10 ms·

I'd offer that one issue with representative democracy is that the direct external payoff for voting well (by 'well', I mean taking the time to do honest resear

I'd offer that one issue with representative democracy is that the direct external payoff for voting well (by 'well', I mean taking the time to do honest research and keeping an open mind) is pretty much zero. That leads to a contradiction -- we expect our elected politicians to do whatever the public wants, but we also want our politicians to be wise, forward thinking, selfless, and moral leaders. Those two desires can only be fully reconciled if the public itself has those qualities, but the public doesn't have much direct, quick feedback as to whether it's making good choices. We also don't want to pay our politicians very much (politicians make orders of magnitude less than, say, business leaders) and still expect them to be fully independent, unbribeable, and only beholden to the public. You get what you pay for.

DougN7 10y ago
Nailed it on the head! Everyone wants someone else to pay for services. Nobody is saying "Raise my taxes - I appreciate these services". We're all complicit.
- didibus 10y ago
  Very true. Coming from Quebec, Canada, I actually say that. It's more ingrained in our culture that what we are taxed for is services that benefit us all and that makes our societal environment more enjoyable. Now in the US, I can't seem to find anyone who think this. My biggest issue is that I can't even find anyone who thinks that the government is the people. Everyone seems to think of the government as this black box that has a mind of its own and inflict laws and rules upon us. While I'm much more used to the common thinking that the people rule, and the government simply enact our rule. We elect it, we pay for it, and therefore it simply does what we elected and paid for it to do. I'm not sure what makes up that difference, but it could be the bi-partisanery. It's a shame too, because it often fails to capture fine grain requirements. Like say I wanted a very liberal economy, while keeping gun rights strong and conservative norms in place? Or the other way around? There's no kind of choice like that. So you lysine end up for choosing based on your top issue only.
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    It's a pro-private, anti-democratic push by chicago school, objectivists, and other groups, to essentially slander civic institutions as terrible and "privatize" them with capital extracting robber barons. "Government" is a 4 letter word and some people are insufferable in their hatred for it - thinking that some private selfish interest of people would magically make the world ... look, it's all preposterous ... it's apologetics and denialism wrapped in the religious fervor of a mythical free market.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      The issue is states trending towards the "mythical" free market have a track record of prosperity, while states tending towards mythical communism have a disastrous and bloody track record. East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Maoist Guangzhou and Unregulated Hong Kong. Time and time again it has been shown that a large collectivist state does not deliver on any of its promises, but instead creates poverty and misery. Now social democratic states can be relatively effective with a smaller population, and when administered by efficient, civic minded and hard-working people. The US Federal Government does not qualify.
      - kristopolous 10y ago
        That analysis ignores imperialism, transnational capitalism, colonialism, different signifiers of progress, and cherry-picks evidence from random points of history without doing any type of rigorous analysis. It ignores the vast majority of history with no functional government, no taxes, and free markets such as say, 3000BC in Moscow --- take your pick. Was there technological advancements, well maintained cities, and a prosperous middle class of entrepreneurs and innovators in societies free of coercion? Where were the emergent social orders which arose as an inherent stochastic process from individual capital pursuit in say, 600AD in Berlin? These only started happening after the rise of civic society and only in places with well-organized, democratically run institutions. These apologists also choose to ignore any counter evidence. There's over twice as many doctors per 1,000 people in Cuba than the US, however those facts are dismissed. When people talk about how decrease in things like open sewage, food-borne disease and other civic advancements lead to increase in longevity, those facts are dismissed. When people talk about how there's more affordability and more equitable medical care under democratically administered health systems, those facts are dismissed. When people talk about what Nestle has done to privatized water, what the diamond industry has done to Africa, how the market-based oil system has kept the middle east in 21st century monarchies, those facts are dismissed. Such claims as miraculous progress due to privatization are absurdist fantasies and easily refuted without even having to bring up their abysmal failures such as Puerto Rico, Enron, Pinochet's Chile.
- rdw 10y ago
  This is not really true in California, at least, where we've voted ourselves a bunch of tax increases via the proposition system.
- briantmaurer 10y ago
  This is not true for everyone. I am glad to pay taxes in exchange for public goods/services like roads, schools, libraries, ...
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    I am glad to pay taxes in exchange for public goods/services like roads, schools, libraries, ... ...bombs, bailouts, bribes, bureaucratic inefficiency, lining the pockets of lobby groups, incarceration for victimless crimes, keeping cops charged with police brutality on the payroll... I would encourage you to check the officially published breakdown of how taxes are spent - and then consider what the actual break down might look like. People have a real cognitive dissonance when it comes to the state. I think it's hard for people to deal with the the fact that money will inevitably be taken from you under threat of force to fund things you hate, that you find wrong, or that ruins peoples lives. It's much easier to just close your eyes and think of roads, schools and libraries.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      > bureaucratic inefficiency I.e. state welfare by another name. Government jobs (and contractor jobs) are stable, pay well even for people who don't have great educational backgrounds, and companies like Lockheed know how to spread around defense dollars so it becomes a jobs program in all 50 states. In this sense, the inefficiency is a feature, not a bug.
    - couchand 10y ago
      if only those who advocate slashing taxes had to cut funding from their pet programs first, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.
  - DougN7 10y ago
    I'm glad to pay my fair share too (I don't look for every single deduction I can possibly find). However, it doesn't mean I want to pay any more than what I'm paying now. There is a definite limit.
- js2 10y ago
  My fellow voters and I just approved a half-cent sales tax to fund a transit plan, so that's not true. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article113460128.html http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/electio...
  - DougN7 10y ago
    That is pretty tiny. Since the ACA has gone into effect, my family's health insurance has gone up $700 per MONTH ($500 of that just this year)! Nobody is voting that for themselves. But everyone wants world class health care, and we're compassionate and want everyone else to have it too - as long as we're not the ones paying. Well, I'm paying and it kind of sucks.
  - trome 10y ago
    Yeah, returns from bus feeding commuter rail will be limited, need grade separated mass transit, or at the very least Bus Rapid Transit with dedicated lanes.
- couchand 10y ago
  I'm assuming your "nobody" is rhetorical and not literal, since folks like Warren Buffet have been advocating for higher taxes for years.
  - DougN7 10y ago
    Yes, I'm sure there is maybe 1% of the population that wants to pay more. Actually, I'll bet 1% is too high.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Well, I am, here and in my offline life. I like taxes, with them I buy civilization. I'd happily spring for a slightly more up-market model of civilization, too, so I'm one of those pretty-well-off tech guys who advocates for higher taxes on me and people like me.
- CodeMage 10y ago
  I'm willing to bet that most people who "want someone else to pay for services" mean "corporations" and "super-rich people", both of which get away with not paying nearly as much as we're told they should.
- ncallaway 10y ago
  Please raise my taxes! Please!
- notquite774 10y ago
  Not true! I'm happy to pay higher taxes. They passed a yearly art fund tax here. People bitched, I said "quiet you +$100k yr coworkers who moved here recently after hearing how rad it is! It's rad because of these things!" I'm happy to piss an the parade of anyone who complains about paying taxes. Especially those that benefit disproportionately, like tech workers (high tech being subsidized by the government since the industrial revolution came along). I don't want someone else to pay for it but I want them to contribute.

DougN7 10y ago

Nailed it on the head! Everyone wants someone else to pay for services. Nobody is saying "Raise my taxes - I appreciate these services". We're all complicit.

didibus 10y ago
Very true. Coming from Quebec, Canada, I actually say that. It's more ingrained in our culture that what we are taxed for is services that benefit us all and that makes our societal environment more enjoyable. Now in the US, I can't seem to find anyone who think this. My biggest issue is that I can't even find anyone who thinks that the government is the people. Everyone seems to think of the government as this black box that has a mind of its own and inflict laws and rules upon us. While I'm much more used to the common thinking that the people rule, and the government simply enact our rule. We elect it, we pay for it, and therefore it simply does what we elected and paid for it to do. I'm not sure what makes up that difference, but it could be the bi-partisanery. It's a shame too, because it often fails to capture fine grain requirements. Like say I wanted a very liberal economy, while keeping gun rights strong and conservative norms in place? Or the other way around? There's no kind of choice like that. So you lysine end up for choosing based on your top issue only.
- kristopolous 10y ago
  It's a pro-private, anti-democratic push by chicago school, objectivists, and other groups, to essentially slander civic institutions as terrible and "privatize" them with capital extracting robber barons. "Government" is a 4 letter word and some people are insufferable in their hatred for it - thinking that some private selfish interest of people would magically make the world ... look, it's all preposterous ... it's apologetics and denialism wrapped in the religious fervor of a mythical free market.
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    The issue is states trending towards the "mythical" free market have a track record of prosperity, while states tending towards mythical communism have a disastrous and bloody track record. East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Maoist Guangzhou and Unregulated Hong Kong. Time and time again it has been shown that a large collectivist state does not deliver on any of its promises, but instead creates poverty and misery. Now social democratic states can be relatively effective with a smaller population, and when administered by efficient, civic minded and hard-working people. The US Federal Government does not qualify.
    - kristopolous 10y ago
      That analysis ignores imperialism, transnational capitalism, colonialism, different signifiers of progress, and cherry-picks evidence from random points of history without doing any type of rigorous analysis. It ignores the vast majority of history with no functional government, no taxes, and free markets such as say, 3000BC in Moscow --- take your pick. Was there technological advancements, well maintained cities, and a prosperous middle class of entrepreneurs and innovators in societies free of coercion? Where were the emergent social orders which arose as an inherent stochastic process from individual capital pursuit in say, 600AD in Berlin? These only started happening after the rise of civic society and only in places with well-organized, democratically run institutions. These apologists also choose to ignore any counter evidence. There's over twice as many doctors per 1,000 people in Cuba than the US, however those facts are dismissed. When people talk about how decrease in things like open sewage, food-borne disease and other civic advancements lead to increase in longevity, those facts are dismissed. When people talk about how there's more affordability and more equitable medical care under democratically administered health systems, those facts are dismissed. When people talk about what Nestle has done to privatized water, what the diamond industry has done to Africa, how the market-based oil system has kept the middle east in 21st century monarchies, those facts are dismissed. Such claims as miraculous progress due to privatization are absurdist fantasies and easily refuted without even having to bring up their abysmal failures such as Puerto Rico, Enron, Pinochet's Chile.
rdw 10y ago
This is not really true in California, at least, where we've voted ourselves a bunch of tax increases via the proposition system.
briantmaurer 10y ago
This is not true for everyone. I am glad to pay taxes in exchange for public goods/services like roads, schools, libraries, ...
- lacampbell 10y ago
  I am glad to pay taxes in exchange for public goods/services like roads, schools, libraries, ... ...bombs, bailouts, bribes, bureaucratic inefficiency, lining the pockets of lobby groups, incarceration for victimless crimes, keeping cops charged with police brutality on the payroll... I would encourage you to check the officially published breakdown of how taxes are spent - and then consider what the actual break down might look like. People have a real cognitive dissonance when it comes to the state. I think it's hard for people to deal with the the fact that money will inevitably be taken from you under threat of force to fund things you hate, that you find wrong, or that ruins peoples lives. It's much easier to just close your eyes and think of roads, schools and libraries.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    > bureaucratic inefficiency I.e. state welfare by another name. Government jobs (and contractor jobs) are stable, pay well even for people who don't have great educational backgrounds, and companies like Lockheed know how to spread around defense dollars so it becomes a jobs program in all 50 states. In this sense, the inefficiency is a feature, not a bug.
  - couchand 10y ago
    if only those who advocate slashing taxes had to cut funding from their pet programs first, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.
- DougN7 10y ago
  I'm glad to pay my fair share too (I don't look for every single deduction I can possibly find). However, it doesn't mean I want to pay any more than what I'm paying now. There is a definite limit.
js2 10y ago
My fellow voters and I just approved a half-cent sales tax to fund a transit plan, so that's not true. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article113460128.html http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/electio...
- DougN7 10y ago
  That is pretty tiny. Since the ACA has gone into effect, my family's health insurance has gone up $700 per MONTH ($500 of that just this year)! Nobody is voting that for themselves. But everyone wants world class health care, and we're compassionate and want everyone else to have it too - as long as we're not the ones paying. Well, I'm paying and it kind of sucks.
- trome 10y ago
  Yeah, returns from bus feeding commuter rail will be limited, need grade separated mass transit, or at the very least Bus Rapid Transit with dedicated lanes.
couchand 10y ago
I'm assuming your "nobody" is rhetorical and not literal, since folks like Warren Buffet have been advocating for higher taxes for years.
- DougN7 10y ago
  Yes, I'm sure there is maybe 1% of the population that wants to pay more. Actually, I'll bet 1% is too high.
Frondo 10y ago
Well, I am, here and in my offline life. I like taxes, with them I buy civilization. I'd happily spring for a slightly more up-market model of civilization, too, so I'm one of those pretty-well-off tech guys who advocates for higher taxes on me and people like me.
CodeMage 10y ago
I'm willing to bet that most people who "want someone else to pay for services" mean "corporations" and "super-rich people", both of which get away with not paying nearly as much as we're told they should.
ncallaway 10y ago
Please raise my taxes! Please!
notquite774 10y ago
Not true! I'm happy to pay higher taxes. They passed a yearly art fund tax here. People bitched, I said "quiet you +$100k yr coworkers who moved here recently after hearing how rad it is! It's rad because of these things!" I'm happy to piss an the parade of anyone who complains about paying taxes. Especially those that benefit disproportionately, like tech workers (high tech being subsidized by the government since the industrial revolution came along). I don't want someone else to pay for it but I want them to contribute.