“For the simple reason they don’t have all the necessary understanding, though many may have the capacity given the time and effort to acquaint themselves with the issue, many may not.”
A = ignorant people who know they are ignorant
B = ignorant people who don’t know they are ignorant
C = informed people
I took a look at your organization’s website and have absolutely no idea what it does. So, in this case, I’m an “A”. Even if you gave me the opportunity to vote on your organization’s budget, I probably wouldn’t bother doing so.
So the reason that you don’t allow everyone in your organization to vote on its budget is because… the majority of people in your organization are “As”? You really want to avoid tyranny of the ignorant?
Please give me a percentage breakdown of the people in your organization…
A = ?%
B = ?%
C = ?%
We disagree on quite a few things but I think we both would prefer it if all the informed people, and only the informed people, determined your organization’s budget.
I’ve tried to explain that replacing voting with spending would naturally filter out the As and the Bs. Of course we don’t have to worry about the As because they wouldn’t participate anyways. But when the Bs were given the opportunity to decide how much of their own money to spend on your organization’s budget then, with their own money on the line, they would be confronted with the hard cold truth of their ignorance. The Bs would be automatically transformed into As.
Way back in the day I was in the Army. It’s a really huge organization. I had the opportunity to work at every level of this organization in Afghanistan. In theory, the teams/units at the bottom level were supposed to push the most relevant information to the next level. This level was supposed to go through all the information it received and push the most relevant information to the next level… and so on until you have some general considering the most relevant information and using it to decide how to allocation troops and other resources.
Since I got to participate at every level, I had the opportunity to observe and grasp how terrible the flow of information was. The general certainly had a birds eyes view of things, but in this case the bird was mostly blind.
Allowing every member of this organization to vote on the budget would have been so incredibly stupid. The puzzle pieces weren’t equally important or relevant. Because of this, every member should have had the opportunity to spend their money on the budget. The balance would have been optimal and the war would have been quickly and easily won.
Except, if this system makes sense, which it does, it would make far more sense to allow taxpayers to use their taxes to determine the government’s entire budget.
You wanted me to address the study you shared about how people’s votes don’t count. Well… Trump is our president. If people’s votes were influenced by money… then you could solve this problem by abolishing money. Except you really don’t want to abolish money. You just want it to be more evenly distributed… but you don’t want the distribution to be perfectly even.
Your story is ridiculously incoherent.
Organizations exist to serve people’s needs. Obviously this depends on organizations actually knowing what people’s needs are. If organizations could read people’s minds, then that would be the end of the story. But organizations aren’t mind-readers. So in order for organizations to actually know people’s needs… people need a way to transmit this information to organizations.
What’s the best way for people to transmit information about their needs to organizations? Voting? Spending? Speaking? The correct answer is spending.
People should use their money to transmit information about their needs to organizations. Some organizations will receive more money than other organizations. This is because some organizations will do a better job of serving people’s needs. These organizations should have more control over society’s limited resources.
This economic system is relevant whether we’re talking about public goods or private goods. The only difference with public goods is that people should use their tax dollars to transmit information about their needs for these types of goods.
It all boils down to you using society’s limited resources and me using my money to accurately inform you of the amount of benefit that I derive from your behavior. That’s the story. It’s very simple and coherent.