3 ms·

The government, at best, and excluding any other criticisms, is a middle man. At the very least, it absorbs money and decreases efficiency. 1) Government taxat

by 10g1k 3y ago

The government, at best, and excluding any other criticisms, is a middle man. At the very least, it absorbs money and decreases efficiency. 1) Government taxation model. Tax payer X makes $100. The government takes $40 (excluding for now the additional taxation on every purchase, sale, savings, etc). The government spends $20 of that just to fund itself. The government spends the other $20 on whatever. X has $60, and things he cares about MIGHT have been given a fraction of that $20. 2) Other. Tax payer X makes $100. He spends $40 on whatever the hell he wants to support or fund. He still has $60. Something he actually cares about, for example a local hospital, has $40. No matter what other factors you add to complicate matters, the existence of any middle men add cost and reduce efficiency.

darkteflon 3y ago
Yep, totally agree that government is both expensive and wasteful. Absolutely no disagreement there. Let’s say we do away with government and regulating companies then, in the interests of efficiency and liberty. What’s the state of play a few years into that experiment, do you reckon?
- landemva 3y ago
  I live in a town where the "roads" are private property and everyone has an easement to travel on everyone else's piece of what look like roads. Most of town budget goes to "road maintenance". Everyone understands their role, roads are maintained, and if government misbehaves we will chop our taxes and do the roads ourselves. By not owning the "road" property, government is kept in check and are our servants. There are also zero problems with parking on roads - it gets towed for trespass parking on private property.
  - darkteflon 3y ago
    Love it - an excellent solution for a local problem. Sounds far more optimal for you guys than having government involvement. I consider that fine evidence that we over-regulate in some areas. I reckon there’s also a lot of evidence that we under-regulate in others. By contrast, I don’t think it’s evidence for a general proposition that any reduction in regulation is a priori a good thing - despite what the Murdoch press would say.
    - landemva 3y ago
      Yes, it is not so much about government regulation and more about people owning the property and infrastructure. Government ownership of property leads to lack of accountability to the people.
- 10g1k 3y ago
  Perhaps just free markets, and individuals determining how those markets go. Individuals funding local community assets as they see fit. Perhaps a cartel like situation such as the Hanseatic League.
  - darkteflon 3y ago
    Okay so survival of the fittest-type thing. Essential services such as hospitals, schools, electricity, etc would have to handle their own fundraising and would live and die by their performance in the market. Competing for mindshare with Wendys and Facebook could be tricky, but yeah, I’m a believer that people are fundamentally good and I reckon we could find a way to make it work. Would we need any coordination at all, you reckon? After a time, would people say, “hey, these hospitals shouldn’t have to go cap-in-hand every month looking for funds, we should set something up to make sure they get what they need”, or no coordination at all? And what about “businesses” that inherently aren’t very profitable? Let’s say there are two schools in town - one profitable and one not. The profitable one is profitable because it optimises for profits. The unprofitable one optimises for things that are harder to measure - student experience, community, etc. Would people choose to help fund the unprofitable one out of their own pockets when there was another option that’s profitable? What would be the consequences of that over time? And finally, how about bad actors - companies that produce a dangerous product that kills or harms people, or that negligently fail to maintain a nuclear power station? Or just really big, heavy cars that tear up roads and the planet and kill people more often than the alternatives. How would we handle such actors, or would we just not handle them - let the free market sort it out?
    - 10g1k 3y ago
      Consider something like a town/region hospital. Don't want to fund it? Don't. Want treatment? Cough up the cash. At the moment, here in Australia, the government does the middle man thing, and money is just blown on crap. The town hospital is underfunded, understaffed, and KPIs for just about everything are dropping. Meanwhile, every tax-payer is coughing up dollars every day for not using the service until they need it. They might pay millions of dollars throughout their working lives for something they use for three days. OTOH, if they don't get taxed like that, and only pay directly to the hospital when they use it, maybe that would work out better. It certainly worked in the past. And every citizen would retain more wealth, some of which they could spend (if they chose) on improving their lifestyle with home gym, better food, etc. Should hospitals need to beg? No. Just require payment for service. Maybe it'll cost you $100,000 to get a broken leg fixed. But if you weren't paying that in taxes for the past 3 years, you've got that and more spare. Competition: That's how it works. If the school is optimised for profits, wouldn't that mean the parents think it does the best job? Otherwise they can just start their own school (without government interference), or individuallly home school. I do think one of the few things government should do is set human and environmental safety requirements, such as not putting radium in kids toys. Alternatively, if parents find radium in kids toys, they should find the people responsible and deal with them appropriately.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  Bad actors don't make money because you can only rip off people once and never at scale. Ironically, the only actor that can do the aforementioned is the state. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by 10g1k 3y ago

darkteflon 3y ago

Yep, totally agree that government is both expensive and wasteful. Absolutely no disagreement there. Let’s say we do away with government and regulating companies then, in the interests of efficiency and liberty. What’s the state of play a few years into that experiment, do you reckon?

landemva 3y ago
I live in a town where the "roads" are private property and everyone has an easement to travel on everyone else's piece of what look like roads. Most of town budget goes to "road maintenance". Everyone understands their role, roads are maintained, and if government misbehaves we will chop our taxes and do the roads ourselves. By not owning the "road" property, government is kept in check and are our servants. There are also zero problems with parking on roads - it gets towed for trespass parking on private property.
- darkteflon 3y ago
  Love it - an excellent solution for a local problem. Sounds far more optimal for you guys than having government involvement. I consider that fine evidence that we over-regulate in some areas. I reckon there’s also a lot of evidence that we under-regulate in others. By contrast, I don’t think it’s evidence for a general proposition that any reduction in regulation is a priori a good thing - despite what the Murdoch press would say.
  - landemva 3y ago
    Yes, it is not so much about government regulation and more about people owning the property and infrastructure. Government ownership of property leads to lack of accountability to the people.
10g1k 3y ago
Perhaps just free markets, and individuals determining how those markets go. Individuals funding local community assets as they see fit. Perhaps a cartel like situation such as the Hanseatic League.
- darkteflon 3y ago
  Okay so survival of the fittest-type thing. Essential services such as hospitals, schools, electricity, etc would have to handle their own fundraising and would live and die by their performance in the market. Competing for mindshare with Wendys and Facebook could be tricky, but yeah, I’m a believer that people are fundamentally good and I reckon we could find a way to make it work. Would we need any coordination at all, you reckon? After a time, would people say, “hey, these hospitals shouldn’t have to go cap-in-hand every month looking for funds, we should set something up to make sure they get what they need”, or no coordination at all? And what about “businesses” that inherently aren’t very profitable? Let’s say there are two schools in town - one profitable and one not. The profitable one is profitable because it optimises for profits. The unprofitable one optimises for things that are harder to measure - student experience, community, etc. Would people choose to help fund the unprofitable one out of their own pockets when there was another option that’s profitable? What would be the consequences of that over time? And finally, how about bad actors - companies that produce a dangerous product that kills or harms people, or that negligently fail to maintain a nuclear power station? Or just really big, heavy cars that tear up roads and the planet and kill people more often than the alternatives. How would we handle such actors, or would we just not handle them - let the free market sort it out?
  - 10g1k 3y ago
    Consider something like a town/region hospital. Don't want to fund it? Don't. Want treatment? Cough up the cash. At the moment, here in Australia, the government does the middle man thing, and money is just blown on crap. The town hospital is underfunded, understaffed, and KPIs for just about everything are dropping. Meanwhile, every tax-payer is coughing up dollars every day for not using the service until they need it. They might pay millions of dollars throughout their working lives for something they use for three days. OTOH, if they don't get taxed like that, and only pay directly to the hospital when they use it, maybe that would work out better. It certainly worked in the past. And every citizen would retain more wealth, some of which they could spend (if they chose) on improving their lifestyle with home gym, better food, etc. Should hospitals need to beg? No. Just require payment for service. Maybe it'll cost you $100,000 to get a broken leg fixed. But if you weren't paying that in taxes for the past 3 years, you've got that and more spare. Competition: That's how it works. If the school is optimised for profits, wouldn't that mean the parents think it does the best job? Otherwise they can just start their own school (without government interference), or individuallly home school. I do think one of the few things government should do is set human and environmental safety requirements, such as not putting radium in kids toys. Alternatively, if parents find radium in kids toys, they should find the people responsible and deal with them appropriately.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
Bad actors don't make money because you can only rip off people once and never at scale. Ironically, the only actor that can do the aforementioned is the state. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]