Who should decide how to spend public funds?
Hardly a day goes by that we do not hear another news report about law
enforcement officers who are supposed-to-be public servants violently
assaulting the citizens who they are supposed to be protecting. (Until editors
decide that the story is old and they move on to the next hot topic. Then we'll
likely see those reports only if we look for them, or if an incident sparks an
uprising.)
We need law enforcement agencies that the people can trust. Citizens
must feel free to communicate with police officers and other public officials
when they see problems, and they must feel that talking to law enforcement
about criminal behavior will help bring positive results. This requires high
levels of trust in the police. It requires that the people trust that the law
is fair.
In order to thrive, our society requires healthy institutions
that have the people's trust. We need to be confident that governments and
public officials are operating in the public interest.
Would we be better-off with an alternative political paradigm that puts public funds directly into the hands of the people? Each of us might be asked to decide how to spend a small, equal fraction of the total public budget. We would spend in ways that we think will benefit society, with the condition that our choices must line up with the opinions of at least a significant portion of our fellow citizens. If I spend my share of public funds on things that, say, 50% of citizens feel promote the public interest... we could be pretty sure that my choices, whatever they are, will in fact promote the public interest at least somewhat and probably quite a bit. We can use public random surveys to know what people think regarding this or that public service (to find out to what extent people think particular services produce benefit for society and the larger environment).
We can create a paradigm that, in its very operation, directs people's attention to the question of how public funds are being and should be used. Imagine surveys that ask where more public funds should be directed, and where we should reduce public spending. Imagine random polls that show examples of people performing actions that aim to promote public interests. Shown in pairs, one example might be thought by most survey respondents to show a greater benefit than the other. Spending can be directed primarily to providers of services that are most highly rated.
If I put a large fraction (say 80%) of my share of public funds toward
support of programs and projects that eight-out-of-ten citizens agree promote
the public interest, I might be allowed more latitude in deciding how to use
the remainder of 'my' share of these funds. I might be free to use the remaining (20%) fraction to support programs that, say, 20% of citizens agree promote the
public interest. This question of what might benefit the community is a really
big question, and one about which
reasonable people will disagree. Within this paradigm, the most
widely-supported programs would receive the bulk of the public dollars (or
distributed-ledger crypto-currency), while other programs (more controversial or experimental
programs, perhaps) would have access to reduced but still significant
amounts of public funding.
If this idea of dispersing public policy decisions to all people is
adopted more generally, we could manage environmental impacts in ways that are
in accord with what most people think is acceptable. If we take a survey and
learn that most people think we would be better-off and that our children would
be better-off if we were to reduce carbon emissions by, say, 40% over the next
ten years and 40% more in the decade after that, then we should have a policy
that would bring about that reduction (about 5.5% per year). We can assume that
some people would want a greater-than-40% reduction, while others would want
less-rapid reduction or no reduction. Forty percent in ten years might reflect
the median or average opinion about what is acceptable. The amount endorsed by
average opinion would be the amount appropriate for a democratic society.
We could issue permits for fossil carbon emissions (or for extraction
of carbon) and auction the permits in a free market. The number of permits
offered would correspond to what most people think is acceptable. We can apply
this idea to the management of all kinds of human impact on the environment.
When the decision of how to spend public funds is put into the hands of
the people at large, no person will be forced to support a program with which
they have a philosophical disagreement. With a sliding-scale criterion for
eligibility, there would be no hard cut-off point for access to funds. No
program manager would have reason to be overly-concerned about achieving a
particular qualifying score (50%, for example). Instead, all managers and
providers of public services would have an abiding interest in improving their
service or efficiency, regardless of their current position on a public
approval ratings scale.
Within such a paradigm, we might expect to see broad support for public
sponsorship of secular (non-sectarian) schools, public parks, libraries,
scientific research, public health services and responsible law enforcement.
Imagine a public school system that allows students access to a budget that they can use to 'purchase' time at hands-on activities vs. lecture/discussion vs. art/music, gardening, etc. There is no reason why schools cannot create more than one environment for students to participate in that will nurture their development. We might have some students attending some lectures, engaging in some hands-on learning, some art, every day, while others participate mostly in (lower cost) lecture/discussion for three weeks straight in order to save up funds to be able to go on a spectacular field trip.
Imagine a public school system that allows students access to a budget that they can use to 'purchase' time at hands-on activities vs. lecture/discussion vs. art/music, gardening, etc. There is no reason why schools cannot create more than one environment for students to participate in that will nurture their development. We might have some students attending some lectures, engaging in some hands-on learning, some art, every day, while others participate mostly in (lower cost) lecture/discussion for three weeks straight in order to save up funds to be able to go on a spectacular field trip.
One clear advantage of secular (non-religious) schools is that we would be less likely or not-at-all
likely to find the teaching of an 'us-vs-them' mentality. We would be more
likely to see expressions of the idea that we are all Earthlings. We must work
together to make a healthy global community and to effectively meet the great challenges
that confront us.
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
@TallPhilosopher I'm not using Twitter so much, after learning that my replies were being relegated to the 'Offensive Tweets' backwater.
Discussion at Kialo: Discretionary taxation
Discussion at Kialo: Discretionary taxation
No comments:
Post a Comment