National Culture Investment Fund

[The Voice of Time]

Today the culture budget of different governments gets its spending direction from bureaucrats in complicated and complex systems of representative democracies. However, how well does this spending match what we, the citizens, really want? How can the bureaucrats know what we want? I think politics and the economy of a country or region is too big with too many factors that the mass of citizens can meaningfully assist in detailed spending direction all the time, however, I think we still deserve to have some influence, especially when it comes to things so much less technical like culture budgets.

Therefore I'd like to propose a means for which governments across the (especially) developed world can allow their citizens some opportunity to make meaningful contributions on their opinions and preferences. The idea is to form National Culture Investment Funds with an electoral voting system, using this fund the government will lay out say 4-12 major projects for culture development every year or biannually where they will give detailed information on the projects, including expected costs, environmental impact (including human habitat environment), and other details of interest, following a three layered detail system, with a quick-guide on the project website, and "expand" button and a lengthy pdf for the more deeper interested, with associated forums where you can talk directly with associated politicians and project experts (or make a for/against thread yourself). People will also have the option to vote for whether there should be an additional project (which could be desirable in wealthy or big countries), so that more than one project might be realized if the interest in the spending is great enough.

What do you think? Would you like to have such an opportunity in your country? Do you consider this an opportunity for democracy and for your voice to matter without too much bother?

[bobevenson]

It is not the function of government to own, operate, support or promote anything, my friend!

[The Voice of Time]

It is not the function of government to own, operate, support or promote anything, my friend!

And yet people elect governments that wants to do just that. Seems contradictory don't you think? Unless you think people don't have the right to vote in those people in power, of course...

[bobevenson]

It is not the function of government to own, operate, support or promote anything, my friend!

And yet people elect governments that wants to do just that. Seems contradictory don't you think? Unless you think people don't have the right to vote in those people in power, of course...

People elect other people to steal for them. Is this your idea of good government?

[The Voice of Time]

If you owned a flat, you could rent it off to somebody else to make money. If you own a country, you can take rent off the people living in that country, as a token of them enjoying your country. People own their country in collaboration, and they elect somebody to govern it for them, somebody to make up the rules so that the country people live in becomes a good country to live in. That government charges rent to pay for the effort of making a good country to live in and be part of.

If you don't like a country, and given that your country is free; you can move to another country. Or as in the US or Germany or India and so forth; you can move to another state within that country.

In a sense Bob, you first have to steal the land to proclaim that you do not intend to honour the social contract of your country and state, for the state to be able to steal from you in turn, but that again would be more like taking it back from the original thieve, which is you.

[bobevenson]

If you own a country, you can take rent off the people living in that country, as a token of them enjoying your country.

That sounds like early-American plantation owners in the deep South trying to rationalize slavery.

[The Voice of Time]

If you own a country, you can take rent off the people living in that country, as a token of them enjoying your country.

That sounds like early-American plantation owners in the deep South trying to rationalize slavery.

Only if you think that way.

[bobevenson]

If you own a country, you can take rent off the people living in that country, as a token of them enjoying your country.

That sounds like early-American plantation owners in the deep South trying to rationalize slavery.

Only if you think that way.

What do you mean, "Only if you think that way"? You're talking human trafficking, pure and simple, something the U.S. got rid of a long time ago.

[The Voice of Time]

Government taxes is human trafficking? And don't you have taxes in the US?

[tillingborn]

Wotcher Voice
I think it's a good idea. There was something similar tried here in the UK. One of the TV channels held a competition to select an architectural renovation project. A number of buildings that needed some money spent on them, were championed by people who felt passionate about them and the one that got the most votes won the restoration costs.
I think anything that raises awareness of culture is a good thing, even better to be directly involved in how our taxes are spent. In fact I see nothing wrong in broadening our franchise and extending your idea to health, education, defence, international policy etc etc; instead of having to wait four years to have a say.

[bobevenson]

Government taxes is human trafficking? And don't you have taxes in the US?

I guess I misunderstood you. Anyway, you talk about the government stealing land, which is obviously improper. But get qway from the term "rent," and talk about "taxes," which are needed for the proper operation of government. The only proper form of taxation is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

[The Voice of Time]

Wotcher Voice
I think it's a good idea. There was something similar tried here in the UK. One of the TV channels held a competition to select an architectural renovation project. A number of buildings that needed some money spent on them, were championed by people who felt passionate about them and the one that got the most votes won the restoration costs.
I think anything that raises awareness of culture is a good thing, even better to be directly involved in how our taxes are spent. In fact I see nothing wrong in broadening our franchise and extending your idea to health, education, defence, international policy etc etc; instead of having to wait four years to have a say.

Well the problem about health is that the layman has no understanding of public health besides his own rather narrow point of view (which depending on people can be nearly zero experience and be totally biased towards local decisions and individuals who happen to carry white suits and that has nothing to do with national policy), it gets very complicated and you need a lot of experience to deal with the weighing of ups and downs. At times people might think it's nice to have a say, because governments can make many mistakes, but statistically it doesn't make much sense for people with no insight into the workings of the system and which doesn't specialize in knowing the facts and understanding their consequences to make important decisions, it is a lot of work to make such decisions, that's one reason politicians spend so much time often making them. The same goes for education, defence and international policy. They are all much more important than culture, culture is a luxury that comes on top of more essential things like feelings of safety and opportunity, that is basically what the four mentioned ones are about (health, education, defence and international policy). Also, the more such funds exist the less effort will each one of us put into each fund and our votes will carry less meaning. The point is also that the fund itself is a luxury, it doesn't get a fixed amount from the culture budget but is instead taken directly from the central budget, so there will still be a culture budget for the government to use on what it, as representatives of its voters, feel needing to spend money on.

[The Voice of Time]

Government taxes is human trafficking? And don't you have taxes in the US?

I guess I misunderstood you. Anyway, you talk about the government stealing land, which is obviously improper. But get qway from the term "rent," and talk about "taxes," which are needed for the proper operation of government. The only proper form of taxation is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

You called taxes "stealing" ^^ Why should I not speak of "rent" when you speak of theft?

[bobevenson]

Government taxes is human trafficking? And don't you have taxes in the US?

I guess I misunderstood you. Anyway, you talk about the government stealing land, which is obviously improper. But get qway from the term "rent," and talk about "taxes," which are needed for the proper operation of government. The only proper form of taxation is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

You called taxes "stealing" ^^ Why should I not speak of "rent" when you speak of theft?

There's nothing wrong with taxation, it's needed for the proper operation of government. However, any taxation that goes beyond a single tax on property is an improper tax.

[tillingborn]

Well the problem about health is that the layman has no understanding of public health...

I don't think you would have to go too far in this forum to find people who would say the same about culture.

...it gets very complicated and you need a lot of experience to deal with the weighing of ups and downs...The same goes for education, defence and international policy.

It does get complicated, and the fact that even the experts can't agree, I think, is all the more reason to let the people decide. In education for example, is it fair that people with money and influence should be allowed to buy an education for their children that gives them an advantage over children who are less privileged, but may be better candidates? In defence, should we be part of a force that invades Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...? In international policy, in the UK, the UK independence party has recently had some success in local elections, putting pressure on the governing Tory party to consider offering a referendum on EU membership after the next election (the Lib/Dems can worry about it later if they hold the balance of power again). With regard to health, should people have the choice to decide the time and circumstances of their death or should they be forced to endure circumstances they would rather avoid?
I think there are lots of things to do with the day to day running of a nation that would be bogged down by constant public polls, but there are plenty of issues that are too important to leave to politicians.