3 ms·

The problem is that the government even has the ability to take our money and spend it as they wish. We need seperation of economy and state, for the same reas

The problem is that the government even has the ability to take our money and spend it as they wish. We need seperation of economy and state, for the same reasons we seperate church and state.

eru 18y ago
Or we should at least separate goals from implementation. I.e. use democratic processes to agree on specific goals and how much resources to devote to these goals. Like 'Reduce unemployment to at most 5%' using no more than 10^10 $. Or 'Raise the literacy rate of people over 10 years to at least 99% in our nation.' for at most 5*10^9 $. Then the government puts the allocated funds into escrow and auctions off zero-coupon bonds that pay off when the goal has been reached. Of course the bond holders will do what they can to achieve the goal. Or do something that makes the goal easier to reach, thus the price of the bonds rises and the original holder can sell them at a profit. (The above is a description of Social Policy Bonds.)
- mike_organon 18y ago
  I disagree. That's just allowing people to vote other people's money away. The point of having rights is that my property is mine and the majority can't vote it away. In your system, where does it end? The US is a republic (nation of laws), not a democracy (nation of people) - democracy is a good mechanism for electing the government and, hopefully, keeping is relatively clean. The bonds you describe may be a smart improvement to less-controlled taxation, but it's still having the state control the economy. Using the analogy to the church, that's like not outlawing other religions or atheism, but using state funds for one religion of preference - that's still a lot of control and weight the government shouldn't have. I think of it this way: the government has the guns (and rightfully so), so everything they do is ultimately by force. Therefore, we need to severly limit what they can do, leaving the rest of us with freedom.
  - eru 18y ago
    My proposal was meant as a practical interim step. Selecting ends democratically works better than selecting means. While people can agree in a democratic fashion that certain goals shall be reached, the market fares better at choosing the method to execute. In the longer run though, I would like to fund public goods using dominant assurance contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts#Variants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts#Variants). They solve the free rider problem of voluntary funding. And they allow private provision of public goods --- for profit. (http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf) Of course, dominant assurance contracts and social policy bonds complement each other.

The problem is that the government even has the ability to take our money and spend it as they wish. We need seperation of economy and state, for the same reasons we seperate church and state.

eru 18y ago

Or we should at least separate goals from implementation. I.e. use democratic processes to agree on specific goals and how much resources to devote to these goals. Like 'Reduce unemployment to at most 5%' using no more than 10^10 $. Or 'Raise the literacy rate of people over 10 years to at least 99% in our nation.' for at most 5*10^9 $. Then the government puts the allocated funds into escrow and auctions off zero-coupon bonds that pay off when the goal has been reached. Of course the bond holders will do what they can to achieve the goal. Or do something that makes the goal easier to reach, thus the price of the bonds rises and the original holder can sell them at a profit. (The above is a description of Social Policy Bonds.)

mike_organon 18y ago
I disagree. That's just allowing people to vote other people's money away. The point of having rights is that my property is mine and the majority can't vote it away. In your system, where does it end? The US is a republic (nation of laws), not a democracy (nation of people) - democracy is a good mechanism for electing the government and, hopefully, keeping is relatively clean. The bonds you describe may be a smart improvement to less-controlled taxation, but it's still having the state control the economy. Using the analogy to the church, that's like not outlawing other religions or atheism, but using state funds for one religion of preference - that's still a lot of control and weight the government shouldn't have. I think of it this way: the government has the guns (and rightfully so), so everything they do is ultimately by force. Therefore, we need to severly limit what they can do, leaving the rest of us with freedom.
- eru 18y ago
  My proposal was meant as a practical interim step. Selecting ends democratically works better than selecting means. While people can agree in a democratic fashion that certain goals shall be reached, the market fares better at choosing the method to execute. In the longer run though, I would like to fund public goods using dominant assurance contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts#Variants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts#Variants). They solve the free rider problem of voluntary funding. And they allow private provision of public goods --- for profit. (http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf) Of course, dominant assurance contracts and social policy bonds complement each other.