Curated Tumblr

what makes you think that it’s the best solution

I believe the ends do not justify the means. The primary goal should be maximizing liberty, with some concessions for practicality.

For example, I believe in UBI, but not because it's a human right, but because you can't realistically come back from mistakes or harm from others if there's no safety net. The options for a safety net are government services (healthcare, food assistance, housing assistance, etc) or cash handouts (UBI or NIT). Government services come with inequity in access (whether you're approved can be up to discretion), whereas cash is simple and equitable. Outcomes may be worse with cash for some people (maybe they'll buy drugs or gamble), but that's because people are free to choose how they use it, and freedom is the ideal here. Ideally we don't need a social safety net, but because we do, it should be as simple as possible.

I happen to believe that freedom tends to create opportunity and improves outcomes, but that's not the primary goal.

Who else can properly manage public services?

I absolutely believe government should exist and will have a role to play in this. The goal should be minimal government involvement where competition can exist. Some things cannot be provided ethically by private, competitive companies, such as arrests, but many can.

Some examples:

• electricity (and perhaps water) - generation is private, last mile is public; cities basically buy electricity from suppliers with the goal of reliability and price
• roads - should be funded based on use, meaning vehicle registration taxes, gas taxes, tolls, etc, not subsidized with income taxes; this allows other methods of transportation to compete, like rail
• police - split force into two parts, those that don't need extra authority (could be privatized) and those that do (cannot be privatized); the former can handle citations, trespass, etc, and can only detain, not arrest, search, taze, shoot, etc; the latter would be the current police system, but with higher pay and expectations

Basically, how can we solve problems with less government/force?

how do you prevent corporations eroding rule of law?

Limit what the legislature can do and push regulations and whatnot to court precedence. I trust juries way more than legislators. The attorney general's main job should be to sue companies and set regulations by winning cases and setting precedent.

Legislatures want reelection, so campaign donations have a lot of sway, and that may be more effective than actually doing what constituents want. There's a clear conflict of interest there, so no wonder wealthy companies get their way.

An AG, on the other hand, could be compensated based on winning lawsuits. If they win a lot, they could make a ton of money, perhaps more than whatever the companies they're suing would be willing to pay. Individuals could also bring their own suit, so a bad AG would just push it onto the private sector, which is a check on the AG. And it's not just companies that could get sued, but the regulator bodies themselves, so it's a check on corruption there as well.

The important thing is that regular people decide what's reasonable, not elected legislators. Legislators should set the big picture (pollution is bad), courts get into specifics (pollution value X is too much), and companies respond by making risk-adjusted decisions (test to make sure pollution is sufficiently under X to avoid lawsuits).