Part of my analysis is based on allowing as large a compatibility with our current economic models as possible. It would be classic reformist reasoning: in absence of signs of the revolution, as a legislator I hope to encourage incremental changes in our economic environment (which is rather based on business models) that encourage the exploration of new revenue streams for culture. If there is a way to make a culture financing regime independent of state control, it should be explored - I'm a great believer in decentralisation. Nevertheless, the state should take a considerably stronger position in enforcing competition in all possible sense of the word. Sadly, the traditional anti-trust rationale of competition law makes it far too easy to overlook what freedom we are actually looking for in our markets (which are actually a great many more than than the ones market actors with shares of more than 90% could potentially remove from us, ref.: the net neutrality debate).
I'm not adverse to the cultural financiation currently provided for by the state, and would not like to see it discontinued. I do however see tendencies of cultural funding from governments and also the European union being cut down, and my experience this far is that many of the other cultural projects of a large scale that I see are funded by one or two very large, global and private foundations. Again, the centralisation of these funding sources worry me. Realizing a regulatory environment where alternatives can crop up easily, swiftly and at low cost for all involved cannot be a bad idea.
I find taxation in general is quite planned: we plan to take some money from somewhere to redistribute it somewhere else. Do you have another term to describe that process?
Part of my analysis is based on allowing as large a compatibility with our current economic models as possible. It would be classic reformist reasoning: in absence of signs of the revolution, as a legislator I hope to encourage incremental changes in our economic environment (which is rather based on business models) that encourage the exploration of new revenue streams for culture. If there is a way to make a culture financing regime independent of state control, it should be explored - I'm a great believer in decentralisation. Nevertheless, the state should take a considerably stronger position in enforcing competition in all possible sense of the word. Sadly, the traditional anti-trust rationale of competition law makes it far too easy to overlook what freedom we are actually looking for in our markets (which are actually a great many more than than the ones market actors with shares of more than 90% could potentially remove from us, ref.: the net neutrality debate).
I'm not adverse to the cultural financiation currently provided for by the state, and would not like to see it discontinued. I do however see tendencies of cultural funding from governments and also the European union being cut down, and my experience this far is that many of the other cultural projects of a large scale that I see are funded by one or two very large, global and private foundations. Again, the centralisation of these funding sources worry me. Realizing a regulatory environment where alternatives can crop up easily, swiftly and at low cost for all involved cannot be a bad idea.
I find taxation in general is quite planned: we plan to take some money from somewhere to redistribute it somewhere else. Do you have another term to describe that process?