I think their first point is different than just free markets. It was about shifting the locus of control from the government, to the individuals.
1) Instead of having the money taken from you and begging the administration to do what you want, let people decide what they want, and voluntarily collaborate using the tools and organizations they choose.
This may be the government or another organization, but the individual would have the power to withdraw their support unilaterally. Essentially make more social investment and participation voluntary.
This would be a shifting of the power downwards and a decentralization.
Switzerland is an interesting case study for this. Approximately 70% of all taxes go to the Canton or lower levels (comparable to a US state county). This means the vast majority of tax spending and oversight occurs locally.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If I want social investment, a new school, or transportation, my money goes all the way to the capital, and then I have to fight to have my voice heard among 350 million Americans fighting for attention. I'm arguing against another citizen 2 thousand miles away through dozens of proxies and bureaucrats.
I recognize that some activities benefit from economies of scale, but many don't, or suffer diseconomies of scale.
You got it right. Republicans want more power in private hands so they decide most things. It's also voluntary as you said.
Thanks for the information about Switzerland's local-first model of taxation. That's really interesting. It might help us over here for the exact reasons you said.
As you might expect, they have some of the best infrastructure in Europe, and attribute this partially to the local control. I would be much more willing to vote for infrastructure taxes if they were tied to a specific local project I could see with my else than some nebulous promise.
There is an inverse example in California school spending.
In 1972, California Senate Bill 90 (SB 90), was passed in 1972 to place limitations on using local taxes to fund local schools and centralize school funding at the state level. In 1978, citizens responded by passing now famous Proposition 13 to set statewide limits on property taxes.
SB 90 weakened the link between what property owners paid and the quality of their local schools. This made residents less willing to property taxes and fund schools at all, since they had less say in how the money was spent.
The better school districts in California are now tied to private organizations to get around both SB90 and prop 13. Local parents pay into a non-governmental fund that will purchase buildings and run programs in the schools, allowing their money to stay local.
1) Instead of having the money taken from you and begging the administration to do what you want, let people decide what they want, and voluntarily collaborate using the tools and organizations they choose.
This may be the government or another organization, but the individual would have the power to withdraw their support unilaterally. Essentially make more social investment and participation voluntary.
This would be a shifting of the power downwards and a decentralization.
Switzerland is an interesting case study for this. Approximately 70% of all taxes go to the Canton or lower levels (comparable to a US state county). This means the vast majority of tax spending and oversight occurs locally.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If I want social investment, a new school, or transportation, my money goes all the way to the capital, and then I have to fight to have my voice heard among 350 million Americans fighting for attention. I'm arguing against another citizen 2 thousand miles away through dozens of proxies and bureaucrats.
I recognize that some activities benefit from economies of scale, but many don't, or suffer diseconomies of scale.