![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThesis: Once some sort of democratic civilisation is attained tax rates and civilisational complexity are necessarily linked.
The attempts by the Alt-Right and Libertarians to decouple tax from civilisational complexity and the needs of the participant voters in democratic institutions will IMHO lead to even further alienation of the voting public. Which is sort of the point really. When voters feel completely alienated from the political process they may riot, but it won't do much good, and will do a lot of harm. And the totalitarians can pick up the pieces.
The thing is that the folk at the bottom of the heap have to be looked after too. Even the Roman Empire had the dole. When the layers and the structure of society get so complicated, it takes resources to keep the thing going. Another as important thing is simplification is worse. By a country mile.
So... my contention is that the folk who deny the costs of modern life, and who live in some mythical past of rugged frontiersmen, or noble Lords sufficient unto themselves, just aren't socialised properly, or are playing with a few cards missing.
So how is the thesis flawed; wherein is the worm of doubt? Surely there must be a point where, maybe with AI, civilisational complexity can be managed cheaply? Resources can be directed where they are needed, with little wastage or excess. This may be possible, however, we might balk at the prospect of letting our lives be run in some respects by an AI. And that's not about money or reduced tax-takes.
I would contend that if we don't want cheap solutions, because they unsettle or offend some part of ourselves, we have to be prepared to pay for the expensive ones.
But I'm pretty sure there are other opinions out there.
The attempts by the Alt-Right and Libertarians to decouple tax from civilisational complexity and the needs of the participant voters in democratic institutions will IMHO lead to even further alienation of the voting public. Which is sort of the point really. When voters feel completely alienated from the political process they may riot, but it won't do much good, and will do a lot of harm. And the totalitarians can pick up the pieces.
The thing is that the folk at the bottom of the heap have to be looked after too. Even the Roman Empire had the dole. When the layers and the structure of society get so complicated, it takes resources to keep the thing going. Another as important thing is simplification is worse. By a country mile.
So... my contention is that the folk who deny the costs of modern life, and who live in some mythical past of rugged frontiersmen, or noble Lords sufficient unto themselves, just aren't socialised properly, or are playing with a few cards missing.
So how is the thesis flawed; wherein is the worm of doubt? Surely there must be a point where, maybe with AI, civilisational complexity can be managed cheaply? Resources can be directed where they are needed, with little wastage or excess. This may be possible, however, we might balk at the prospect of letting our lives be run in some respects by an AI. And that's not about money or reduced tax-takes.
I would contend that if we don't want cheap solutions, because they unsettle or offend some part of ourselves, we have to be prepared to pay for the expensive ones.
But I'm pretty sure there are other opinions out there.
(no subject)
Date: 22/8/17 09:45 (UTC)As most would know I am of the opinion that resource rents of various sorts are the preferred way to raise public revenue. Good for production, good for employment, good for the environment, stops speculation etc.
However, on this particular point as civilisation improves and site-values increase the aggregate resource rent value increases proportionally. Joseph Stiglitz, I believe, made an observation several years back.