Thank you for the reply, Victor. I’m learning quite a bit here.
In general a belief in efficiency through competition is not one that I agree with, and neither is belief in provision of public goods through private unregulated entities. However, having ideas and models of creative alternatives to existing systems is important, to create contrast and encourage deeper analysis of the existing system. Also, in case the existing system fails for any reason, understanding what else is possible, and what the limitations are, seems desirable.
I consider the design of the US political system as a mechanism to reflect and serve public preferences, but also temper those preferences over time and across common groupings of interests. Unfortunately, participation in the system is low, and its results would be different if political participation in the country were higher. A high level of participation would change how spending and taxation happen. That would, in theory, improve the overall satisfaction with government spending on public goods. If you disagree with any of that, let me know, so I can gather information.
Anyway, I appreciate your post, and want to take a few notes about the ideas you proposed here (something I think to do frequently for others’ posts to the forum, actually).
Thank you for the reply, Victor. I’m learning quite a bit here.
In general a belief in efficiency through competition is not one that I agree with, and neither is belief in provision of public goods through private unregulated entities. However, having ideas and models of creative alternatives to existing systems is important, to create contrast and encourage deeper analysis of the existing system. Also, in case the existing system fails for any reason, understanding what else is possible, and what the limitations are, seems desirable.
I consider the design of the US political system as a mechanism to reflect and serve public preferences, but also temper those preferences over time and across common groupings of interests. Unfortunately, participation in the system is low, and its results would be different if political participation in the country were higher. A high level of participation would change how spending and taxation happen. That would, in theory, improve the overall satisfaction with government spending on public goods. If you disagree with any of that, let me know, so I can gather information.
Anyway, I appreciate your post, and want to take a few notes about the ideas you proposed here (something I think to do frequently for others’ posts to the forum, actually).
Thanks, I appreciate the discussion. :)
> A high level of participation would change how spending and taxation happen.
Absolutely. Unfortunately many people don’t see it’s worth the effort, arguably very rationally so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance) and high participation often only comes from elites (https://stukroodvlees.nl/de-participatie-elite-en-de-participatieparadox/).
From the mechanism design corner, sortition (for voting, referenda, any political discussion) might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Or we can all just decide to actively discuss and deliberate more: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7159287-when-the-people-speak