3 ms·

Perhaps just free markets, and individuals determining how those markets go. Individuals funding local community assets as they see fit. Perhaps a cartel like

by 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.

by 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.