Government primarily rules by two means: by managing tax collection resources and by creating laws and policies. By shifting a small portion of money back to the public, and allowing the public to be more involved in affairs for public welfare, gives a small amount of government responsibility back to the public.
By direct involvement, the public learns how to be more socially and democratically active, learning how to think in the sense of the community and what is good for others — not just what is good for single person. Therefore, Basic Tax Control is a way to allow society to achieve fairer and more direct democracy.
The main argument why power cannot be transferred to a wide population is mob behaviour. However, the reason why some societies become more liberal toward minorities and different races is due to advances in technology, communication, change of generations, shift in thinking, but also because the power was in the hands of a few who were enlightened enough to see the benefit in those changes. Increasing the rights of minorities is a very good example that not everything the government does is bad; we can argue that there were always opposite currents in government, and that this is not a rule but the exception. Still, we must ask what would happen if those decisions were left to uneducated masses of people. Many things would never happen, and we would still have widespread racism and oppression of different sexes.
A major hurdle to direct democracy ideas can be mob behaviour, so, meritocracy is still necessary, in some sense. In order to find a solution, society still needs the most skilful people for certain subjects and needs people that have multidisciplinary knowledge. Those most skilful people need to present solutions in simple, understandable ways and be open to discussion or scrutiny by peer reviews. From that point onward, the public would decide what is the best solution or approach.
This is similar to daily life: if we need to design a building, we would find an architect; if we need complex calculations, we would find a mathematician; if you need to examine material for certain properties, you would find a chemist. Every field has people with certain knowledge, and each type of knowledge can help. Science has become an integral part of our lives — no one can deny that — and it is neither good nor bad in itself. It is a tool to be used, and way we use it defines its nature. If we have moral questions, we would ask a theologian, philosopher, ethicist, or psychologist, or maybe even a religious monk — point being that every subject has people who have domain knowledge and who can help us when we get stuck with difficult questions.
Having experts proposing solutions does not mean that society is meritocratic; it only means that we will find solutions faster, and, whatever they find, the final decision will still lie in the hands of the general population.
Comments