I claim that “fixing” coordination failures is a bad and/or incoherent idea.
Coordination isn’t fully fixable because people have different goals, and scaling has inevitable and unavoidable costs. Making a single global government would create waste on a scale that current governments don’t even approach.
As people get richer overall, the resources available for public benefit have grown. This seems likely to continue. But directing those resources fails. Democracy doesn’t scale well, and any move away from democracy comes with corresponding ability to abuse power.
In fact, I think the best solution for this is to allow individuals to direct their money how they want, instead of having a centralized system—in a word, philanthropy.
Good point! Note that some of the propositions I linked to account for people having different preferences (ex.: quadratic voting).
Making a single global government would create waste on a scale that current governments don’t even approach.
To be clear, I wouldn’t not want a global government to mingle with anything but global concerns. But for global concerns, I think the cost is worth it.
But directing those resources fails. Democracy doesn’t scale well, and any move away from democracy comes with corresponding ability to abuse power.
Some of the proposals I linked to try to address that (ex.: Futarchy).
In fact, I think the best solution for this is to allow individuals to direct their money how they want, instead of having a centralized system—in a word, philanthropy.
I think a government is really useful to enforce cooperate-cooperate in group prisoner dilemmas (ex.: building roads, national defense). But there has also been decentralized proposals that look really promising; for an example, see: property is monopoly. But I really doubt we can rely on philanthropy to build roads, or take care of public goods in general beyond temporary patches. I’m pretty sure people pay way more taxes than they give money, even controlling for taxes.
If we had a more equal world, it would be even harder. Now at least some people have so much excess wealth that this sometimes acts as a coordination mechanism to fund public good.
I think we should be willing to embrace a system that has a better mix of voluntary philanthropy, non-traditional-government programs for wealth transfer, and government decisionmaking. It’s the second category I’m most excited about, which looks a lot like decentralized proposals. I’m concerned that most extant decentralized proposals, however, have little if any tether to reality. On the other hand, I’m unsure that larger governments would help, instead of hurt, in addressing these challenges.
I claim that “fixing” coordination failures is a bad and/or incoherent idea.
Coordination isn’t fully fixable because people have different goals, and scaling has inevitable and unavoidable costs. Making a single global government would create waste on a scale that current governments don’t even approach.
As people get richer overall, the resources available for public benefit have grown. This seems likely to continue. But directing those resources fails. Democracy doesn’t scale well, and any move away from democracy comes with corresponding ability to abuse power.
In fact, I think the best solution for this is to allow individuals to direct their money how they want, instead of having a centralized system—in a word, philanthropy.
Good point! Note that some of the propositions I linked to account for people having different preferences (ex.: quadratic voting).
To be clear, I wouldn’t not want a global government to mingle with anything but global concerns. But for global concerns, I think the cost is worth it.
Some of the proposals I linked to try to address that (ex.: Futarchy).
I think a government is really useful to enforce cooperate-cooperate in group prisoner dilemmas (ex.: building roads, national defense). But there has also been decentralized proposals that look really promising; for an example, see: property is monopoly. But I really doubt we can rely on philanthropy to build roads, or take care of public goods in general beyond temporary patches. I’m pretty sure people pay way more taxes than they give money, even controlling for taxes.
If we had a more equal world, it would be even harder. Now at least some people have so much excess wealth that this sometimes acts as a coordination mechanism to fund public good.
I think we should be willing to embrace a system that has a better mix of voluntary philanthropy, non-traditional-government programs for wealth transfer, and government decisionmaking. It’s the second category I’m most excited about, which looks a lot like decentralized proposals. I’m concerned that most extant decentralized proposals, however, have little if any tether to reality. On the other hand, I’m unsure that larger governments would help, instead of hurt, in addressing these challenges.