Comment: Agreed

(See in situ)


Agreed

in that a trial model is most practical although in discussion with would-be voters, I've advocated a different system where contributors to public amenities (ex. roads) receive confidential vouchers as confirmation (apologies for confusion), while those who haven’t lawfully forfeit their “appointable” prerogatives concerning said projects.

This in principle should safeguard minority endowers from non-contributing majorities who might take advantage of such generosity, while still providing motivation for citizens to benefit from their own applied work, or through chartered teams (ex. public parks).

Otherwise (and apologies for missing previously) I have often pointed out a significant criticism in Libertarian ideology, which forgoes the ideal of public domain/(‘anarchical chaos’); [I prefer the term “Dignitarian” for raising the status of conscionable choice instead].

Further arguing that public domain is identified by conscientious endowment when individual parties interact/(‘overlapping territories’), a higher virtue is achieved (and resolves the ‘problem’ of competing interests) since for example and going back to public roads, any citizen can ride for free.

Hence, private and commercial spheres (inc. companies) are at odds with public value and without principled governance safeguarding individual agency, profit objectives can readily lead to the despotism of a corporate state (ex. ‘papers, please’ becomes ‘receipts, please’ on every street corner).

In any case, I am heartened to see that others have found validity in similar ideas.