6 ms·

Great idea. Who pays for it?

gWPVhyxPHqvk 1y ago
We could all band together and have another dedicated group collect money for it. It wouldn't be optional, either, because we mostly all agree it's valuable. Of course, there would have to be yet another group that sets how much money to collect, and how to spend it.
- dmd 1y ago
  Oooh I love this idea. We could have some sort of process where everyone gets a say in deciding how the money is spent. Except maybe rather than everyone doing that you could have instead people whose job it is to do it, and everyone gets a say in deciding who those people are. I wonder if this sort of thing has ever been tried.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    It was tried once. Unfortunately it was ultimately killed off by a corrupt leader who took over the military and started deploying them the cities to stop crime. That leader ultimately strong armed the other elected officials into doing his bidding leading to the destruction of the once great nation. He ignored the law and the will of the people. He was ultimately assassinated in 44BC. I believe his name was Julius Caesar.
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      To be fair Ceasar was replaced by a few even more oppressive wannabe tyrants. He never posted lists of his political enemies to be murdered and was generally pretty lenient. Probably led to his downfall. Augustus made sure to squash all potential sources of opposition before taking over.
      - cogman10 1y ago
        For sure. Julius ultimately just paved the way for the future tyrants. He consolidated the power into himself which made it a lot easier for his predecessors to take things further.
        wqaatwt 1y ago
        Another thing is that I’m not sure he really ignored the will of the people. “The people” were severely oppressed and the policies they supported ignored and rejected for the past 80+ years by the tightly knit oligarchy at the top. The overwhelming majority of its citizens probably had no real reasons to do anything to “protect” the republic. Also it’s not like Caesar was the first to do what he did. He followed in the steps of a much more brutal and oppressive conservative/reactionary tyrant who almost had him executed a few decades ago.
        Tenemo 1y ago
        I understood what you meant, but the word you were looking for is "successors", not "predecessors". His predecessors were the senate, consuls, and the rest of the governing bodies of the republic.
        wqaatwt 1y ago
        > His predecessors were the senate, consuls, and the Also Sulla and his opponents in the preceding civil war. Who paved the way for Cesar.
- drewchew 1y ago
  lol...
- dylan604 1y ago
  I wonder what the Pinkerton’s schedule is like…
- delta_p_delta_x 1y ago
  > have another dedicated group collect money for it Sounds like S E C E S S I O N
softwaredoug 1y ago
I suspect we'll end up with a patchwork: From activist private organizations / charities. To state gov'ts in blue states. To just private industry (given how solar is now the least expensive energy source). To just private citizens who would prefer to work for less money on something valuable than squeeze a tiny bit more profit as a corporate cog. Ideally the Federal gov't gets back into play, but we shouldn't plan for that future. It's a nice to have, but its a single point of failure. Especially if the Supreme Court doesn't believe in the independence of agencies anymore. As an example, the American Academy of Pediatrics now has their own vaccine schedule, which they didn't have before. Nobody in their right mind trusts the CDC / FDA on this right now.
notmyjob 1y ago
California is what, the world’s sixth largest economy? But we (our political leadership broadly speaking) seem quite inept despite their abundant resources. Gotta to spend dollars on campaigning and gerrymandering instead, or you know losing 50 billion here and there to EDD fraud, or on high speed rail from Visalia to Modesto.
- rectang 1y ago
  Federal taxes paid by California’s residents and businesses subsidize the budgets of the states who have made retaliatory gerrymandering efforts necessary. Spending money on Prop 50 is rational because California is on the verge of a durable situation of taxation without representation. This same phenomenon shows why California will struggle to replace the federal government for funding basic research.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    It never ceases to baffle my why Californians tend to opine towards a strong federal government when the documents authorizing it are structured such that California is virtually guaranteed to get the worst end of the deal. California has 12% of the population and 2% of the senators. Every time Californians urge to give the federal government more power, even for "good" things, the rules of the game virtually demand it will be used against them. This might be a necessary evil for the bare minimums (military protection, federal court to settle contracts, enforcement of some federal laws), but I don't understand how Californians justify that every positive intention will be turned against them and carry on anyway.
    - bilbo0s 1y ago
      Because they’re rich. In the US, the rich always win anyway. Full stop. If you believe otherwise, I’m sorry to say, but you’ve probably not been paying attention. Under the current administration, as under all administrations, it’s the poor and middle class states that have the problem.
    - rectang 1y ago
whoispaying 1y ago
> Who pays for it? Mexico
mothballed 1y ago
[flagged]
- spenczar5 1y ago
  Where (vaguely, of course) do you live? That sounds so different from my experience in a city.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Rural AZ
- estearum 1y ago
  Obviously a lot of things can work more smoothly when people are willing to give away value for free. Obviously people are a lot more willing to give away value when it costs them virtually nothing (like roads in a rural area with definitionally extremely low traffic)
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Somehow when the county maintains them, the "virtually free" roads somehow become enormously expensive. You can see the government having a monopoly and captive buyer causes them to be horribly inefficient, as they have no competition (and no private competitor will emerge when the price at point of use by their competitor is zero).
    - estearum 1y ago
      Yes it’s an imperfect system, but literally anyone anywhere can do what you’re describing. They don’t, hardly anywhere, because people don’t want to.
      - nickpp 1y ago
        They don’t because the government is already confiscating their money to do (supposedly) exactly that.

We could all band together and have another dedicated group collect money for it. It wouldn't be optional, either, because we mostly all agree it's valuable. Of course, there would have to be yet another group that sets how much money to collect, and how to spend it.

dmd 1y ago
Oooh I love this idea. We could have some sort of process where everyone gets a say in deciding how the money is spent. Except maybe rather than everyone doing that you could have instead people whose job it is to do it, and everyone gets a say in deciding who those people are. I wonder if this sort of thing has ever been tried.
- cogman10 1y ago
  It was tried once. Unfortunately it was ultimately killed off by a corrupt leader who took over the military and started deploying them the cities to stop crime. That leader ultimately strong armed the other elected officials into doing his bidding leading to the destruction of the once great nation. He ignored the law and the will of the people. He was ultimately assassinated in 44BC. I believe his name was Julius Caesar.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    To be fair Ceasar was replaced by a few even more oppressive wannabe tyrants. He never posted lists of his political enemies to be murdered and was generally pretty lenient. Probably led to his downfall. Augustus made sure to squash all potential sources of opposition before taking over.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      For sure. Julius ultimately just paved the way for the future tyrants. He consolidated the power into himself which made it a lot easier for his predecessors to take things further.
      - wqaatwt 1y ago
        Another thing is that I’m not sure he really ignored the will of the people. “The people” were severely oppressed and the policies they supported ignored and rejected for the past 80+ years by the tightly knit oligarchy at the top. The overwhelming majority of its citizens probably had no real reasons to do anything to “protect” the republic. Also it’s not like Caesar was the first to do what he did. He followed in the steps of a much more brutal and oppressive conservative/reactionary tyrant who almost had him executed a few decades ago.
      - Tenemo 1y ago
        I understood what you meant, but the word you were looking for is "successors", not "predecessors". His predecessors were the senate, consuls, and the rest of the governing bodies of the republic.
        wqaatwt 1y ago
        > His predecessors were the senate, consuls, and the Also Sulla and his opponents in the preceding civil war. Who paved the way for Cesar.
drewchew 1y ago
lol...
dylan604 1y ago
I wonder what the Pinkerton’s schedule is like…
delta_p_delta_x 1y ago
> have another dedicated group collect money for it Sounds like S E C E S S I O N

softwaredoug 1y ago

I suspect we'll end up with a patchwork: From activist private organizations / charities. To state gov'ts in blue states. To just private industry (given how solar is now the least expensive energy source). To just private citizens who would prefer to work for less money on something valuable than squeeze a tiny bit more profit as a corporate cog. Ideally the Federal gov't gets back into play, but we shouldn't plan for that future. It's a nice to have, but its a single point of failure. Especially if the Supreme Court doesn't believe in the independence of agencies anymore. As an example, the American Academy of Pediatrics now has their own vaccine schedule, which they didn't have before. Nobody in their right mind trusts the CDC / FDA on this right now.

notmyjob 1y ago

California is what, the world’s sixth largest economy? But we (our political leadership broadly speaking) seem quite inept despite their abundant resources. Gotta to spend dollars on campaigning and gerrymandering instead, or you know losing 50 billion here and there to EDD fraud, or on high speed rail from Visalia to Modesto.

rectang 1y ago
Federal taxes paid by California’s residents and businesses subsidize the budgets of the states who have made retaliatory gerrymandering efforts necessary. Spending money on Prop 50 is rational because California is on the verge of a durable situation of taxation without representation. This same phenomenon shows why California will struggle to replace the federal government for funding basic research.
- mothballed 1y ago
  It never ceases to baffle my why Californians tend to opine towards a strong federal government when the documents authorizing it are structured such that California is virtually guaranteed to get the worst end of the deal. California has 12% of the population and 2% of the senators. Every time Californians urge to give the federal government more power, even for "good" things, the rules of the game virtually demand it will be used against them. This might be a necessary evil for the bare minimums (military protection, federal court to settle contracts, enforcement of some federal laws), but I don't understand how Californians justify that every positive intention will be turned against them and carry on anyway.
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    Because they’re rich. In the US, the rich always win anyway. Full stop. If you believe otherwise, I’m sorry to say, but you’ve probably not been paying attention. Under the current administration, as under all administrations, it’s the poor and middle class states that have the problem.
  - rectang 1y ago

whoispaying 1y ago

> Who pays for it? Mexico

mothballed 1y ago

[flagged]

spenczar5 1y ago
Where (vaguely, of course) do you live? That sounds so different from my experience in a city.
- mothballed 1y ago
  Rural AZ
estearum 1y ago
Obviously a lot of things can work more smoothly when people are willing to give away value for free. Obviously people are a lot more willing to give away value when it costs them virtually nothing (like roads in a rural area with definitionally extremely low traffic)
- mothballed 1y ago
  Somehow when the county maintains them, the "virtually free" roads somehow become enormously expensive. You can see the government having a monopoly and captive buyer causes them to be horribly inefficient, as they have no competition (and no private competitor will emerge when the price at point of use by their competitor is zero).
  - estearum 1y ago
    Yes it’s an imperfect system, but literally anyone anywhere can do what you’re describing. They don’t, hardly anywhere, because people don’t want to.
    - nickpp 1y ago
      They don’t because the government is already confiscating their money to do (supposedly) exactly that.