5 ms·

> Much more likely is they are stuck at a low local maxima because they can't afford to spend 2 weeks looking for a job that would better fit their skillset and

> Much more likely is they are stuck at a low local maxima because they can't afford to spend 2 weeks looking for a job that would better fit their skillset and preferred job functions. Yes, that is quite possible, and I believe my comment covered that possibility by constraining their poaition against the opportunity cost. In this case, the opportunity cost of working is not searching for another job. But if you can't afford food while searching for another job, obviously you should work. Hence! why I am a proponent of private charity. Under those same conditions, said person could go to their church, local org, etc. and see if anyone would be willing to assist them in a job search or while they did search. This solution is much preferable to me than involuntary theft of money from everyone to support a maybe chance of finding something else.

shuntress 3y ago
Reorganizing the same systems under the control the church by dissolving the state is not an appropriate way to maintain a system of self-governance.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  Not everything has to be under a chrurch. It was just the classic example. Plus it's not the reorganization of the same systems. I propose a completely voluntary system. It is more economically efficient than thr state run system.
  - shuntress 3y ago
    Yes, of course! A system of voluntary cooperation! We can work together as a community to decide how we use our resources in the most economically efficient way! Obviously people are busy so we can't expect every single person to work directly on every single decision so probably the first thing we would need is a way to, lets say, "elect" specific individuals who can be entrusted to make decisions on everyone's behalf. Then those people can decide how much money we all contribute and how to spend that money in the most economically efficient way. You are right, this is such a good idea! Why aren't we already doing it that way ... ?
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Very cute, but there is actually a difference: the gov is only supposed to provide public goods. Voting either directly or through a representative still can lead to a scenario where the gov steals from some to give to others. Here is a real-life example: I live in the Portland metro. A couple of years ago, voters decided to vote to tax my income above a threshold to pay for preschool for people who have incomes below the threshold of taxation. This does not lead to increased economic efficiency. Every year I now have to pay $x dollars directly to other people's children under the threat of state violence. I would much rather put that money in my child's 529. Or use it to pay for my child's daycare! This isn't increased economic efficiency. It is literal theft.
      - shuntress 3y ago
        > the gov is only supposed to provide public goods This is simply not how it works. "The Government" is just what it's called when The People work together to solve shared problems. Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. I wouldn't pretend to have enough information to determine exactly how efficient Portland's redistribution of wealth through taxes and schools is, but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        > but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person. I'm not arguing that having a greater number of educated people wouldn't be more productive. I'm arguing that redistributing wealth involuntarily is less efficient. """ Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each individual or entity in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency. """ https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp Robbing Peter to pay Paul necessarily leaves Peter worse off. The solution is not pareto optimal, and therefore cannot be a solution in a maximal efficiency. Furthermore, in the daycare example, the solution necessarily creates deadweight loss. Robbing me to pay for someone else's daycare now increases daycare demand, which given a fixed supply, makes daycare more expensive for everyond, myself included. So not only am I paying for someone else's kids to go to daycare, but now I have to pay more for my kids to go to daycare to outcompete the demand they now present with their free money. > Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft?

shuntress 3y ago

Reorganizing the same systems under the control the church by dissolving the state is not an appropriate way to maintain a system of self-governance.

hellojesus 3y ago
Not everything has to be under a chrurch. It was just the classic example. Plus it's not the reorganization of the same systems. I propose a completely voluntary system. It is more economically efficient than thr state run system.
- shuntress 3y ago
  Yes, of course! A system of voluntary cooperation! We can work together as a community to decide how we use our resources in the most economically efficient way! Obviously people are busy so we can't expect every single person to work directly on every single decision so probably the first thing we would need is a way to, lets say, "elect" specific individuals who can be entrusted to make decisions on everyone's behalf. Then those people can decide how much money we all contribute and how to spend that money in the most economically efficient way. You are right, this is such a good idea! Why aren't we already doing it that way ... ?
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Very cute, but there is actually a difference: the gov is only supposed to provide public goods. Voting either directly or through a representative still can lead to a scenario where the gov steals from some to give to others. Here is a real-life example: I live in the Portland metro. A couple of years ago, voters decided to vote to tax my income above a threshold to pay for preschool for people who have incomes below the threshold of taxation. This does not lead to increased economic efficiency. Every year I now have to pay $x dollars directly to other people's children under the threat of state violence. I would much rather put that money in my child's 529. Or use it to pay for my child's daycare! This isn't increased economic efficiency. It is literal theft.
    - shuntress 3y ago
      > the gov is only supposed to provide public goods This is simply not how it works. "The Government" is just what it's called when The People work together to solve shared problems. Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. I wouldn't pretend to have enough information to determine exactly how efficient Portland's redistribution of wealth through taxes and schools is, but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        > but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person. I'm not arguing that having a greater number of educated people wouldn't be more productive. I'm arguing that redistributing wealth involuntarily is less efficient. """ Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each individual or entity in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency. """ https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp Robbing Peter to pay Paul necessarily leaves Peter worse off. The solution is not pareto optimal, and therefore cannot be a solution in a maximal efficiency. Furthermore, in the daycare example, the solution necessarily creates deadweight loss. Robbing me to pay for someone else's daycare now increases daycare demand, which given a fixed supply, makes daycare more expensive for everyond, myself included. So not only am I paying for someone else's kids to go to daycare, but now I have to pay more for my kids to go to daycare to outcompete the demand they now present with their free money. > Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft?