We don't allow it to tax that way. Either elections or legal challenges deprive
the government to those mechanisms. I believe the logic is that we've already
paid once through the income tax. We scream about taxes but ours are relatively
low. Of course, where the taxes are higher the taxees often get things like
health care and cost rental housing (although, if I understand that correctly,
government would have to supply 25-30% of housing instead of 3-4% as at present)
and careful, extensive land restriction in exchange for the taxation. Here, I
understand the theory is the free market will expoit every niche and provide. My
impression is that the mechanism of the free market is not actually to exploit
niches to provide but to exploit niches to make a profit, therefore if a segment
is unprofitable it e is a joke to expect the free market
to serve it. Hm. Re-reading that I believe that even the term "serve" isn't
appropriate. I like the flexibility and democracy of the market, but I believe
it to be utterly amoral and that government exists to counterbalance the market.
Where other social forces are strong, we can afford a relatively weak government
but where social forces have atrophied we must have a strong regulatory force.
Asking it to make profit just subverts it and cap
%RMS-W-BES, bad escape sequence
-MAIL-I-REENTER, please reenter last line as it was ignored
Asking it to make a profit just subverts it, makes it more vulnerable to the cap
ture phenomenon, and leaves us with more "free market". We need to educate our
clients and those around us that government can be inept but is not our enemy. I
like Jane Jacobs assessments on size, that about 100,000 is optimal for service
delivery. So how do we structure the "hundreds" then network them so they have
national reciprocity and enforcement power? WE should be teh ones to reinventt
government (not lawyers and architects, although believe me we have a HUGE role
in education and process) because we as citizens are the ones who sought the
regulation to protect us from those who have the power of money. Politics is ou
r weapon against the market but we need to know how to use it or it becomes the
tool of the regulated (NRC is a GOOD example, so is Dept. of Transportation).
Congress gave citizens a tool, a 1040EZ of a lawsuit mechanism, to force agencie
s to do what they are supposed to do. A lot of politically unpopular agencies l
ike EPA rely on and beg for those suits so they can do their job without budget
reprisals from Congress. Now , give me some feedback all you system savvy
architects, how should WE design so the delivery units are lean adn mean and
have big teeth?
the government to those mechanisms. I believe the logic is that we've already
paid once through the income tax. We scream about taxes but ours are relatively
low. Of course, where the taxes are higher the taxees often get things like
health care and cost rental housing (although, if I understand that correctly,
government would have to supply 25-30% of housing instead of 3-4% as at present)
and careful, extensive land restriction in exchange for the taxation. Here, I
understand the theory is the free market will expoit every niche and provide. My
impression is that the mechanism of the free market is not actually to exploit
niches to provide but to exploit niches to make a profit, therefore if a segment
is unprofitable it e is a joke to expect the free market
to serve it. Hm. Re-reading that I believe that even the term "serve" isn't
appropriate. I like the flexibility and democracy of the market, but I believe
it to be utterly amoral and that government exists to counterbalance the market.
Where other social forces are strong, we can afford a relatively weak government
but where social forces have atrophied we must have a strong regulatory force.
Asking it to make profit just subverts it and cap
%RMS-W-BES, bad escape sequence
-MAIL-I-REENTER, please reenter last line as it was ignored
Asking it to make a profit just subverts it, makes it more vulnerable to the cap
ture phenomenon, and leaves us with more "free market". We need to educate our
clients and those around us that government can be inept but is not our enemy. I
like Jane Jacobs assessments on size, that about 100,000 is optimal for service
delivery. So how do we structure the "hundreds" then network them so they have
national reciprocity and enforcement power? WE should be teh ones to reinventt
government (not lawyers and architects, although believe me we have a HUGE role
in education and process) because we as citizens are the ones who sought the
regulation to protect us from those who have the power of money. Politics is ou
r weapon against the market but we need to know how to use it or it becomes the
tool of the regulated (NRC is a GOOD example, so is Dept. of Transportation).
Congress gave citizens a tool, a 1040EZ of a lawsuit mechanism, to force agencie
s to do what they are supposed to do. A lot of politically unpopular agencies l
ike EPA rely on and beg for those suits so they can do their job without budget
reprisals from Congress. Now , give me some feedback all you system savvy
architects, how should WE design so the delivery units are lean adn mean and
have big teeth?