4 ms·

>Philanthropy strikes me as anti-democratic. Why should the rich get to choose which causes are more deserving of their generosity? Let the elected government p

by noarchy 12y ago

>Philanthropy strikes me as anti-democratic. Why should the rich get to choose which causes are more deserving of their generosity? Let the elected government pool the money and make this determination. The reason the rich get to choose is because it is their money. Just as you can decide, today, to donate your money to the charity of your choosing. And really, this isn't any different from asking why the rich (or you or me) get to decide which car or house to buy. If government is failing to give your money to areas where you think it should go, perhaps this is what is anti-democratic.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>The reason the rich get to choose is because it is their money. This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this.
- noarchy 12y ago
  >This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this. Case by case, you may or may not have a point. Is the alternative to have the state take the money and spend as it wishes? In such a case, is the money "justly earned" if it was taken by force?
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    It's a mistake to think that states 'spend' your taxes. They don't really. It helps to think of states as machines that print money which they spend at one end and run an incinerator into which they put all of your taxes at the other. The clear implication of this is that: * Spending is inflationary * Taxes are there to clamp down on inflation. * Taxes are there to change behavior in a socially conscious way (e.g. tax cigarettes to reduce smoking // tax breaks for wind farms). Your cash is debt. It is not something you own like a house. It is a social relationship subject to intermediation by the government under democratic oversight.
  - lmm 12y ago
    Everything bottoms out at force; most of us consider taxation as just or more so than the way the rich acquire their money. The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people.
    - noarchy 12y ago
      >The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people. That isn't necessarily a universally-accepted idea. Democratic systems have the machinery of accountability, but some of us are not completely convinced that it works; surely not as-advertised. I know that some will regard the wealth of the rich as having been acquired by some means of trickery or even coercion. And that may even be true in some cases. But it is true of taxation nearly 100% of the time, as states must use the threat of force to acquire that money.
      - lmm 12y ago
        Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do.
        noarchy 12y ago
        >Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do. As a thought experiment, imagine that taxation became completely voluntary tomorrow. What percentage of its former revenue does the government make? Suddenly, the government has to compete with other entities for money. Government doesn't know the competition game, so how well would it fare? It would be an interesting experiment, though it would undoubtedly cause some short-term chaos.
        lmm 12y ago
        The experiment's already been done. No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did. If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cover everyone and force everyone to contribute. (It's been quite amusing to watch this happening in miniature in eve online) Of course it's possible to set arbitrary rules under which a government doesn't form, or corporations provide something better, but those rules end up being very arbitrary.

by noarchy 12y ago

crdoconnor 12y ago

>The reason the rich get to choose is because it is their money. This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this.

noarchy 12y ago
>This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this. Case by case, you may or may not have a point. Is the alternative to have the state take the money and spend as it wishes? In such a case, is the money "justly earned" if it was taken by force?
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  It's a mistake to think that states 'spend' your taxes. They don't really. It helps to think of states as machines that print money which they spend at one end and run an incinerator into which they put all of your taxes at the other. The clear implication of this is that: * Spending is inflationary * Taxes are there to clamp down on inflation. * Taxes are there to change behavior in a socially conscious way (e.g. tax cigarettes to reduce smoking // tax breaks for wind farms). Your cash is debt. It is not something you own like a house. It is a social relationship subject to intermediation by the government under democratic oversight.
- lmm 12y ago
  Everything bottoms out at force; most of us consider taxation as just or more so than the way the rich acquire their money. The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people.
  - noarchy 12y ago
    >The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people. That isn't necessarily a universally-accepted idea. Democratic systems have the machinery of accountability, but some of us are not completely convinced that it works; surely not as-advertised. I know that some will regard the wealth of the rich as having been acquired by some means of trickery or even coercion. And that may even be true in some cases. But it is true of taxation nearly 100% of the time, as states must use the threat of force to acquire that money.
    - lmm 12y ago
      Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do.
      - noarchy 12y ago
        >Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do. As a thought experiment, imagine that taxation became completely voluntary tomorrow. What percentage of its former revenue does the government make? Suddenly, the government has to compete with other entities for money. Government doesn't know the competition game, so how well would it fare? It would be an interesting experiment, though it would undoubtedly cause some short-term chaos.
        lmm 12y ago
        The experiment's already been done. No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did. If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cover everyone and force everyone to contribute. (It's been quite amusing to watch this happening in miniature in eve online) Of course it's possible to set arbitrary rules under which a government doesn't form, or corporations provide something better, but those rules end up being very arbitrary.