3 ms·

What I was responding to was: > taxes are usually raised to force people to support ideas that the individual taxpayers vehemently oppose This is wrong, becau

What I was responding to was: > taxes are usually raised to force people to support ideas that the individual taxpayers vehemently oppose This is wrong, because they are raised to support a country and most of that (hence the "usual" qualifier) is to support things people might not know they need. Your response to this is apparently that people do pay for things they don't know they need (or don't understand are necessary), but you fail to tell the reader why. Instead you reiterate that you are convinced they'll definitely pay for them.

roenxi 7y ago
So people can't be trusted to know what they need personally, but when they vote they suddenly develop a keen understanding of which politicians can offer them the things they don't know they want? That point isn't reasonable. There can't be a division where people know what they want when they vote but not when they spend money. I suppose there could be in theory, but a system that encourages that that would generally be called 'corrupt government' and the actors involved 'lying politicians' where the people who get voted in do things that the individual voters vehemently oppose. Voting someone in to office is a broadly similar decision to going out and buying something. Individuals in their capacity as voters are not that different from individuals in their capacity as buyers.
- krageon 7y ago
  I think it is much easier to recognise that someone else is better equipped to make certain domain-specific choices for you and also that they agree in broad strokes with how you think than it is to learn that entire domain and make the right funding choices. In my experience that is true for most people, but of course it might not be true for you! Thankfully we live in a world where what is good for most people is leading, and not just what is true for you.

roenxi 7y ago

So people can't be trusted to know what they need personally, but when they vote they suddenly develop a keen understanding of which politicians can offer them the things they don't know they want? That point isn't reasonable. There can't be a division where people know what they want when they vote but not when they spend money. I suppose there could be in theory, but a system that encourages that that would generally be called 'corrupt government' and the actors involved 'lying politicians' where the people who get voted in do things that the individual voters vehemently oppose. Voting someone in to office is a broadly similar decision to going out and buying something. Individuals in their capacity as voters are not that different from individuals in their capacity as buyers.

krageon 7y ago
I think it is much easier to recognise that someone else is better equipped to make certain domain-specific choices for you and also that they agree in broad strokes with how you think than it is to learn that entire domain and make the right funding choices. In my experience that is true for most people, but of course it might not be true for you! Thankfully we live in a world where what is good for most people is leading, and not just what is true for you.