Ah, got it, thanks. My follow-up post describes one important reason to think this isn't "weird", namely, decentralized spending is truly decided/influenced by everyone, whereas government spending is effectively just decided by the winning party, who may not have any interest in representing the entire public.
I think there is some reason to expect that the public's values *as expressed by allocating a fixed sum of vouchers* could diverge importantly from the values they express when voting. (How many ppl would've funded the war i... (read more)
Yes, that sounds plausible.* If one didn't like this possible consequence, restrictions on eligible charities (e.g. to require non-locality) could change that.
*Though it's curious that most interest in politics is at a national rather than local level, by contrast.
Btw, I do very much appreciate feedback on this idea, so if the folks downvoting this post could take a moment to explain why, that would be most helpful. Thanks!
Hi Rohin, thanks for your comment. Can you clarify where you thought I was assuming that claim? I didn't intend to make any claims about what government is *supposed* to do. Rather, I claimed that (1) philanthropic spending can do more good than typical government spending, which gives us reason to want to incentivize philanthropic spending, but that (2) many people worry about the anti-democratic / inegalitarian effects of such incentives, which we can avoid by having the incentives take the form of philanthropic *vouchers* (that empower everyone equally) rather than tax deductions (which mostly empower the wealthy).