Comments on: Participatory Budgeting: Towards Militant Citizenship

By: Bobo Bose-Kolanu

Bobo Bose-Kolanu — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:26:00 +0000

I think this idea about angel investors providing an “out” for socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending is pretty interesting. The argument I see against it is that some things should not be left to the whims of any individual. Nothing about being rich gives one more qualifications to make ethical decisions that impact others.

And to the point of persuading people of the value of diversity, well, the possibility of persuasion presupposes a democracy. To me it seems we either decide to believe in democracy, and figure this stuff out together, or we decide we don’t believe in democracy, and stop pretending (a la representative democracy, which I feel is a sham).

And I feel uncomfortable with this “not forcing people” claim. It seems to resonate with arguments made against school integration to support “separate but equal,” which of course was not equal but was ethically abhorrent.

Finally, if angel investors really were the answer, then there would already be angel investors swooping in to protect those less fortunate. Given America’s rising social inequality that’s clearly not happening. I think if we take the ideas of community, nation, and common good seriously, then we have to come together as the commons, as the people, and act together.

]]>

By: Bobo Bose-Kolanu

Bobo Bose-Kolanu — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:19:00 +0000

I’m just not sure it’s wise to split the people up too much. Voluntary association is cool and I’m for it, but certain things are bad and should be overcome: racism, sexism, etc. So people need to learn how to talk across differences and work that stuff out. Building civic engagement in participatory budgeting might afford a platform for that process to begin. Self-selecting affinity groups with their own private money pots reproduce and intensify pre-existing social ties, including hierarchies. That seems bad to me.

“Besides, if it’s voluntary, every last person gets a say in how much they are willing to contribute and what purposes they’ll help with. Democratic participation means 50% plus one sets both of those” — these are questions about taxation, which are good to raise and I’m not entirely sure how to respond to them.

The point about transparent taxation being dangerous for socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending still stands though (I know I provided sexual and reproductive rights as my example, which you probably disagree with, but I’m sure you can think of other examples which you would agree with).

]]>

By: Matt Cavedon

Matt Cavedon — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:19:00 +0000

Then I think you have to persuade people of the values of diversity, not force everyone into one big mess of a democratic commune. The latter will breed a lot of resentment, especially when the system is abused and denies people the right to provide for their own selves and families first. Charity and love are grown by expanding those first obligations and appealing to free will, not by trying to supplant them.

]]>

By: Matt Cavedon

Matt Cavedon — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:19:00 +0000

I think freedom is the fastest way to get socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending – you only need one angel donor, or a few like-minded Kickstarters, instead of half of everyone who cares to show up pissed at you (and I would be if abortion were the funding in question). Besides, that would mean you wouldn’t have to fund me plus 50%’s abstinence-only sex ed programming. Either of us could opt out even if the other won the vote tally.

]]>

By: Matt Cavedon

Matt Cavedon — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:18:00 +0000

Several voluntary pots versus one big one collected by the IRS. Yeah, if we’re talking a hippie commune, the line’s probably pretty blurry. But once you get to the point where you even have the hippies over here and the synagogue over there, I think there has to be plurality. Besides, if it’s voluntary, every last person gets a say in how much they are willing to contribute and what purposes they’ll help with. Democratic participation means 50% plus one sets both of those. That’s a dangerous way to foster a sense of entitlement, conformity, and utter suspicion over your neighbor’s every choice. Especially once you get the demagogues.

]]>

By: Bobo Bose-Kolanu

Bobo Bose-Kolanu — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:14:00 +0000

Okay. At some point though (and this is a debate I’ve been having with my “leftist” friends as well), the line between problem and solution blurs once the reform cuts deeply enough. I mean, what would be the difference between participatory budgeting, and a group of people coming together and voluntarily contributing money to a common pot and then using it to do things they wanted, deciding upon that in a participatory fashion?

There’s some difference, but I feel like it’s quite slight at that point…

]]>

By: Matt Cavedon

Matt Cavedon — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:13:00 +0000

Maybe in small doses, like managing a welfare budget already set, but I am hesitant for fear of it being captured by either a few demagogues or idiosyncrats.

]]>

By: Matt Cavedon

Matt Cavedon — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:07:00 +0000

I think it would lead to a total public grab of property for the sake of collectively-managed welfare, none of which I like. But it was interesting.

]]>