From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 22:57:21 BST
Dear Platt,
You 12 Sep 8:40 -0400 still don't answer my point that individuals are not
enough for building and maintaining dikes. And you either need to convinde
all who benefit from them to contribute financially or to force enough of
them to do so, to prevent free-rider behaviour that makes it inpossible to
finance them at all. Whether we are talking about a 'collectives' or about
herds of bureaucrats, engineers and workmen is beside the point.
You conntered my "Collective financing by everyone benefitting from such
projects needs to be organized by governments."
with your "Oh, if only government subsidies did benefit everyone. Obviously,
they don't in every case. There's a hotel here in town subsidized by our
local government that I've never been in, much less stayed in.".
Again that is not the point. Of course governments should try to tax (e.g.
for dike building) only those who beneifit from what they do with the money.
And of course governments should try to use the money they tax from everyone
for projects that -taken together- benefit all. If they don't, that's not an
argument against subsidizing, but for better democratic processes that make
sure that all taxpayers benefit equally and not only those who voted these
particular politicians in power or who contributed financially to their
election campaign.
(You surely don't require your local government to organize that at all
local taxpayers get a chance to stay in turn in that particular hotel. If
only those that don't benefit equally from some other subsidized project. I
wonder -with you- why that hotel is subsidized though. I can't imagine a
private enterprise like a hotel being subsidized in the Netherlands, unless
e.g. it is in a historic building and we want to maintain the historic
character of a town. But than the fact that it is used by a hotel is
irrelevant. Any owner would -and should- get is.)
You wrote:
"I agree [with the objective need for a bigger government in the Netherlands
than in the USA for protection against the water] if you're focusing
exclusively on the size of government relative to protection against the
sea. But in terms of social welfare programs, I believe the size of
Netherlands government is relatively larger than the USA."
Fine, because that was the only point I wanted to make there.
By the way, I also think that there is a need for more social welfare
programs in the Netherlands than in the USA. We are much more densily
populated and there would be much more unhealthy competition for natural
resources, more criminality, more contagious diseases etc. than in the USA
if we would have the same relative size of government. These were the very
areas in which Dutch city governments became active very early in the Middle
Ages, besides water management of course.
You countered my "Taxes as percentage of GDP are only a measure of relative
size of government and private sector, not of interference of one into the
other."
with your "Since taxes are involuntary, I consider them government
interference.".
Only if you consider the individuals taxed as participating exclusively in
the private sector and not in the public sector. If your public sector is
not democratic enough to make individuals identify with and participate in
it then there is something wrong with your type of democracy, of not
technically, than at least in the political culture nurtured by it. Taxes
should be experienced in large extent.
Even if you consider taxing as per definition interference in the private
sector, taxes are not a good measure of such interference, as taxing is not
the only way and different types of taxes (e.g. direct or indirect )
interfere (in the sense of hamper) the functioning of the private sector to
a different extent.
I'm glad that you agree that the private sector benifits from government
investments. (At least in principle. It can of course make mistakes when not
properly, i.e. democratically, checked.)
You continued:
"At times in the interest of moving the conversation along I will focus on
one or two debates rather than a "collective" of them. If the other party to
the conversation thinks it's important to focus on a point that I pass by,
he is free to bring it up again."
O.k.
You continued:
"I don't think it's good to make people economically dependent for their
well-being on any others, whether religious or government. An individual
cannot be both dependent and free at the same time."
Isn't that a bit too categorical?
1) People are dependent on others anyway for their well-being. (If only
because most of what I consume is produced by others and can't be produced
by myself because I haven't got the expertise. Also for instance because the
money system has to be maintained collectively for people to be able to
exchange what they produce.) So I'd rather say that it is not good to make
people MORE economically dependent on others.
2) Sometimes some extra economic dependence on others (and yes, some
decrease of freedom) can improve well-being. There can be trade-offs. Making
yourself dependent on police and on a system of administration of justice to
protect you from criminals for instance. And don't be mistaken: the need for
security is just as 'economical' as any other need. You can even buy it from
specialized firms.
Isn't BOTH being dependent (because of participation in static patterns of
value, is this context 3rd level ones) AND being free (having DQ available)
part of the human condition of every individual? We depend on governments,
other market parties, family/friends and experts AND we are free to choose
and swap dependenceis.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 22:54:42 BST