Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
My work's been having internal discussions on the following question. Do we begin to advocate for the policies that the majority of voters want/voted for even if it destroys historic social programs. I'm in the yes camp but interested to hear your thoughts.
7 replies
0 recast
9 reactions
thoughtcrimeboss
@thoughtcrimeboss
Although I support eliminating all government programs, I also believe always advocating for what the majority of voters want simply because they are the majority is dangerous. The majority has supported all kinds of horrible policies in the past throughout the world.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
MM
@listen2mm.eth
Eliminating all government programs? Not sure if trolling… No FAA? No fire departments or police departments? No social security? No public schools? No national parks or Bureau of Land Management? No FDA? How do we hold elections without any government programs? No court system? No public defenders? No government grants or loans? No national or state military? No centralized record keeping of who is a citizen, who has a passport, who has a criminal record? I can go on…
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
thoughtcrimeboss
@thoughtcrimeboss
Not trolling, I know it may be hard to wrap your head around at first, mainly because we are taught our whole lives that these agencies are a necessity. I have no problem with any agency that is funded and operates on a purely voluntary basis. A government can exist that protects citizens and enforces property rights without stealing the funding to do it with via involuntary taxation. The majority of the current government's functions can be performed better by private and voluntary market based solutions. Just one example because I don't have all day, private subscription based tiered security services would be superior to modern public police agencies. The problem with a public police force is that they have no actual incentive to do a good job and if they do a bad job you can't fire them and hire another agency because there is only one. A private security force hired based on their reputation would be much less likely to kill unarmed suspects for example because if they did nobody would want to hire them.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
MM
@listen2mm.eth
sorry, forgot to respond here. how can a government exist without taxation? how will it be funded? the security services example you give is interesting. I can see the logic in thinking a private security company's reputation would encourage them to align their output with their clients' needs, but it's a massively oversimplified idea. who is policing these private security companies? what happens when they do use deadly force, whether warranted or not? how do we ensure the mob/mafia doesn't become the prevailing private security company? the devil is in the details to give a counter example, we currently have privatized health insurance. almost anyone who is facing or has faced significant health issues will attest that the private insurance industry is terrible. at best it is slow and unfair, at worst it is brutally ineffective and inhumane. it is hard to wrap my head around a functioning society and/or government that does not utilize taxation because there is no example of that existing in the world
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
