4 ms·

Of course. Taxes are the basis of state, which uses taxes to develop and maintain its capability to threaten you with violence if you dont't pay taxes. It's a

Of course. Taxes are the basis of state, which uses taxes to develop and maintain its capability to threaten you with violence if you dont't pay taxes. It's a recursion which has plagued the world for centuries. The whole system can in theory be replaced with non-profit investments funds, which crowdfund social projects. You dont even have to elect 'leaders', because citizens will be involved full time in running things (by guarding their investments) similarily to how they now waste time on Facebook. But good luck changing anything without a nuclear apocalypse :) There are a lot of people who like the system the way it is and they won't give it up because us idealists want a better world for their children..

mindcrime 10y ago
There are a lot of people who like the system the way it is and they won't give it up because us idealists want a better world for their children It really is an old argument. The arrogance of thinking that a small handful of elites should "run things" for the stupid commoners dates back at least as far as Plato's era and the idea of the "philosopher king".
- delegate 10y ago
  > The arrogance of thinking that a small handful of elites should "run things" for the stupid commoners dates back Not sure if you're calling me arrogant or not, by all means I'm all for a new society in which people govern themselves as much as is technologically possible. I believe that the system of 'elites' has been taken to an extreme globally and is one of the main reasons for the dire state of the whole system, including climate change, pollution, financial bubbles, etc. What I'm saying though is that the 'old' system is built to perpetuate itself - they have power - military, police, justice... And they won't give it up for some shiny new ideas, even if it means self-destruction.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    It sounds like we largely agree. When I speak of arrogance, I'm referring to the advocates for the existing system and especially the "elites" who rule things. Just pointing out that this whole debate has been going on for a very, very long time now.
oelmekki 10y ago
I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can think of which would make it possible for charities to fit government action scale. Also, I wonder how local non profit organize against a nation wide invasion (not saying it's impossible, but you have to prepare for it, which costs money). I live in a country where we're not ok seeing people in the street and we're not ok seeing sick people who can't pay for medecine. I'm ok with paying taxes for those. What I'm not ok with is having people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes. If taxes is a problem for you, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of countries where you can move and that you will find adequate.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  What country do you live in that's solved the healthcare and unemployment problem? > people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes But tax is not flat rate. The poorest often pay the least tax, but use public facilities the most; how is that "pay[ing] for their part"?
  - oelmekki 10y ago
    > What country do you live in that's solved the healthcare and unemployment problem? What has unemployment to do here? Are you saying that with no taxes, there is no unemployment? (for reference, I live in France) > how is that "pay[ing] for their part"? This is exactly paying for their part: everybody feel their effort as the same as their neighbor. And if you're about to say that poor people are abusing that and stay poor on purpose: find me a poor person that refuses a billion dollar if you offer them. Or even who refuses to earn more than currently, for the matter.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      I'm linking "people in the street" to unemployment, because you didn't mention how it relates to taxes. Make statements like "I live in a country where we're not OK seeing" only if the solutions to these problems in your own country is stable - many European countries aren't clearly so, so the idea that these are just matters of public choice isn't fair. Choice WP snippets: "The French healthcare system was named by the WHO as the best performing system in the world" "the rising cost of the system has been a source of concern" The latter seems to be a common problem, and is what I mean by "stable". > everybody feel their effort as the same as their neighbor If this is true, do the rich use public services proportionally more wrt their tax contributions? What does "feel" the same as their neighbor mean - a service costs $10, my neighbor pays $1.50, I pay $8.50, which is fair because I earn more? Who says I didn't work harder in order to earn more; Where does my neighbor share the burden in that? Maybe I contribute more value to society, which is why I earn more; Why is my reward for that reduced? Aren't the fixed tax band fairly arbitrary? Let's actually work to reduce corruption and un-fair money-making, but otherwise tax people in proportion to the value they get from society.
pjc50 10y ago
> You dont even have to elect 'leaders', because citizens will be involved full time in running things Those are the leaders, they're just 100% more self-appointed and unaccountable. Your whole scheme is just Bolshevism with the terminology changed.
- delegate 10y ago
  > Your whole scheme is just Bolshevism with the terminology changed. Bolshevism excludes private property and implements the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a different form of government. What I propose is a system in which normal people are involved in day-to-day politics - with their votes and their money. The representative system that most 'democracies' implement today do so because until recently there was no technical alternative to electing people to run things for everyone else, simply because everyone else didn't have the technical means to participate. Now we have the technical means in which society can be run in a much more decentralised way, people can be consulted in real time using a 'society app' and they can 'invest' into social projects that matter for them - like schools or roads and so on. What I'm proposing is bringing democracy into the 21st century.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    I suspect the result would be more like allowing newspaper comment sections to run the world. People don't have the knowledge, responsibility or involvement for this. Engagement will be low, and therefore the system will be taken over by cranks. Local councils already suffer minor versions of this problem. I'm reminded of the UK's "Police and Crime commissioners", an attempt at getting democratic involvement in policing who get elected on turnouts of 15%.
    - wav-part 10y ago
      A voter can choose to vote same as somone who he trust and judged to be knowledgable.
- Pxtl 10y ago
  More like HOAs.

mindcrime 10y ago

There are a lot of people who like the system the way it is and they won't give it up because us idealists want a better world for their children It really is an old argument. The arrogance of thinking that a small handful of elites should "run things" for the stupid commoners dates back at least as far as Plato's era and the idea of the "philosopher king".

delegate 10y ago
> The arrogance of thinking that a small handful of elites should "run things" for the stupid commoners dates back Not sure if you're calling me arrogant or not, by all means I'm all for a new society in which people govern themselves as much as is technologically possible. I believe that the system of 'elites' has been taken to an extreme globally and is one of the main reasons for the dire state of the whole system, including climate change, pollution, financial bubbles, etc. What I'm saying though is that the 'old' system is built to perpetuate itself - they have power - military, police, justice... And they won't give it up for some shiny new ideas, even if it means self-destruction.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  It sounds like we largely agree. When I speak of arrogance, I'm referring to the advocates for the existing system and especially the "elites" who rule things. Just pointing out that this whole debate has been going on for a very, very long time now.

oelmekki 10y ago

I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can think of which would make it possible for charities to fit government action scale. Also, I wonder how local non profit organize against a nation wide invasion (not saying it's impossible, but you have to prepare for it, which costs money). I live in a country where we're not ok seeing people in the street and we're not ok seeing sick people who can't pay for medecine. I'm ok with paying taxes for those. What I'm not ok with is having people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes. If taxes is a problem for you, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of countries where you can move and that you will find adequate.

Chris2048 10y ago
What country do you live in that's solved the healthcare and unemployment problem? > people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes But tax is not flat rate. The poorest often pay the least tax, but use public facilities the most; how is that "pay[ing] for their part"?
- oelmekki 10y ago
  > What country do you live in that's solved the healthcare and unemployment problem? What has unemployment to do here? Are you saying that with no taxes, there is no unemployment? (for reference, I live in France) > how is that "pay[ing] for their part"? This is exactly paying for their part: everybody feel their effort as the same as their neighbor. And if you're about to say that poor people are abusing that and stay poor on purpose: find me a poor person that refuses a billion dollar if you offer them. Or even who refuses to earn more than currently, for the matter.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    I'm linking "people in the street" to unemployment, because you didn't mention how it relates to taxes. Make statements like "I live in a country where we're not OK seeing" only if the solutions to these problems in your own country is stable - many European countries aren't clearly so, so the idea that these are just matters of public choice isn't fair. Choice WP snippets: "The French healthcare system was named by the WHO as the best performing system in the world" "the rising cost of the system has been a source of concern" The latter seems to be a common problem, and is what I mean by "stable". > everybody feel their effort as the same as their neighbor If this is true, do the rich use public services proportionally more wrt their tax contributions? What does "feel" the same as their neighbor mean - a service costs $10, my neighbor pays $1.50, I pay $8.50, which is fair because I earn more? Who says I didn't work harder in order to earn more; Where does my neighbor share the burden in that? Maybe I contribute more value to society, which is why I earn more; Why is my reward for that reduced? Aren't the fixed tax band fairly arbitrary? Let's actually work to reduce corruption and un-fair money-making, but otherwise tax people in proportion to the value they get from society.

pjc50 10y ago

> You dont even have to elect 'leaders', because citizens will be involved full time in running things Those are the leaders, they're just 100% more self-appointed and unaccountable. Your whole scheme is just Bolshevism with the terminology changed.

delegate 10y ago
> Your whole scheme is just Bolshevism with the terminology changed. Bolshevism excludes private property and implements the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a different form of government. What I propose is a system in which normal people are involved in day-to-day politics - with their votes and their money. The representative system that most 'democracies' implement today do so because until recently there was no technical alternative to electing people to run things for everyone else, simply because everyone else didn't have the technical means to participate. Now we have the technical means in which society can be run in a much more decentralised way, people can be consulted in real time using a 'society app' and they can 'invest' into social projects that matter for them - like schools or roads and so on. What I'm proposing is bringing democracy into the 21st century.
- pjc50 10y ago
  I suspect the result would be more like allowing newspaper comment sections to run the world. People don't have the knowledge, responsibility or involvement for this. Engagement will be low, and therefore the system will be taken over by cranks. Local councils already suffer minor versions of this problem. I'm reminded of the UK's "Police and Crime commissioners", an attempt at getting democratic involvement in policing who get elected on turnouts of 15%.
  - wav-part 10y ago
    A voter can choose to vote same as somone who he trust and judged to be knowledgable.
Pxtl 10y ago
More like HOAs.