The article makes some fairly sweeping assumptions.

"Very little has been achieved in the way of real “open source” government even with citizens proposing, critiquing, ranking, choosing and collaborating on legislation, projects or funding decisions."

Since when did we-the-people agree to "open source" government?

When was our system of representative democracy junked, in favour of a form of open outcry amongst the new elite, Web 2.0 Twits?

Yes, the present system has its flaws. But that does not automatically give uncritical free-rein to a replacement process.

Especially one whose main attraction is that it is "cool".

The extent to which this new world order is limited to the linked-in is clear from the author's condescension to the rest of the world.

"Voters can also vote at the Electorate office and where there is even a boring old paper for those who can’t or won’t go online but still want to vote."

Sneer. "Can't or won't go online". Yep, they deserve to be disenfranchised, the bunch of lazy Luddites. Make 'em front up to the "Electoral Office", that'll larn 'em. Specially as they won't be able to find it without Google Maps. Tee hee.

"Citizens choose how to spend public money" is a political philosophy, not a technology play.

Web 2.0, or any other number for that matter, should not be allowed to dictate the way any government allocates our taxes.

The most instructive line in the article is this one.

"Getting citizens properly involved in how their government is run works in Brazil because they give people some actual cash to play with"

See, it only works if the cash is already collected, and "in the pot".

How's this for a fairer alternative

Use participatory budgeting ahead of time.

Ask citizens beforehand where they would like their taxes to go, then commit to the programs they choose.

And only those.

Just think of all those useless Departments that would have to be disbanded.

But it won't happen, because we'll be distracted by all this really cool technology, and forget what democracy really is.

Pericles has hit the nail on the head.

Since the entire justification for government in the first place is that it “represents” the people, what justification can there be, in the authors' own terms, for withholding any decision-making authority from the people?

“citizens of the electorate of Heathcote will be asked to allocate a pool of “economic stimulus” community grants to the causes they think most deserving.”

And will you, in the same process, ask the same citizens, whether each consents to the money being taken from him or her in the first place? If not, why not? Can you account to each taxpayer for the amount that was taken from him or her personally for this expenditure? If not, why not?

Why should those who did not make any contribution towards this revenue have an equal vote with those who did? This state of affairs was unavoidable under (un)representative democracy, but what justification can there be for its continuance now that the web has made possible direct voting on the proposed actions of government?

Peter Hume your comment is basically saying that the poor dont have any rights to a say and only rich people should be able to contribute to running society. Pretty fascist argument in my book.

mkk
Fascist actually means those who are *in favour of* greater centralised government control of society and business, not those who are against it and in favour of greater freedom.

People usually proceed by personal argument because they have no better argument to put, but perhaps you are different.

Revenue and expenditure are two sides of the same ledger. So it is perfectly reasonable to ask why government would graciously permit the people to make a decision on one, without the other.

Try this thought experiment: the people will be permitted to make a decision on whether the tax is taken in the first place, but not a decision to vote themselves a benefit paid for with money taken from someone else. What do you think would happen?

The class struggle between the "rich" and the "poor" is fake. The real class struggle is between the productive tax-paying class, and the tax-consuming class. There is no reason why people should be able to use force or threats to help themselves to other people's property.

Hume: <"The class struggle between the "rich" and the "poor" is fake. The real class struggle is between the productive tax-paying class, and the tax-consuming class. There is no reason why people should be able to use force or threats to help themselves to other people's property.">

There is plenty of unpaid, and therefore untaxed, labour that makes it possible for the rest of the economy to function. For example, carers of ageing parents, children, people who are unwell or disabled; volunteers who provide services such as environmental clean up; tree planting; meals on wheels; hospital fund raising and canteens; membership or attendance at many clubs that raise money - surf life saving is one; Country Women's is another. Home makers who care for the home and children make it possible for wage earners to go to the workplace.

At the same time, there are tax breaks for many businesses and high earners. There are also banking and investment benefits for people with high incomes and cash and stock credits (like no bank fees and interest credits); while people with meagre incomes pay transaction fees.

Lastly, every individual pays taxes - goods and services; VAT, for example. As long as a citizen is purchasing groceries, clothes and paying rent they are also paying tax.

As to how taxes are spent; or only *direct payers benefiting - which taxpayer/s paid for national highways and roads ? Should the use be restricted to only people who paid for them? How about schools ? Hospitals ? Footpaths and piped water ?

All levels of government have diversified sources of revenue - direct taxation is only one and those individual contributions are made possible by of all the untaxed labour that goes into alleviating paid workers of other social obligations.

It was interesting to see this OLO article mentioned in the Sydney Sun Herald of 27 September. An item on page five, very prominently headlined 'Rees like 12yo with Tourettes, says Labor MP', by NSW Political Editor Lisa Carty, in its very first paragraph, billed it as an attack upon the NSW Premier, Nathan Rees. She immediately proceeded to very carefully misquote the remarks, attributing them to just one of the OLO article's two authors, Paul McLeay, the NSW Legislative Assembly member for Heathcote.

Lisa Carty wrote:

"A disgruntled state (sic) Labor MP has attacked his own Premier, saying Twitter makes him behave like a "12-year-old with Tourettes"."

Lisa Carty also, later in her item, wrote:

"Mr McLeay, ........, posted his comments on On Line Opinion, a website that "aims to provide a forum for public social and political debate about current Australian issues", on Wednesday."

The relevant remarks in the OLO article (this one, 'Web 2.0: citizens choose how to spend public money') were:

"Meanwhile back at the ranch in Australia, Gov 2.0 remains pretty Gov 1.0 with the government unwilling to give citizens any real authority, instead sticking to the old paradigm of surveys and “feedback”; the Prime Minister perpetually spamming everyone on Facebook; and the Premier tweeting with the energy of a 12-year-old with Tourettes."

The real remarks cast Nathan Rees as active, the misquoted ones as passive, with respect as to the use of Twitter.

Did Lisa Carty think nobody would pick up on that, I wonder? Not that I am any fan of the present NSW government, or even of Paul McLeay's version of 'participatory democracy' as described in the OLO article - in fact I think the poverty of their performance is exceeded only by that of the political journalism of the mainstream media.

With respect to the subject of the article itself, I'd reiterate Pericles' excellent suggestion:

"Use participatory budgeting ahead of time.

Ask citizens beforehand where they would like their taxes to go, then commit to the programs they choose.

And only those."

Pynchme
"There is plenty of unpaid, and therefore untaxed, labour that makes it possible for the rest of the economy to function."

The fact that people engage in consent-based relationships is not any kind of justification for people to engage in coercion-based relationships. The fact that the consent-based relationships are productive, and enable people to be productive, still supplies no justification whatsoever for coercion-based relationships.

"At the same time, there are tax breaks for many businesses and high earners."

That is an argument against tax breaks for many businesses and high earners, not an argument in favour of taxing productive people to bribe political pets for votes. Many of these tax break themselves come from the tax deductibility of expenses. In other words, they are not because politicians are trying to favour businesses, they are because, if the state tries to take any more, the entire economy will collapse, so they are forced to make expenses tax deductible.

That is an argument in favour of reducing taxes, not increasing them.


"There are also banking and investment benefits for people with high incomes and cash and stock credits (like no bank fees and interest credits); while people with meagre incomes pay transaction fees."

These are not the result of public policy but of private property. If what you are saying were justified, then the abolition of private property would be justified.

"Lastly, every individual pays taxes - goods and services; VAT, for example. As long as a citizen is purchasing groceries, clothes and paying rent they are also paying tax."

That is a description, not a justification of paying tax.

"As to how taxes are spent; or only *direct payers benefiting - which taxpayer/s paid for national highways and roads ? Should the use be restricted to only people who paid for them? How about schools ? Hospitals ? Footpaths and piped water ?"

That only begs the question whether, and which services should be paid for by taxation. It is not a justification of existing taxation, let alone of extending it.