5 ms·

"Letting the rich folks decide isn't any better (or worse) than letting civil servants decide." Except that civil servants are making those choices with money

"Letting the rich folks decide isn't any better (or worse) than letting civil servants decide." Except that civil servants are making those choices with money they took forcibly from people that don't have a real/significant say in the matter of the taking or what the takings are spent on. In kind it makes it much worse than any decision made by "rich folks". Sure some may agree with those bureaucratic choices, but others are simply giving their cash for no return in value.

analog31 2y ago
Sounds like what you're describing is a government funded by taxes, except using scary sounding verbiage.
chowells 2y ago
It's only taken by force from misanthropes. The average person understands that collective action is a positive, and participates without the threat of force.
- WrongAssumption 2y ago
  You can’t really believe this. If taxes were optional, people would not pay. How much do you really believe people gift the government? https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...
  - jampekka 2y ago
    At least for now people haven't at large elected politicians who would eliminate taxes.
    - schnitzelstoat 2y ago
      If you rob Peter to pay Paul. You get Paul's vote.
      - jampekka 2y ago
        What is robbery is defined in law, and by law taxation is not robbery.
        ghodith 2y ago
        Probably the least convincing argument you could put forward
  - cvoss 2y ago
    Consider that lots of people regularly and voluntarily give a certain percentage of their income to their religious institution, without any kind of enforcement structure. There is a belief that such practices are good, right, and required. And it must be a strong belief, because people do love their money. Second, taxes are not a gift or donation, nor is the government just taking them from you. They are payment for services. It's true that you are locked into a business transaction with the government, but it's meant to be a fair exchange. And unless you are incredibly wealthy, you have a favorable rate in the sense that the services you receive are worth more than what you're paying for.
    - chii 2y ago
      > without any kind of enforcement structure. it's peer pressure. Just because the force isn't voilence doesn't mean there isnt a reinforcement structure. > They are payment for services. so back to the art grants - are they services the citizens really want?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - int_19h 2y ago
      As someone living in US, a significant part of my taxes is used to bomb some people overseas for no good reason that I can think of. The value of that "service" for me is effectively negative (it makes another 9/11 that much more likely).
  - skyyler 2y ago
    People like roads and parks, actually.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Of course nobody would pay, because then the government would be exposed to the free rider problem just as badly as every organization that’s not a government is. That’s not a sign that people don’t want to pay taxes if everyone is also (having to) pay taxes. It’s a coordination problem.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    If that were true no one would ever round up to save puppies at the grocery store. Yet people do. They throw money in the tithe at church and into the musicians instrument case and into the panhandlers cup. Not everyone does of course but enough people do where these things happen every day.
- gillesjacobs 2y ago
  Ah yes, I am truly misanthropic for questioning my 60% tax burden mainly to the benefit of parasitic bureaucrats.
janalsncm 2y ago
That is a fair point. Maybe taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing sports stadiums either, instead of cities forcibly imposing culture on us. Of course, public funding has an added benefit of being generally accessible to everyone unlike private funding.
gopher_space 2y ago
> Except that civil servants are making those choices with money they took forcibly from people that don't have a real/significant say in the matter of the taking or what the takings are spent on. Do you have an alternative idea we could easily disabuse you of?
jampekka 2y ago
Those civil servants execute laws that are, at least ideally, democratically decided upon. In contrast to private concentrations of wealth making arbitrary decisions. And many of those laws are forcibly denying people from access to something when it is declared "private property".
- s_m_t 2y ago
  The civil service is legally protected from the influence of democracy and the legislature has by and large ceded the real implementation of law to the civil servants themselves.
  - oersted 2y ago
    That's plainly not true, at least in EU public education, which I am most familiar with. Most official rules and protocols for professionals in public universities and schools are part of the law and not arbitrary decisions from a manager. These laws are chosen democratically and are revised relatively often, with major overhauls every ~5 years, for better or worse. These institutions are also constantly dependent on grants and budgets that need to be approved by the elected government. The lack of flexibility can be a bit oppressive at times, and there can be severe penalties for ignoring rules, even on small protocol lapses, since they are the law. But it's mostly fine in practice, it's not a significant bottleneck to efficiency. The result is that public education is generally much higher quality than private education. Private ones just tend to be for students with grades that are not high enough to get in a competitive public programme, not that they are very competitive, there's plenty of room. The qualifications required from professors also tend to be much higher in public education than in private, and they get more room to breathe to focus on their specialized courses and research, whereas private professors are overworked and used in areas they are not qualified in. And the difference between the top and bottom educational institutions is so negligible that top-performing students can happily stay local and be successful. Perhaps there is a difference in the network you might acquire, but not in the quality of education.
    - gillesjacobs 2y ago

analog31 2y ago

Sounds like what you're describing is a government funded by taxes, except using scary sounding verbiage.

chowells 2y ago

It's only taken by force from misanthropes. The average person understands that collective action is a positive, and participates without the threat of force.

WrongAssumption 2y ago
You can’t really believe this. If taxes were optional, people would not pay. How much do you really believe people gift the government? https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...
- jampekka 2y ago
  At least for now people haven't at large elected politicians who would eliminate taxes.
  - schnitzelstoat 2y ago
    If you rob Peter to pay Paul. You get Paul's vote.
    - jampekka 2y ago
      What is robbery is defined in law, and by law taxation is not robbery.
      - ghodith 2y ago
        Probably the least convincing argument you could put forward
- cvoss 2y ago
  Consider that lots of people regularly and voluntarily give a certain percentage of their income to their religious institution, without any kind of enforcement structure. There is a belief that such practices are good, right, and required. And it must be a strong belief, because people do love their money. Second, taxes are not a gift or donation, nor is the government just taking them from you. They are payment for services. It's true that you are locked into a business transaction with the government, but it's meant to be a fair exchange. And unless you are incredibly wealthy, you have a favorable rate in the sense that the services you receive are worth more than what you're paying for.
  - chii 2y ago
    > without any kind of enforcement structure. it's peer pressure. Just because the force isn't voilence doesn't mean there isnt a reinforcement structure. > They are payment for services. so back to the art grants - are they services the citizens really want?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - int_19h 2y ago
    As someone living in US, a significant part of my taxes is used to bomb some people overseas for no good reason that I can think of. The value of that "service" for me is effectively negative (it makes another 9/11 that much more likely).
- skyyler 2y ago
  People like roads and parks, actually.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Of course nobody would pay, because then the government would be exposed to the free rider problem just as badly as every organization that’s not a government is. That’s not a sign that people don’t want to pay taxes if everyone is also (having to) pay taxes. It’s a coordination problem.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  If that were true no one would ever round up to save puppies at the grocery store. Yet people do. They throw money in the tithe at church and into the musicians instrument case and into the panhandlers cup. Not everyone does of course but enough people do where these things happen every day.
gillesjacobs 2y ago
Ah yes, I am truly misanthropic for questioning my 60% tax burden mainly to the benefit of parasitic bureaucrats.

janalsncm 2y ago

That is a fair point. Maybe taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing sports stadiums either, instead of cities forcibly imposing culture on us. Of course, public funding has an added benefit of being generally accessible to everyone unlike private funding.

gopher_space 2y ago

> Except that civil servants are making those choices with money they took forcibly from people that don't have a real/significant say in the matter of the taking or what the takings are spent on. Do you have an alternative idea we could easily disabuse you of?

jampekka 2y ago

Those civil servants execute laws that are, at least ideally, democratically decided upon. In contrast to private concentrations of wealth making arbitrary decisions. And many of those laws are forcibly denying people from access to something when it is declared "private property".

s_m_t 2y ago
The civil service is legally protected from the influence of democracy and the legislature has by and large ceded the real implementation of law to the civil servants themselves.
- oersted 2y ago
  That's plainly not true, at least in EU public education, which I am most familiar with. Most official rules and protocols for professionals in public universities and schools are part of the law and not arbitrary decisions from a manager. These laws are chosen democratically and are revised relatively often, with major overhauls every ~5 years, for better or worse. These institutions are also constantly dependent on grants and budgets that need to be approved by the elected government. The lack of flexibility can be a bit oppressive at times, and there can be severe penalties for ignoring rules, even on small protocol lapses, since they are the law. But it's mostly fine in practice, it's not a significant bottleneck to efficiency. The result is that public education is generally much higher quality than private education. Private ones just tend to be for students with grades that are not high enough to get in a competitive public programme, not that they are very competitive, there's plenty of room. The qualifications required from professors also tend to be much higher in public education than in private, and they get more room to breathe to focus on their specialized courses and research, whereas private professors are overworked and used in areas they are not qualified in. And the difference between the top and bottom educational institutions is so negligible that top-performing students can happily stay local and be successful. Perhaps there is a difference in the network you might acquire, but not in the quality of education.
  - gillesjacobs 2y ago