded fears which are exploited by politicians. Not all education is correct as can be seen in some folks' strong opinions that look like straight from the dark ages. Unproductive gambler: You cannot expel the guy, you cannot shutdown the guy, so you can therapy him or support his lifestyle enough that he doesn't become a larger burden. This will be hard to sell and seen as fascist style government (or that's what people will reference anyway) if you force him to lead a more productive life. Spending: Put into law that misspending has consequences like getting fired. How nice it would be if, for a change, those who made the final decision or ignored the work of their underlings would have to face consequences. This is something that I believe is deeply ingrained in Japanese society but I don't know if it works. And, like a company, if you spend N, then there's no magic fountain for another N amount of money. That alone would solve a lot. Making taxes purpose-bound would go a long way in the right direction. In Germany trucks pay a road toll per kilometer but from the greater than 7 billion EUROs not much seems to be left for roads, judging by the debates on missing funds for road infrastructure. In a company people do not use the training budget for buying smokes and if they do it's a badly managed company. Idea1: Make government office about points to gain for problems solved, like friggin school. More points equals more credit to spend extra. If you mess up you lose rights to spend and make executive decisions. Idea2: Oversight and regulation for those who actually lobby and/or come up with policies for officials to sign off. Those are the same group of people lingering around DC for 50 years, and everybody thinks it makes a difference whether Trump or Bob Hope is elected president. Idea3: Hold candidates accountable to promises they make. Suddenly they will stop or use imprecise light rethoric that doesn't convey anything. Either way it would stop false belief in someone's promise.
  - snitko 11y ago

by cm3 11y ago

snitko 11y ago

> Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. That's a statement, not an axiom, although it's taught as an axiom. Did you know that the US military is the biggest polluter? Who regulates it? If government can't regulate itself, what kind of regulation of private companies do you expect from it, when said private companies have money to bribe it? In reality, what regulation comes down to in 90% of the cases is just granting monopoly rights and artificially increasing barrier for entry. That is all. Give me any example of a good (in your opinion) regulation and I will almost certainly find how it works to the benefit of a small group of people. > The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up Precisely. > First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. My argument is that you should show a reliable mechanism of how we can elect the right people first. If you can't show the mechanism, I'm defaulting to the assumption that politicians will always be incentivized to be corrupt. And I'd argue that there is no such mechanism, because lying to people will always be easier and more profitable than telling the truth, and so only liars will get elected. In fact, that's the difference between a businessman and a politician: a businessman has to provide a service or product first, then he gets paid. A politician just promises things to get elected and then is in no way legally bound to keep the promises. And you can't just say "we should...". I think we should all not work and just chill and enjoy life. If I find out a reliable way to replicate that, I'll be the first to share. > The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. And it will stay this way. How do you expect government to behave when they spend somebody else's money (taxpayers) on somebody else (government employees and subcontractors) (see Milton Fridman "4 ways to spend money) and are not accountable for any of it? >5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society. Not convinced. If the majority agrees with you, but I disagree, does it mean you have the right for the chunk of my money that will go into financing those things? I'd say no, you don't have that moral right, even though the majority agrees with you.

cm3 11y ago
Regulation bodies: Of course regulators need oversight and regulation and it's hard to get right. Total transparency is the first step in everything. No penny can cross a table visibly without being accounted for. But it's easy to involve malevolent parties in oversight, looking for their own outcome rather than find a universally beneficial regulation. Hard nut to crack. Election: Probably getting rid of all the financial madness and imitate countries where even right wing idiots can get into congress is a start. That is a reflection of the people's opinions after all. But you need to educate people and eradicate unfounded fears which are exploited by politicians. Not all education is correct as can be seen in some folks' strong opinions that look like straight from the dark ages. Unproductive gambler: You cannot expel the guy, you cannot shutdown the guy, so you can therapy him or support his lifestyle enough that he doesn't become a larger burden. This will be hard to sell and seen as fascist style government (or that's what people will reference anyway) if you force him to lead a more productive life. Spending: Put into law that misspending has consequences like getting fired. How nice it would be if, for a change, those who made the final decision or ignored the work of their underlings would have to face consequences. This is something that I believe is deeply ingrained in Japanese society but I don't know if it works. And, like a company, if you spend N, then there's no magic fountain for another N amount of money. That alone would solve a lot. Making taxes purpose-bound would go a long way in the right direction. In Germany trucks pay a road toll per kilometer but from the greater than 7 billion EUROs not much seems to be left for roads, judging by the debates on missing funds for road infrastructure. In a company people do not use the training budget for buying smokes and if they do it's a badly managed company. Idea1: Make government office about points to gain for problems solved, like friggin school. More points equals more credit to spend extra. If you mess up you lose rights to spend and make executive decisions. Idea2: Oversight and regulation for those who actually lobby and/or come up with policies for officials to sign off. Those are the same group of people lingering around DC for 50 years, and everybody thinks it makes a difference whether Trump or Bob Hope is elected president. Idea3: Hold candidates accountable to promises they make. Suddenly they will stop or use imprecise light rethoric that doesn't convey anything. Either way it would stop false belief in someone's promise.
- snitko 11y ago