4 ms·

Because we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively. That's literally the entire basis for it. Might as well ask why "only the taxpayers w

by jmye 8mo ago

Because we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively. That's literally the entire basis for it. Might as well ask why "only the taxpayers who care about a new highway can raise funds to buy it" and then we're back in some weird, system of no central government because someone can always claim "why not just like, let people donate money" because it's a simplistic cliche that appeals deeply to people who aren't quite clever enough to work out just how much they've benefitted from the system as it's been constructed.

ryanjshaw 8mo ago
> simplistic cliche that appeals deeply to people who aren't quite clever enough Is this passive aggressive insult really necessary? > Because we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively I’m sure you will agree that not everything that everybody wants can get funded. The debate here is how to draw the line. I think critical shared physical infrastructure occupying a limited valuable resource is nothing like art, so I’m struggling to follow your argument.
- jmye 8mo ago
  > Is this passive aggressive insult really necessary? I think simplistic cliche's deserve derision - if you don't like that, perhaps don't use them? It's hardly a shot at the writer to suggest that what he wrote is mediocre. > I’m sure you will agree that not everything that everybody wants can get funded. The debate here is how to draw the line. No, your argument was that I should fund things myself directly. I pointed out that that's an inane and boring argument. If you want to debate other things, then do that in the first place. > so I’m struggling to follow your argument. It might help if you re-read your own arguments first, instead of trying to make them into new ones. Things people want funded by the government get funded when they vote for them to get funded either directly or via representatives - if you don't like those things, there is a clear way to change the algebra. In no case is suggesting people just like, "pay some extra taxes, man" a useful are additive observation.
buzzert 8mo ago
> we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively Effectively? It doesn't seem to me like most western governments allocate this funding "effectively" at all. How do we increase the accountability?
- jmye 8mo ago
  > Effectively? It doesn't seem to me like most western governments allocate this funding "effectively" at all. Based on what specific metric? How ought it be allocated? I assume this isn't just some ideological whining.

by jmye 8mo ago

ryanjshaw 8mo ago

> simplistic cliche that appeals deeply to people who aren't quite clever enough Is this passive aggressive insult really necessary? > Because we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively I’m sure you will agree that not everything that everybody wants can get funded. The debate here is how to draw the line. I think critical shared physical infrastructure occupying a limited valuable resource is nothing like art, so I’m struggling to follow your argument.

jmye 8mo ago
> Is this passive aggressive insult really necessary? I think simplistic cliche's deserve derision - if you don't like that, perhaps don't use them? It's hardly a shot at the writer to suggest that what he wrote is mediocre. > I’m sure you will agree that not everything that everybody wants can get funded. The debate here is how to draw the line. No, your argument was that I should fund things myself directly. I pointed out that that's an inane and boring argument. If you want to debate other things, then do that in the first place. > so I’m struggling to follow your argument. It might help if you re-read your own arguments first, instead of trying to make them into new ones. Things people want funded by the government get funded when they vote for them to get funded either directly or via representatives - if you don't like those things, there is a clear way to change the algebra. In no case is suggesting people just like, "pay some extra taxes, man" a useful are additive observation.

buzzert 8mo ago

> we use taxes as a process to crowdsource funding more effectively Effectively? It doesn't seem to me like most western governments allocate this funding "effectively" at all. How do we increase the accountability?

jmye 8mo ago
> Effectively? It doesn't seem to me like most western governments allocate this funding "effectively" at all. Based on what specific metric? How ought it be allocated? I assume this isn't just some ideological whining.