i am just writing some notes here.

you put the tax money into a central repo where it is voted by a
collective on its allocation. the downside is that majority vote doesn't
maximise utility of that resource, however it can allow allocation that
better serves the participates (disregarding corruption). this can
disenfranchise creative & energetic ppl by imposing limitations on what
they can accomplish.

an alt model is where you can invest your tax where you choose. this is
nice because it creates relationship between good being funded and
person funding the good, and puts the responsibility on the funder to
ensure the money is well spent. it's susceptible to corruption where
those with money have more market power. this can lead to development
which disenfranchises those with less money.

the third model is no common good, which isn't desirable as the means of
wealth production become privately owned, and people are rented. this
isn't really a free market as individuals are forced to sell their
labour at low prices to those who own the means of production, further
entrenching their position over the market. this doesn't hold true for
all industries, but where land or some resource is involved, it can lead
to corporate governance & private military.

when a public good is collectivised, governance is extremely susceptible
to political manipulation and becomes a magnet for corruption. to ensure
the process stays fair and just, requires a never ending loop of
bureaucracy and overseers. the political system itself becomes another
form of hierarchy.

private goods require impetus to promote individual rights over common
good. we can often lose utility here or expectation of a resource when
relations become adversial due to competitve incentives. this is a
social issue and doesn't always hold true. but in some cases it can
create extreme effects and lost potential value.
together with an environment where consumption is separated from
production, individuals lose responsibility due to lack of observation
about the hidden cost of actions, passing the buck (or brunt/blame) of
that cost onwards down the chain.

anyway these are my notes from observations in community and stuff.
i pefer we try to promote individual freedom wherever possible, but
sometimes, esp around common interest we require a consensus among those
participating parties. also i believe we can reach massive gains in self
organised governance using digital tools for transparency and
information. by promoting tools of governance, transparency and
informational resources, we can empower people with a strong form of
self governance that can scale massively.