mi_noi_noi

And you are conflating acquiring skills with education.

I am Norwegian and wonder how much of this is cultural. Most people here know that the rest of the world has much lower living standards. So for many it is perhaps rude or shameful to claim to be unhappy or dissatisfied.

I know it says "subjective happiness" in the report, but I still suspect it might be an influence.

Let's say we got to a point where every single individual has a bachelors or higher? What would that change? What about if everyone got a Masters or higher?

You think this will change anything? I doubt it, there would just be an increase in the job requirements due to credential inflation.

I think you are the one who is ahistorical. Even in the most failed of government systems, anarchist societies and black markets: people engange in economic activity ("earn money").

You don't even have to look at history, you can look around the world today with failed states and black markets. Wherever there are people there is economic activity ("earn money"). If there is no state, groups and individuals take upon themselves those roles which the state has monopoly in most places: protection of private property and dispute resolution. These two things are the most vital ingredients for economic activity.

> After all the ideas of money and the ideas of government are so deeply intertwined in their evolution that people haven't managed to separate them

You're just making an unfounded assertion. Many people separate economy and state, for good reason. Money have existed and exist today (cryptocurrencies for one example) irrespective of government.

What if you don't like any cities or states?

With charities you can always make your own. Don't have that option in your system.

I'm not American, but aren't some taxes that go to education/welfare/healthcare on a federal level? If so, are you going to tell people to leave the country? It's very expensive and for many practically impossible.

Besides, is the goal not here to spend the money as efficiently as possible? In that case we need as much competition and experimentation as possible. Something I think is achieved to a much higher degree with my system than yours.

Also, your suggestion still doesn't make it voluntary. In my system someone can not donate to charity, but use their money for something else. Charities are not the only way to help the worse off.

You could say charities are better in the sense that:

- You at least have more than one choice. If the charity you give to performs poorly by whatever metrics you value, you can give to another one next time.

- It is voluntary. Nobody with guns will put you in a cage if you don't donate to a charity, as is the case if you don't pay your taxes.