Nostr

I'm actually onboard with some government, but you're right, less compulsion, more voluntary engagement. I'm happy to abide by building regs that save lives and I'm happy to pay some tax when it's clear who and what it's used for.

It'd be cool actually if all public works and government projects had to be crowd funded. Each project would get scrutiny and would live or die on it's own merits instead of being snuck in as a rider on page 874 of some completely unrelated 4000 page bill.

Jedi 2y ago

Isn't voting and taxation crowdfunding? Pure crowdfunding would never work for public works because the only projects that would get funded would be those that benefit those wealthy enough to fund them - poor neighborhoods would have dirt streets and the rich ones would be paved in marble while downtown commercial areas would get the asphalt that they all deserve.

How about total transparency from tax to project in an easy to understand and human digestible format, a better way to vote and total accountability of politicians and civil servants on use of public funds - maybe misuse of public funds should be considered treason. Switzerland has the most participatory democracy in the world, they are closer to this model. They have to vote all the time, so much that many of my Swiss friends complain about having to vote all the time.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

JeffG 2y ago

Voting is supposed to be a proxy for choosing what government does on your behalf but it hasn't worked like that for a long time in the US or Europe. It doesn't matter who you vote for, most change is actually affected by unelected bureaucrats and regulators.

I also don't believe that only the projects that benefit the rich would be funded. All the rich people I know give significantly to projects that they will never feel the benefit of directly (other than the warm fuzzy feeling of contributing). While that's a bit "n of one", I think it's overly simplistic to paint the rich as completely self-serving. Projects would be funded based on their merit. Not based on the ability of some lobbyist to woo and shill their way to getting some provision included.

Transparency would go a long way and yes, I think extreme accountability would also help. But the fact is that politicians and "civil servants" are a parasitic class that doesn't produce anything for society. They exist only because of their ability to steal from our productivity. We could get rid of 99% of it and probably only very temporarily feel any pain or confusion.

I live about 15 minutes from Switzerland so I'm super familiar with the situation there. I think it works as well as it does because 1) it's small enough and well connected enough not to need to meddle in the rest of the world's affairs 2) culturally, they are quite homogeneous and 3) they're rich af, which makes lots of things easier. Agree though that they're in a way better place than the rest of the EU or USA.

Jedi 2y ago

100%. In Switzerland the ration of representatives to population is one of the highest in the world and many of the representatives actually hold normal jobs and represent their community as a part-time affair. Reducing government doesn't mean reducing representation. I didn't say the rich are entirely self-serving, just implied that most people look after their own interests first - of course they would provide asphalt to some poorer neighborhood, especially if they have to drive through them. (sorry, cynical to the end when it comes to true altruism.)