Ah yes, but that is huge difference. Supporting private businesses that makes sense (free market) sounds more effective for me than collecting taxes and distribute it by centralised power. Decentralisation of financial system is a way that could fix many inequalities in society.
the problem is that this is not an exclusive either taxes or free market question.
also taxes are simply mandatory contributions. that doesn't require a centralized power. but they are not a free market either.
the examples i gave can not be solved in a free market.
there are more: access to water in areas where i can't dig my own well (or where uncontrolled water use causes problems).
solving this with a free market inevitably means that there will be some people who won't have access to water because connecting them is to expensive. we see this problem now with access to internet in rural areas. pretty soon access to internet will be required, and that means, we as a community have to pay for it to enable everyone to get access to it.
another good example to look at is waste removal. while waste removal can be done trough private businesses and paid by the amount of waste you have, in cities it must be mandatory, because if it is not, then some people will simply throw the trash into the street. if it is mandatory, it is no longer a free market. but rather similar to taxes. but without a central power.
this is evolving into an argument about the efficiency of the free market, which i am not interested in. there is plenty of evidence that the completely unregulated free market doesn't work, because for example it favors services that are profitable.
Why would anyone throw trash on street
because it is to expensive to pay for someone to clean it up.
Believe or not, not all businesses are interested in to maximalism of profit. At the end, regulations are shaped by lobby. Otherwise we wouldn't drive and buy heavier cars every year and at same time care about co2 consumption for example.
- because it is to expensive to pay for someone to clean it up.
Isn't that one of reasons to throw it in to bin instead?
Believe or not, not all businesses are interested in to maximalism of profit
that's easy to disprove. there are businesses that do not care about maximizing profit, but have other goals. (look up b-corp for one form of that. in my own business the goal is to maximize the number of jobs that i can create)
regulations are shaped by lobby
which is really bad, because it means those who are the loudest get their way and everyone else suffers.
throw it into trash bins? and who empties the trash bins?
the point you are missing is that if noone pays for trash removal then trash doesn't get removed. so either everyone pays for their own, or the community collects money and everyone contributes to that. there is no way around that.
Lobby is absent in non regulated environment. Only competition maters.
Bin empties a company that is payed for its job. Now it doesn't matter how much waste you produce, because its mandated and same for all for same price. But not all litter a same. Which makes inequalities. Same for health care (EU), education, etc.
you might argue that taxes are not the same thing, but i disagree. the point is that it is a required contribution, which is a condition for living in a community, which was the argument that i started with.
You miss my point here. Im strongly against manadatory and forced contributions. If you don't see a purpose in financing something, force to do it brings inequalities and in long term create conflicts. I prefer reasonable choices that have sense for you or community.
Imagine businesses in private sector that would charge you for things that you don't ordered. Its nonsense, somehow tolerable if done by state.
that is not what is happening here. the state is not some foreign entity, but the elected representative will of the community. i want the trash taken care of, and so does the majority of the community.
if your government does not do what your community wants then you don't live in a functioning democracy. that is a different problem alltogether.
in summary: free market will not take care of those problems i mentioned. if you disagree, then i'd like to see a specific explanation how a free market can take care of those issues.
anything mandatory is not a free market.
to get these things taken care of, the community will have to enact rules or delegate someone to do it. how it makes that decision is is up to the community. it doesn't require a government that is not under the control of the community. nor does the existence of taxes imply the existence of such a government.
- if your government does not do what your community wants then you don't live in a functioning democracy.
Democracy is rule of majority and make inequalities by definition. Minorities needs to accept rules that they do not agree with. It's like monopoly except it is forbidden to do competition by law. Decentralisation of taxes or financial system could solve many issues that escalate recently.
- i'd like to see a specific explanation how a free market can take care of those issues.
I don't think free market solve issues. Decentralisation and gathering in local communities could. Less mandateds = less laws = less taxes = more personal responsibility which means more effective solving problems that really matter for you and your close one.
- to get these things taken care of, the community will have to enact rules or delegate someone to do it. how it makes that decision is is up to the community. it doesn't require a government that is not under the control of the community. nor does the existence of taxes imply the existence of such a government.
those are interesting points. i think on the first one i think i am using a different definition of democracy. in short, for me democracy means something that actually works and respects the will of all people including minorities. simple rule of majority is not really democratic in my view. the flip side of that is that i do not believe that there is any country in the world today that has a functioning democracy.
in short, it looks like we both actually want something similar here. what that is needs more discussion.
my idea of democracy also has a heavy focus on decentralization. basically i believe that decisions or rules should be made at the lowest level needed for that rule to be useful.
that means, things like traffic rules should be made at a national or better even global level because it is not helpful to have different rules for that in every city. same goes for issues like polution. those are global problems. but many other problems are local, and it is better to decide those on a local level. i'd even go as far as suggesting to make every possible choice at a local level first and only escalate to a higher level if the local decisions create a conflict with neighboring localities.
so i am 100% with you on decentralization. though i don't see less laws or less taxes as a goal or as an obvious result. decentralization could lead to less laws or taxes, but it doesn't have to. personally i don't care either way. that is up to each community to work out for themselves.
i think the problem at the start of the thread was that the claim was that there should be zero taxes or zero mandated contributions of any form. and that is something i disagree with. and it appears that you are not asking for that either.
the next question would be: how would a political or electoral system look like that enables those things? whether it is called democracy or something else.
- i do not believe that there is any country in the world today that has a functioning democracy.
Because we are not living in ideal word. Truly functioning democracy require freedom of knowledge to have free and conscious decision in voting. Our decisions are shaped mostly by media. Which is, again, centralized. Also, if you want to be elected by people, you need to be a populist. So democratic system tend to shape peoples mind either on left or right and gather them about specific ideas. For me, it makes unnatural dividing of people to categories and instead of solving problems together, we fight each other.
- basically i believe that decisions or rules should be made at the lowest level needed for that rule to be useful.
Absolutely agree.
- that means, things like traffic rules should be made at a national or better even global level because it is not helpful to have different rules for that in every city. same goes for issues like polution. those are global problems.
I don't agree with global level. Nations has different wealth, different technologies, etc. You cannot apply same rules for US or India. Same for pollution. For example US made huge capital on pollution in 20th century. Would you ban developing country to obtain their capital from pollution today and made similar wealth as US previously?
- there should be zero taxes or zero mandated contributions of any form.
There should be absolute minimal taxes and no mandates. Consequences forces communities naturally to finance what is important.
- how would a political or electoral system look like that enables those things?
I'm not sure how it should look like, but I would like to free ourselves from the idea of needed rulers above our lives. We willing to put our responsibilities to authority, which dispatch our decisions from consequences.
I don't agree with global level. Nations has different wealth, different technologies, etc. You cannot apply same rules for US or India
with traffic rules i meant the general stuff, like on which side to drive on, the colors of traffic lights, the design of street signs. those are pretty much already a global standard, and rightly so. because it does not make sense to have those work differently in different countries. of course there should always be carveouts for regional specifics. we don't need kangaroo warning signs in austria.
other examples are things that are for the most part already global standards. like the metric system. yes, the US should literally be forced to change here. it's become the laughing stock of the world on that issue. also copyright law. etc. money should be global. we don't need different currencies. maybe punishment for serious crimes. human rights. but on the other side there are many things that are global or almost global now, that should not, or need not be.
Same for pollution. For example US made huge capital on pollution in 20th century. Would you ban developing country to obtain their capital from pollution today and made similar wealth as US previously?
well, yes and no. i agree with you that it is not fair to just stop everyone from polluting when their economy depends upon it. but as pollution is destroying our climate, we have to do something about it. we can't just allow some areas to pollute the world while other areas don't. it would not work. what would, and does happen is that that those countries that decided to limit their pollution just export their production to pollute elsewhere.
what we do need to do however is to then enable other ways for these countries to prosper. we need to invest into those countries and build them up much like we built up some countries in asia and europe after world war 2. see more discussion on that in the thread on chocolate here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38073378
I would like to free ourselves from the idea of needed rulers above our lives
agreed. partly i see this as a historical problem. we started out with rulers being absolute, like kings, etc.
eventually some started to elect their kings. etc. you know the history. that history is the reason we look at elected leaders as rulers above us.
so we need to change the understanding. that those elected representatives are there to serve us. not we serve them. their responsibility is to take care of our problems, and find and propose just solutions and rules for us to be able to live together.
there are a few things we can change to make the election system fairer:
first of the whole party system is designed for conflict and not cooperation. get rid of it.
each representative should be independent. no more toeing the party line. make decisions only based on your conscience.
next point is a bit harder: get rid of the concept of candidates. don't allow election campaigns. don't allow media to promote certain people. let people get elected only based on their reputation as good citizens. this prevents influence of the elections by those who have more funding.
but that only works in small communities, where people have a chance to know each other. for big cities that practically means elections per neighborhood.
elect multiple people per neighborhood. also give each person multiple votes. maybe as many votes as the number of people to be elected. multiple votes avoids that a majority of votes concentrate on a single person. because everyone has to still assign the other votes they have.
these are then the community/neighborhood representatives, and they make decisions for their neighborhood.
elections on a higher level are made from those elected at a lower level. all the way to the top. this levels the playing field and it allows good people to become elected without financial resources.
i don't think a perfect system is possible. but this system would remove a lot of friction, combined with favoring decisions at a local level, it would be a lot better than anything we have currently.
...we need to invest into those countries and build them up much like we built up some countries
I find investment like this quite a problematic. It makes places, that would be naturally inhabited, artificially alive with huge cost. It's not sustainable approach.
Generally all kinds of grants makes inequalities in society. Either, you have free market that naturally shape possibilities. Or you brake it by investments and grants. Learning process how to obtain a capital and manage it is more valuable than giving sources to dilettantes. Sure, we have mechanisms that control, how well is grant spent but then you invest time to control, instead of developing.
we started out with rulers being absolute, like kings, etc.
Kings, in history, has much less impact to personal life than politics nowadays. Due to globalization, technology and overall amount of laws, restrictions and regulations spread in it. 2020 is great example how fear that has been spread in mass media, lockdown almost whole world.
so we need to change the understanding. that those elected representatives are there to serve us. not we serve them. their responsibility is to take care of our problems, and find and propose just solutions and rules for us to be able to live together.
They will serve to power. Because being elected in democracy means being a populist. It's not about serving to people at first place. You cannot win elections with this in democratic system.
no more toeing the party line. make decisions only based on your conscience.
While I agree, I'm not sure if individualism is a way to go. Conscience is shaped, mostly in childhood by your parents. If you grow up in pathological environment, later you spread same behavior. Notice that normalization of being a victim, unstable and a deviant is strong nowadays. I prefer dialogue, going out from comfort zone and cultivation of mind by active socialization. Note that this is not rhetoric we can observe today with amount of time spent affront of screen. Alone in our safe bubbles.
also give each person multiple votes.
There are some methods, that could improve voting system, like D21 (1.) Basically it operate with possibilities of voting with two plus votes and one negative vote. That negative vote could eliminate populism in political campaigns. I'm not saying its perfect, but idea of giving one vote to someone, who is chosen by party or promoted by public opinion polls is just an illusion of free vote.
i don't think a perfect system is possible.
It never will be. But more dangerous is a thinking, that we have perfect democratic system and there are no other options. Usually those who are afraid of changes comes up with communism. Well... I live in post-communistic country and we still face communistic rhetoric in democratic state, usually from those, who name themselves as anti-communists. So again, we came back to circle, where political system tend to put individuals to categories and let them fight each other.
...we need to invest into those countries and build them up much like we built up some countries
I find investment like this quite a problematic. It makes places, that would be naturally inhabited, artificially alive with huge cost. It's not sustainable approach.
i agree that there are problematic investments, but the statement as it is is way to generic. consider some african megacities, like kampala in uganda that i was able to visit recently. the city has literally no public transport infrastructure, roads are in a bad shape and growth is uncontrolled.
it will take a massive investment to make that city livable. ideally, that investment comes from local sources. i am not suggesting that foreign funds should just swoop in and spend money without cooperating with locals to consider their needs. but a better infrastructure is definitely needed.
i am also not talking about grants. that's charity. an investment is something that has the expectation of a return of some form. i agree that learning how to obtain capital is important. what i was thinking of is to do more trade with those countries. fair trade, not the kind of exploitative trade that i referenced as example.
They will serve to power. Because being elected in democracy means being a populist. It's not about serving to people at first place. You cannot win elections with this in democratic system.
that is something that we need to change. the only way i see that this can be achieved is education. it will take decades, but it is not out of reach to teach us how to build a society that fosters unity and cooperation instead of competition.
If you grow up in pathological environment, later you spread same behavior.
this too can only be counteracted with better education.
I prefer dialogue, going out from comfort zone and cultivation of mind by active socialization.
i agree. this is part of it.
giving one vote to someone, who is chosen by party or promoted by public opinion polls is just an illusion of free vote
exactly that is how i see it too. which is why i conclude that the current systems are not democratic.
more dangerous is a thinking, that we have perfect democratic system and there are no other options
How would that people make money?