# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Tax Choice - Pragmatarianism - Calling Xerographica

## r3volution 3.0

I noticed some of Xerographica's threads recently and starting thinking about tax choice, and his particular version of it, which he calls pragmatarianism.

For those unfamiliar, just search the forum for "tax choice," there must be a couple dozen threads on the topic going back several years. 

The proposal, if I understand it correctly, is:
(1) The government will determine tax liabilities
(2) The government will provide a list of programs which can be funded
(3) Taxpayers may allocate their tax liability amongst these programs however they like

Correct me if I'm wrong X.

I have some objections, beginning with this:




> The trick  is to consider the allocation disparities between the Callocation  (current allocation), Pallocation (pragmatarian allocation) and  Aallocation (anarcho-capitalist allocation).
> 
> 
> Callocation: 50% allocative efficiency,  private sector is efficiently allocated while the public sector is  inefficiently allocated*Pallocation: 75% allocative efficiency, private sector and public sector would both be efficiently allocated*Aallocation: 100% allocative efficiency (the resources in the public market would have been integrated into the private market)


The underlined bit is the problem. 

Under P-ism, resources in the public sector are not optimally allocated. The total amount allocated to the public sector as a whole is politically determined (rather than expressing consumer demand), and the enterprises amongst which those resources may be allocated are political determined (rather than expressing consumer demand); and so the taxpayers' allocation choices do not reflect their actual valuations of the programs receiving the funds (the problem is worse if taxpayers and consumers are not perfectly coincident). 

It's the equivalent of (actually, is) voting to determine what restaurants will exist, how much each person must spend on restaurants, but allowing people to choose at which of the permitted restaurants he may spend the required funds. This is not (except by accident) going to reflect consumer demand for restaurants, and so this is a sub-optimal resource allocation. 

And, if P-ism does not lead to an optimal allocation of resources in the public sector, but just a different sub-optimal allocation from the current situation, why would it be better?

Some other objections:

1. Markets cannot satisfy consumer demand unless consumers get feedback about whether their choices lead to their demands being satisfied. I buy a jar of pasta sauce, it taste like crap - boom, instant feedback. I don't buy that brand again. The market adjusts accordingly. It's the same, to varying degrees, with all market produced goods and services. But for political "goods" and "services" things are quite different. Under P-ism, some leftist allocates money toward more economic regulation, under the illusion this is going to make for greater prosperity in some way. We all know it will have the opposite effect. But will this leftist realize that? Assuming he even personally notices the negative effects, will he attribute that to the regulation? If not, then this "market" is not working. If so, then why wouldn't the leftist realize the negative effects of regulation under the _present_ system and change his _voting_ behavior? So, either way, how is P-ism an improvement?

2. In the same vein, how would lobbying by special interests be any different? If voters can be convinced that subsidies to some solar energy company are necessary to prevent New York City from flooding, or whatever nonsense they believe, why couldn't taxpayer/allocators be similarly deceived? The reason both could/would be deceived is, as I noted above, that they don't understand the cause and effect of the thing. They cannot see that the subsidies don't solve the (alleged) problem they wanted to solve, nor that they cause other problems. The current system isn't a problem because voters intentionally vote for harmful policies - they don't realize they're harmful. How does P-ism solve that problem?

3. Again in the same vein, less popular programs receiving less funding is not equivalent to less destructive programs receive less funding. That would require consumers to know which programs are more/less destructive, which they obviously don't (if they did, they'd vote accordingly and P-ism would be superfluous).

...that's enough for now.

P.S. One more thing, actually. Let's look at a particular example of a  current problem, and see how/whether P-ism would solve it - the welfare  state (and I mean welfare for the masses, not corporate welfare). It  seems at first glance as though this would be impossible under P-ism,  which would be great. But that's not really the case. It's not as if,  under the current system, only net-welfare recipients vote for welfare  programs. Lots of people who would be materially better off vote for  them too, God knows why. But this wouldn't change under P-ism. What  about the people who are currently forced to pay for welfare but would  rather not? Surely they would allocate their tax dollars toward  something else, and so welfare spending would drop? If not  enough welfare money is coming in, couldn't the government (ostensibly  dominated by pro-welfare representatives) just keep increasing taxes? If  they don't at the same time change the allocating options, and people  keep allocating to different programs in the same proportions, won't  more money be available for welfare? If that's correct, it means that the  same welfare system could be maintained under P-ism, but actually at a  higher total cost - i.e. to get a $100 billion increase in welfare, the  government might have to raise taxes by $200 billion, since only a  fraction of the new taxes will be allocated by taxpayers toward  welfare. Note that it'd be the same for all programs. Whenever the government wants to increase spending for one program, it just jacks up taxes until it gets the amount it needs - but it has in the process increased spending for everything else as well.[/QUOTE]

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I'm fairly practical, but I can't get behind this.  Sounds like one notch better than people who demand potholes be fixed.

Also, practicality without principle is dead.  Tracing your practicality back eventually leads to a void.

----------


## Henry Rogue

Really, 1150 posts dedicated to tax choice and you have questions?

----------


## Ronin Truth

My choice, *TAXATION IS THEFT*!   GRRRRR!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> 1. Markets cannot satisfy consumer demand unless consumers get feedback about whether their choices lead to their demands being satisfied. I buy a jar of pasta sauce, it taste like crap - boom, instant feedback. I don't buy that brand again. The market adjusts accordingly. It's the same, to varying degrees, with all market produced goods and services. But for political "goods" and "services" things are quite different. Under P-ism, some leftist allocates money toward more economic regulation, under the illusion this is going to make for greater prosperity in some way. We all know it will have the opposite effect. But will this leftist realize that? Assuming he even personally notices the negative effects, will he attribute that to the regulation? If not, then this "market" is not working. If so, then why wouldn't the leftist realize the negative effects of regulation under the _present_ system and change his _voting_ behavior? So, either way, how is P-ism an improvement?


Very nice post, this is.  Your point 1 is particularly thoughtful.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Thanks Helmuth




> Really, 1150 posts dedicated to tax choice and you have questions?


I read through many (admittedly not all) of those threads before posting. I did not see anyone raise these particular objections.

But if they _have_ already been raised, and answered by X, show me where and I'll happily close this thread.

Otherwise, if the subject just doesn't interest you, you don't have to comment, eh?

----------


## CCTelander

Isn't "tax choice" a bit like being told "well, we're still gonna gang rape ya boy, but at least you get to choose the position"?

----------


## Xerographica

Howdy.  I would have allocated $0.50 cents to this thread that you created!  But I can't!  Can I?  Does paypal allow me to send you two quarters?  Even if it does... the transaction/opportunity costs are too high.  

Lookit...

21 April 2015 - What About Micropayments?

26 April 2015 - Valuing vs Liking Stories

27 April 2015 - Micropayments Here, There, Everywhere?

30 April 2015 - Micropayments For Threads?

Would the Ron Paul Forums work better if it facilitated (micro)payments?  Clearly I think so while most others do not.  Just like I think that P-ism is a good idea while most others do not.  Coincidence?  Nope.  A market is a market whether it's in a website or in the public sector.  And clearly too few people appreciate the value of markets.  Most people aren't members of the Ron Paul Forums because they love markets... they are here because they hate taxes.  And this is why pragmatarianism > libertarianism.  




> The proposal, if I understand it correctly, is:
> (1) The government will determine tax liabilities
> (2) The government will provide a list of programs which can be funded
> (3) Taxpayers may allocate their tax liability amongst these programs however they like
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong X.


(1) Congress determines the tax rate.  Congress is a government organization (GO).  Tax choice is where taxpayers can choose how much money they give to GOs.  Therefore, you, a taxpayer, would decide how much of your taxes you give to congress (the GO that's in charge of the tax rate).  If you're happy with the tax rate, then you'd give some of your tax dollars to congress.  If you're unhappy with the tax rate then you'd boycott congress.  Congress, like all GOs, would want to maximize, rather than minimize, its revenue.  Therefore, the tax rate at which congress maximized its revenue would be the optimal tax rate.

(2) Congress isn't only in charge of the tax rate ..it's also in charge of laws and impersonal shopping.  What happens if people are happy with the laws but unhappy with the tax rate and impersonal shopping?  There would be incentive/pressure for congress to split into three separate organizations...one responsible for laws, one responsible for the tax rate and one responsible for impersonal shopping.  An increase in options is the logical consequence of consumer choice.  Around 40 years ago the typical grocery store carried around 9,000 different items.  Now it's up to 40,000 different items.  Why?  Consumer choice.  

(3) At any time during the year you could go to the EPA website and make a tax payment of any amount directly to the EPA.  The EPA would give you a receipt and you'd submit all your receipts to the IRS by April 15.  Anybody not interested in directly allocating their taxes would have the option of having their impersonal shoppers (congress) spend their money for them.  




> Under P-ism, resources in the public sector are not optimally allocated.


Are resources in this forum optimally allocated?  No!  This forum doesn't facilitate micropayments... so right now there's $0.50 cents in my pocket that should be in your pocket.  This is an inefficient allocation of quarters.  Quarters are inefficiently allocated in this forum.  Do you care about the efficient (optimal/valuable) allocation of resources?

P-ism (pism?  prism?) is premised on the assumption that everybody wants a free lunch.  We all want the most bang for our buck.  This works great for private goods but with collective goods, like forum threads, then free-riding is possible.  And if too many people free-ride... then it's possible that public goods would be undersupplied.  

Right now I'm free-riding.  My valuation of this thread ($0.50 cents) is greater than my allocation to this thread ($0.00).  Because incentives matter... the fact that I'm not giving you $0.50 cents logically results in you having less incentive to create more threads/posts on the same awesome topic.  Will $0.50 cents really make a difference in how many threads you produce/supply on a certain topic?  The chance is slim.  But again, everybody wants a free lunch.  Everybody has an incentive not to chip in if they don't have to.  This means it's not unreasonable to conclude that the free-rider problem necessitates some form of collective coercion.  

So if you assume that the free-rider problem isn't a problem... then yes, any type of coercion will result in the inefficient allocation of society's limited resources.  But if you assume that the premise of the free-rider problem is entirely reasonable (everybody wants a free lunch) then some coercion can improve the allocation of resources.  But the improvement can only be possible when people can choose which collective goods they allocate their hard-earned money to.  




> The total amount allocated to the public sector as a whole is politically determined (rather than expressing consumer demand),


Again, it wouldn't be politically determined... it would be determined by congress's (GO in charge of the tax rate) desire to maximize its revenue.  Whether its revenue was maximized with a high or low tax rate would reflect taxpayers' perception of the depth/breadth of the free-rider problem.  If we turned this forum into a better market by facilitating (micro)payments... and I'm the only one allocating pennies... then either I'm the only one deriving value from threads or everybody else is a free-rider.  If people suspect the latter is true... then they'll financially support congress for setting a reasonably high tax rate.  




> and the enterprises amongst which those resources may be allocated are political determined (rather than expressing consumer demand);


Again, the options in the public sector would be determined in much the same way as the options in a grocery store are determined.  The grocery store isn't going to keep an item on the shelf if too few people allocate their money to it.  A public good isn't going to remain on the "shelf" if too few people allocate their tax dollars to it.




> and so the taxpayers' allocation choices do not reflect their actual valuations of the programs receiving the funds (the problem is worse if taxpayers and consumers are not perfectly coincident).


With the current system, pacifists are forced to fund war.  This is the forced rider problem...

allocation > valuation

Would pragmatarianism eliminate the forced rider problem?  No, but it would significantly reduce it.  

If this forum facilitated micropayments would it eliminate the free-rider problem?

allocation < valuation

No, but it would significantly reduce it.  I'm not free-riding because I want to... I'm free-riding because it's not stupid easy for me to allocate money to the threads that I value.  




> It's the equivalent of (actually, is) voting to determine what restaurants will exist, how much each person must spend on restaurants, but allowing people to choose at which of the permitted restaurants he may spend the required funds. This is not (except by accident) going to reflect consumer demand for restaurants, and so this is a sub-optimal resource allocation.


Tax choice is the equivalent of this forum charging members $12/year but allowing us to allocate our money to the threads that we value most.  Generally our valuations reflect scarcity of things that match our preferences.  If there were a gazillion thoughtful posts on tax choice... then I probably wouldn't value this thread at $0.50 cents.  Right now I'm willing to pay more because I perceive a shortage (scarcity) of good threads on a topic that matches my preferences.  We reward/incentivize the producers who supply the things that we perceive that there's a shortage of.  Therefore, (micro)payments (allocation) is how we overcome scarcity.  




> 1. Markets cannot satisfy consumer demand unless consumers get feedback about whether their choices lead to their demands being satisfied. I buy a jar of pasta sauce, it taste like crap - boom, instant feedback. I don't buy that brand again. The market adjusts accordingly. It's the same, to varying degrees, with all market produced goods and services. But for political "goods" and "services" things are quite different. Under P-ism, some leftist allocates money toward more economic regulation, under the illusion this is going to make for greater prosperity in some way. We all know it will have the opposite effect. But will this leftist realize that? Assuming he even personally notices the negative effects, will he attribute that to the regulation? If not, then this "market" is not working. If so, then why wouldn't the leftist realize the negative effects of regulation under the _present_ system and change his _voting_ behavior? So, either way, how is P-ism an improvement?


Heh.  You allocated your money to a jar of crappy pasta sauce.  If this forum facilitated (micro)payments... would you allocate your money to a thread that tastes like crap?  Of course not.  See the difference?  




> The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price. - Mark J. Perry, Why Socialism Failed


Consider this forum...

A. Current system
B. Facilitated (micro)payments
C. Facilitated (micro)payments + $1/year minimum allocation requirement (MAR)
D. Facilitated (micro)payments + $6/year MAR
E. Facilitated (micro)payments + $12/year MAR
F. Facilitated (micro)payments + $24/year MAR
G. Facilitated (micro)payments + $48/year MAR
H. Facilitated (micro)payments + $100/year MAR

Which system would transmit the most accurate information about relative scarcity of important/valuable/beneficial threads?  

Now imagine that every forum in the world facilitated micropayments and experimented with different MARs.  What would happen?  Every forum would be a market and the forum/market with the most optimal MAR would transmit the most accurate information about relative scarcity.  As a result, this forum would overcome relative scarcity the fastest.  Which means that more people would choose to be a member of this forum.  

Less accurate information transmission about relative scarcity -> more time required to overcome scarcity
More accurate information transmission about relative scarcity -> less time required to overcome scarcity




> 2. In the same vein, how would lobbying by special interests be any different? If voters can be convinced that subsidies to some solar energy company are necessary to prevent New York City from flooding, or whatever nonsense they believe, why couldn't taxpayer/allocators be similarly deceived? The reason both could/would be deceived is, as I noted above, that they don't understand the cause and effect of the thing. They cannot see that the subsidies don't solve the (alleged) problem they wanted to solve, nor that they cause other problems. The current system isn't a problem because voters intentionally vote for harmful policies - they don't realize they're harmful. How does P-ism solve that problem?


Markets wouldn't work very well if influence wasn't a function of diligence.  If I fail to do my homework and start a forum that there's absolutely no demand for... then I'd diminish my influence.  

If there's a mountain of conclusive evidence that solar energy companies shouldn't be subsidized... but a lot of people allocate a lot of tax dollars to solar companies anyways... then your issue isn't with tax choice... it's with markets in general.  




> 3. Again in the same vein, less popular programs receiving less funding is not equivalent to less destructive programs receive less funding. That would require consumers to know which programs are more/less destructive, which they obviously don't (if they did, they'd vote accordingly and P-ism would be superfluous).


Using ignorance to critique tax choice is like using obesity to critique exercise and eating healthy.  If you prevent people from exercising and eating healthy then of course they are going to end up obese.  If you prevent people from choosing how their tax dollars are spent then of course they are going to be largely ignorant of the effectiveness of public policy/programs.  

This results in a catch 22 situation for tax choice.  The solution is for forums and other websites to facilitate micropayments.  This will help people understand the value/benefit/importance of everybody transmitting more accurate information about relative scarcity.  

All it would take is one successful (micro)payments forum to get the ball rolling.  




> P.S. One more thing, actually. Let's look at a particular example of a  current problem, and see how/whether P-ism would solve it - the welfare  state (and I mean welfare for the masses, not corporate welfare). It  seems at first glance as though this would be impossible under P-ism,  which would be great. But that's not really the case. It's not as if,  under the current system, only net-welfare recipients vote for welfare  programs. Lots of people who would be materially better off vote for  them too, God knows why. But this wouldn't change under P-ism. What  about the people who are currently forced to pay for welfare but would  rather not? Surely they would allocate their tax dollars toward  something else, and so welfare spending would drop? If not  enough welfare money is coming in, couldn't the government (ostensibly  dominated by pro-welfare representatives) just keep increasing taxes? If  they don't at the same time change the allocating options, and people  keep allocating to different programs in the same proportions, won't  more money be available for welfare? If that's correct, it means that the  same welfare system could be maintained under P-ism, but actually at a  higher total cost - i.e. to get a $100 billion increase in welfare, the  government might have to raise taxes by $200 billion, since only a  fraction of the new taxes will be allocated by taxpayers toward  welfare. Note that it'd be the same for all programs. Whenever the government wants to increase spending for one program, it just jacks up taxes until it gets the amount it needs - but it has in the process increased spending for everything else as well.


I've already addressed these points.  But, it's said that redundancy is key to learning...

1. Diligence and influence are positively correlated in markets.  If you want to argue that a lot of people would allocate a lot of their hard-earned tax dollars to defective welfare programs then again, your issue isn't with tax choice... it's with markets in general.  

2. The more money that welfare received... the more welfare that would be supplied.  The relative scarcity of welfare would decrease.  Welfare would be less and less scarce... more and more abundant.  If you want to argue that people would allocate the same amount of money to welfare regardless of its relative scarcity... then again, your issue isn't with tax choice... it's with markets in general.

3. A. Congress would be in charge of the tax rate B. taxpayers could choose where their taxes go C. congress would lose revenue if the tax rate doesn't accurately reflect taxpayers' perception regarding the relative scarcity of public goods (ie welfare).  If people perceive a shortage of welfare, but congress lowers the tax rate... then congress would lose money.  If people perceive a surplus of welfare, but congress raises the tax rate... then congress would lose money.  And if you want to argue that congress wouldn't be properly incentivized to determine the optimal tax rate then again, your issue isn't with tax choice... it's with markets in general.

If you don't perceive the value/benefit/importance of this forum facilitating (micro)payments then you're definitely not going to perceive the value/benefit/importance of the public sector facilitating payments.  Either you understand the value/benefit/importance of individuals transmitting/communicating accurate information about relative scarcity... or you don't.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Consider this forum...
> 
> A. Current system
> B. Facilitated (micro)payments
> C. Facilitated (micro)payments + $1/year minimum allocation requirement (MAR)
> D. Facilitated (micro)payments + $6/year MAR
> E. Facilitated (micro)payments + $12/year MAR
> F. Facilitated (micro)payments + $24/year MAR
> G. Facilitated (micro)payments + $48/year MAR
> ...



Is this example for illustrative purposes only?  If not, then I think this is an impractical example.

Nobody is really going to pay to view forum threads.  There are several reasons, first of which is that many people don't even read a lot of other posts.  That's embodied in the phrase, "I didn't read all the posts, but..."  People are more interested in giving their opinion than listening to others.  Especially on forums.

These forums and other sites are also a dime-a-dozen.  "Blogs" are like the proverbial $#@! because everybody has one.  Every person thinks everyone else is reading his "blog."

There is also far too much competition in telecommunications.  The trend is free sites supported by ads and donations just because of the intense competition.  An increase of forums, blogs, websites, etc. mean quality drastically decreases.

Other reasons, too.  Please disregard my comments if you were using that just to illustrate a point.

----------


## Xerographica

> Is this example for illustrative purposes only?  If not, then I think this is an impractical example.


Liberty.me charges members $5/month... but it doesn't allow members to allocate their pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters to the most valuable content.  




> Nobody is really going to pay to view forum threads.


Who said anything about pay-per-view?  If members of Liberty.me could allocate their $5 to their favorite content... then they would be free to view all the content.

If this forum facilitated micropayments then you'd be free to view all the threads.  And if you happen to value any threads/posts that you viewed...then you would have the option to allocate a penny, or nickle, or dime or quarter to them.  




> There are several reasons, first of which is that many people don't even read a lot of other posts.  That's embodied in the phrase, "I didn't read all the posts, but..."  People are more interested in giving their opinion than listening to others.  Especially on forums.


The more posts in a thread... the more time it's going to take to read them all.  But what happens when you can sort posts by value?  Then you're going to sort posts by value and read the most valuable posts in the thread.  




> There is also far too much competition in telecommunications.  The trend is free sites supported by ads and donations just because of the intense competition.  An increase of forums, blogs, websites, etc. mean quality drastically decreases.


Does an increase in books means that quality drastically decreases?  Does an increase in food mean that quality drastically decreases?  No.  Increasing the size of the haystack just increases the necessity of using a metal detector to find the needles.  Payment is the value detector/communicator.  

If this forum facilitated micropayments... then I'd allocate two quarters to this thread to communicate my valuation of this thread.  The more people that did the same... the brighter the value signal...



Content creators can't create the most valuable content when content consumers don't valuate content.

If content creators _could_ create the most valuable content _without_ consumers' valuations... then socialism would be wonderful.  But you already know that socialism isn't wonderful.  Unfortunately, it's quite clear that you don't know _why_ it isn't wonderful.  




> The management of a socialist community would be in a position like that of a ship captain who had to cross the ocean with the stars shrouded by a fog and without the aid of a compass or other equipment of nautical orientation. - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government


Accurate consumer valuations are the compass that producers need in order to put society's limited resources to their most valuable uses.  This isn't just true when it comes to some products... it's true for _all_ products.  If you argue that it's only true for some products... then you're arguing that producers are omniscient when it comes to your valuations of some products but not other products.  But it's absurd to argue that producers know how much you value defense/threads but they don't know how much you value milk.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> But what happens when you can sort posts by value?  Then you're going to sort posts by value and read the most valuable posts in the thread.


That's not really practical.  Viewing chronologically has the most value-efficiency.  You can skip members you don't want to read.  You would also need an algorithm that would have to assign value.  If it's automated then it's going to be inaccurate/useless for most people.  If it's done manually, then it's too labor intensive.




> Does an increase in books means that quality drastically decreases?...No.


Yes.  It's a basic law of diminishing returns.  Cable TV is the modern day example of talent and quality being spread to nothing.  Bruce Springsteen's _57 Channels and Nothing On_ has developed into 500 Channels to insult your humanity.

Books are no different.  Everybody writes one.  There can only be so much quality, originality, etc. with Joe Mundane's titles of _Observations of..., Reflections on..., or Thoughts About... _ An 18 year old entertainer does not provide value in a biography/autobiography.  The quality is just not there, the audience is often too limited, etc.

Some of these things sell, but most won't.  There is only so much quality in each area.

----------


## Xerographica

> That's not really practical.  Viewing chronologically has the most value-efficiency.  You can skip members you don't want to read.  You would also need an algorithm that would have to assign value.  If it's automated then it's going to be inaccurate/useless for most people.  If it's done manually, then it's too labor intensive.


I value this thread at $0.50 cents.  How would it be too labor intensive for me to click a quarter button twice?  




> Yes.  It's a basic law of diminishing returns.  Cable TV is the modern day example of talent and quality being spread to nothing.  Bruce Springsteen's _57 Channels and Nothing On_ has developed into 500 Channels to insult your humanity.


Crazy Cable Confusion: Costless Content Creation

Your argument should be structured like so...

My valuation of beer is important because... and my valuation of threads is not important because...

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I value this thread at $0.50 cents.  How would it be too labor intensive for me to click a quarter button twice?


I mean it would be labor intensive to assign value to posts.  If it's automated, then it would be useless. 






> Crazy Cable Confusion: Costless Content Creation
> 
> Your argument should be structured like so...
> 
> My valuation of beer is important because... and my valuation of threads is not important because...



I don't click on links if I can't see the URL.  If you can post the URL or summarize, then I can read.

I'm also not saying what I value.  I'm talking about what the market values.  The best sports, for example, are still on network TV: The Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, World Series, NBA Finals, Masters, NCAA final, etc.  The network audience is bigger.  Cable is a lot of junk that could never be supported by network TV.  (Not that network TV is great.  lol.)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I would encourage us not to forget that there has, in fact, been a Final Thread on Pragmatarianism right here on RPF.  It attempts to be the final word on pramatarianism.  It can be found here:

Pragmatarianism -- *The FINAL Thread* (For you, NorthCarolinaLiberty: the URL is http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-FINAL-Thread* )

None of the arguments brought up there have yet been addressed.  It might be good practice to add any new arguments, such as r3volution 3.0's, to that thread as they come up so that there is one consolidated location which people can simply and easily link to when a reminder is needed of the intellectual hollowness of this one-note advocacy.

----------


## Xerographica

helmuth_hubener, your "final word" is missing one very important word... "_congress_".  This thread, on the other hand,  has (prior to this post) 19 instances of the word "congress".  How do you explain this disparity?  

In case I wasn't very clear the first gazillion times that I've explained this...

Tax choice is where people can choose which government organizations (GOs) they give their taxes toCongress is in charge of determining the tax rateCongress is a government organization (GO)Therefore, in a tax choice system, taxpayers will be able to choose how much of their hard earned tax dollars they give to congress.

*You (the taxpayer)*:  Ah man, these public options really suck!  I'm the complete opposite of a kid in a candy store!!  I'm a depressed taxpayer in a public market!!!  I'm a despondent adult in a crap store!!!!!!  
*Congress*: Will you give us more of your hard-earned tax dollars if we raise or lower the tax rate?
*You*: Lower!!!!!!!  For sure!  Drop the tax rate to 1% and I'll give you _all_ of my tax dollars!
*Congress*: How many other people are in the same boat as you?
*You*: To be completely honest... I really don't know.  If I'm the only person in this boat, and you lower the tax rate to 1%, then more people will boycott you and your revenue will plummet.  
*Congress*: We really don't want our revenue to plummet, we want our revenue to skyrocket!  
*You*: Then decrease the tax rate _marginally_.  If your revenue increases then you'll know that you're going in the right direction.  Keep marginally, and gradually, decreasing the tax rate until your revenue starts to decrease. 
*Congress*: That sounds like a really good plan!
*You*: I know!  I'm a genius!  


If taxpayers largely perceive a relative scarcity (shortage) of public goods... then they will perceive the necessity of a higher tax rate.  So congress would increase its revenue by increasing the tax rate.  If, on the other hand, taxpayers largely perceive a surplus of public goods... then they will perceive the necessity of a lower tax rate.  So congress would increase its revenue by decreasing the tax rate.  






In this video, the kid doesn't give his money to the pastry vendor.  Why didn't he?  Because evidently the kid perceived that there were more valuable things to spend his money on.  From his unique perspective, with his unique set of preferences, in his unique situation/circumstances/environment... 

relative scarcity of other goods (X) > relative scarcity of pastries (Y)

X > Y

If taxpayers, in a pragmatarian system, perceive that the...

relative scarcity of private goods (X) > relative scarcity of public goods (Y)

X > Y

... then they'll allocate their hard-earned tax dollars accordingly.  They'll give more tax dollars to congress if, and only if, congress lowers the tax rate.  

This is how and why markets work.  Consumers use their cash to guide producers in the most valuable directions.  Consumers are the compass.  Right now this compass is _not_ in the public sector...




> The management of a socialist community would be in a position like that of a ship captain who had to cross the ocean with the stars shrouded by a fog and without the aid of a compass or other equipment of nautical orientation. - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government





> The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price. - Mark J. Perry, Why Socialism Failed


You might be right that pragmatarianism is a crappy idea.  But your critique to end all critiques doesn't even address the mindnumbingly simple process that will determine the tax rate a pragmatarian system.

Speaking of bad ideas... here's the worst idea ever.  

Personally, I think that consumers will be more honest in the public sector.  More honesty means a more accurate compass.  And a more accurate compass means more value will be created in the public sector.  When the public sector creates more and more value... the tax rate will increase accordingly.  Until we end up at a 100% tax rate.

Is my prediction wrong?  I wouldn't be surprised!  So please come up with a better prediction.  Predict, using the stupid simple process that I outlined in this post, what the tax rate will end up being.  Will it go up?  If so, how high and why?  Will it go down?  If so, how low and why?

----------


## Xerographica

> I mean it would be labor intensive to assign value to posts.  If it's automated, then it would be useless.


You're going to have to draw me a diagram because I have no idea what you're talking about.  Is it labor intensive to "like" a post on facebook?  From my perspective it isn't.  It's just one click.  It requires a 100 times more labor for me to write this reply to you.  clickty clickty clickty click.  

If this forum facilitated micropayments then you could click the penny button, or the nickle button, or the dime button or the quarter button.  Click.  It would require the same exact amount of labor as liking a post on facebook.  Click.  Unless you wanted to click the penny button 25 times... 

click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click

Maybe you want to click the quarter button 25 times?

click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click

LOL.  Ah hah!  Eureka!  I figured it out!  You're worried about a forum, that has such an abundance of awesome threads, that you're going to want to click the quarter button all day long.  Well... ok.  That's a pretty reasonable concern.  And we'll cross that bridge once we get to it.  When you send me a picture of your sore and tender clicking finger then I'll support your suggestion that a one dollar button, a five dollar button, a ten dollar button, a fifty dollar button and a hundred dollar button all be added.  Then you can click the $100 dollar button 25 times...

click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click
click click click click click

Can you imagine how awesome the threads would have to be where it makes sense for a forum to have a $100 button?  




> I don't click on links if I can't see the URL.


What browser are you using that doesn't allow you to see the URL?  With Google's browser, Chrome, I simply hover my mouse over the link and the URL is magically displayed at the bottom left side of the page.  




> If you can post the URL or summarize, then I can read.


The creation of content is never costless.  Creating content that people aren't willing to pay for shrinks the pool of resources available for the creation of content that people are willing to pay for.  




> I'm also not saying what I value.  I'm talking about what the market values.  The best sports, for example, are still on network TV: The Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, World Series, NBA Finals, Masters, NCAA final, etc.  The network audience is bigger.  Cable is a lot of junk that could never be supported by network TV.  (Not that network TV is great.  lol.)


Of course cable is a lot of junk.  That's what happens when you bundle a bunch of content together and force people to pay for the bundle.  

Our government is a big bundle of public goods that we have to pay for.  So of course a lot of public goods are junk.  

The solution is to unbundle cable and the government.  People aren't going to spend their own money on junk and viola!  No more junk!  Whatever is supplied is supplied because enough people are actually choosing to pay for it with their own hard earned money.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Is it labor intensive to "like" a post on facebook?  From my perspective it isn't.



Ah, okay; you're equating value with popularity.  I think that can be a valid measure, but I often don't put those two together.  






> Of course cable is a lot of junk.  That's what happens when you bundle a bunch of content together and force people to pay for the bundle.



Quality does not depend on volume packaging.  There is nothing new about bundling.  Ala carte versus packaging has been around since the first cave man sold something.  There are plus and minuses to both.

I think people act like this is something new, but there is nothing new under the sun.  There is very little room at the top, and that includes talent.  Cable stinks because everyone thinks he can write, act, tell joke, etc.  Cable is successful because there is a sucker born every minute.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

The entire idea still seems skewed.  Voting on allocation AFTER the tax budget has been approved is akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out.  

Someone had it correct earlier.  You're consenting to being screwed in the ass, but you get to decide the position.  Don't consent to being screwed and then you don't concern yourself with the position.  Principle over practicality.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

The entire idea still seems skewed.  Voting on allocation AFTER the tax budget has been approved is akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out.  

Someone had it correct earlier.  Your consenting to being screwed in the ass, but you get to decide the position.  Don't consent to being screwed and then you don't concern yourself with the position.  Principle over practicality.

----------


## Xerographica

> Ah, okay; you're equating value with popularity.  I think that can be a valid measure, but I often don't put those two together.


Errrrr... what?  Ouch, my most of me.  The more "likes" a page receives on facebook the more popular it is.  The more money that's spent on something the more valuable it is.  

If popularity equaled value then we wouldn't need to shop... we'd simply "like" cars, computers and clowns on facebook and they would be optimally supplied.  

2012

Elizabeth Warren

Dollar votes: $42 million
Ballot votes: 1,696,346

Koch Brothers

Dollar votes: $115 billion
Ballot votes: 0

More ballot votes ("likes") means more popularity.  More dollar votes means more value.  *Value is a function of sacrifice*.  Neither a ballot vote nor facebook "like" cost a thing... so they do not and cannot communicate or indicate value.  




> Quality does not depend on volume packaging.  There is nothing new about bundling.  Ala carte versus packaging has been around since the first cave man sold something.  There are plus and minuses to both.
> 
> I think people act like this is something new, but there is nothing new under the sun.  There is very little room at the top, and that includes talent.  Cable stinks because everyone thinks he can write, act, tell joke, etc.  Cable is successful because there is a sucker born every minute.


more bundling = less earner valuation

Why do command economies fail?  Not enough earner valuation.  Why does our government fail?  Not enough earner valuation.  Why does cable fail?  Not enough earner valuation.  Why does Netflix fail?  Not enough earner valuation.  Why does this forum fail?  Not enough earner valuation.  

If I'm wrong, then please explain why command economies fail.

----------


## Xerographica

> The entire idea still seems skewed.  Voting on allocation AFTER the tax budget has been approved is akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out.  
> 
> Someone had it correct earlier.  Your consenting to being screwed in the ass, but you get to decide the position.  Don't consent to being screwed and then you don't concern yourself with the position.  Principle over practicality.


LOL... yeah, keep on not-consenting away!  I'm sure that congress will eventually get the message that you're sending so loud and clear to them.  What a joke.  

Markets work because we can use our cash to clearly _communicate_ our preferences to each other.  But here you are arguing that you don't want to boycott congress, the people who are screwing you in the ass.  

If you don't want to be free to boycott the people who are screwing you in the ass... then my guess is that you enjoy being screwed in the ass.

----------


## otherone

> The proposal, if I understand it correctly, is:
> (1) The government will determine tax liabilities


Based on what, exactly?  Their power to get whatever they can?  How can they determine what the liability is without knowing what the needs are?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> More ballot votes ("likes") means more popularity.


More popularity also means more government.  Social Security retirement benefits sure are popular, but there is no value in that system.  Private schools outperform public schools, but public schools sure have a lot of popularity.  Libraries have become an even bigger joke than in the past, but people love them.






> Markets work because...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Why does cable fail?  Why does Netflix fail?



Pay TV is doing better than ever.  Companies like Netflix are thriving.  So which is it?  Is the market for these thriving or failing?






> LOL... yeah, keep on not-consenting away!



If you're not consenting, then why are you not stopping these taxes before they're passed?  Seems to me your idea is tacit approval of the budgets.  They've already slapped the Crisco on your ass.

I'm not saying not to be part of the process.  The attitude on this site ranges from people who hate being involved to those who are in political office.  I go back and forth and have done both.  Sometimes I get disgusted.  Seems to me though, that the fight should be the good fight.  I understand what you're saying, but it seems like you're conceding too much.  Maybe I am missing something.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL... yeah, keep on not-consenting away!  I'm sure that congress will eventually get the message that you're sending so loud and clear to them.  What a joke.  
> 
> *Markets work because we can use our cash to clearly communicate our preferences to each other.*  But here you are arguing that you don't want to boycott congress, the people who are screwing you in the ass.  
> 
> If you don't want to be free to boycott the people who are screwing you in the ass... then my guess is that you enjoy being screwed in the ass.


The "market" you are talking about is not a market as all.  Walmart doesn't confiscate 50% of my wealth and then let me choose which products to buy from them. 

No one who has the slightest idea about economic freedom buys your crap.  It doesn't work here.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Xero,

*1. The individual taxpayer has no meaningful control over either the GOs offered or the tax  rate imposed, no more than does an individual voter in the present  system.* 

Correct?

E.G. Whether I myself, under P-ism,  increase or decrease my funding to Congress is trivial compared to the  total funding they receive. So they don't care, and it has no effect on  their behavior. Likewise with my vote, 1/300,000,000th of the total. 

*2. It is possible that an individual taxpayer  will value all of the GOs offered by Congress less than the total tax  liability imposed by Congress.* 

Correct? 

E.G. Suppose  that Congress offers GOs A, B, C, and D. Bob has a total tax liability  of $1000. Bob values A at $400, B, at $100, and C and D not at all. 

So he values all of the GOs combined at only $500, yet is forced to spend $1000 on them. 

Could  not that $500 remainder have better satisfied his needs if he had been  able to keep it and spend it on something in the private sector?

In other words, hasn't this $500 been sub-optimally allocated?

*3.  How is this different from the present system, where the individual  taxpayer may value the array of government services less than the taxes  he is forced to pay?*

Is there any reason to think that that "gap" would be smaller under P-ism?

----------


## Xerographica

> *1. The individual taxpayer has no meaningful control over either the GOs offered or the tax  rate imposed, no more than does an individual voter in the present  system.* 
> 
> E.G. Whether I myself, under P-ism,  increase or decrease my funding to Congress is trivial compared to the  total funding they receive. So they don't care, and it has no effect on  their behavior. Likewise with my vote, 1/300,000,000th of the total.


Does a vegetarian have meaningful control over how many cows are slaughtered?  No.  Therefore... there's no point in shopping?  Vegetarians ought to spend their money on steaks like pacifists have to spend their tax dollars on war?  




> *2. It is possible that an individual taxpayer  will value all of the GOs offered by Congress less than the total tax  liability imposed by Congress.* 
> 
> Correct? 
> 
> E.G. Suppose  that Congress offers GOs A, B, C, and D. Bob has a total tax liability  of $1000. Bob values A at $400, B, at $100, and C and D not at all. 
> 
> So he values all of the GOs combined at only $500, yet is forced to spend $1000 on them. 
> 
> Could  not that $500 remainder have better satisfied his needs if he had been  able to keep it and spend it on something in the private sector?
> ...


For sure Bob's $500 dollars have been misallocated.  The issue is...how many other people are in the same boat?  If everybody's in the same boat as Bob... then what?  Then they all boycott congress until congress lowers the tax rate.  

The stronger your argument the weaker it becomes.  If Bob's the only person in the boat then your argument is all around weak.  If everybody's in the boat with Bob then you've got a really strong argument... but it's completely undermined by the fact that nobody wants to be in a boat where half of their tax dollars are wasted.  So everybody would boycott congress... and as congress lowers the tax rate... there are less and less people in the boat.  




> *3.  How is this different from the present system, where the individual  taxpayer may value the array of government services less than the taxes  he is forced to pay?*
> 
> Is there any reason to think that that "gap" would be smaller under P-ism?


Consider the EPA.  With the current system it receives X amount of tax dollars.  With a pragmatarian system it would receive Y amount of dollars.  What's the difference between X and Y?  

Do you want to argue that there's barely any difference between X and Y?  If so, then you might want to think twice.  You'd essentially be arguing that the allocation of 500 congresspeople would closely match the allocation of millions and millions of taxpayers.  According to your argument, congresspeople are amazing impersonal shoppers.  In fact, they're so amazing that we should allow them to spend all our money.  McDonald's would receive the same amount of money that it currently does.  

If you want to argue that there's a big difference between X and Y then I'm sure you're saying that Y is better than X.  The amount of money that taxpayers would give to the EPA would be a lot more optimal than the amount of money that congress currently gives to the EPA.  And you'd be arguing that pragmatarianism is a really good idea.  Except you aren't arguing that pragmatarianism is a really good idea.  That's what _I'm_ arguing!  

There's not a lot of options.  If you want to argue that X and Y will be pretty much the same.... then there's no point in implementing pragmatarianism because command economies are awesome.  If you want to argue that X and Y will be vastly different... and Y is superior to X.... then we should certainly implement pragmatarianism because command economies are not awesome.  

Go ask some liberal about pragmatarianism.  They're going to argue that X is superior to Y.  Ask a libertarian and they're going to argue that X and Y are pretty much the same.  Ask a pragmatarian and they're going to say that Y will be superior to X.  Guess who has a superior understanding of markets.  

The complexity of the desires, demands, concerns, priorities of an entire country of unique individuals is impossible for any single person to comprehend.  Liberals foolishly believe they comprehend it so they have no problem overriding it.  Libertarians do a little better but they still fall short.  Same thing with anarcho-capitalists.  If you see very little value in allowing the entire country to shop for themselves in the public sector... then you're still far from appreciating/respecting the power of complexity.  

If it helps, imagine it's 1977 and you're in China...

*Deng Xiaoping*: Maybe China should have a little market?
*r3volution*: Naw, what good is a little market going to do?

----------


## Xerographica

Double post

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Does a vegetarian have meaningful control over how many cows are slaughtered?  No.  Therefore... there's no point in shopping?  Vegetarians ought to spend their money on steaks like pacifists have to spend their tax dollars on war?


But under P-ism, everyone _doesn't_ get to spend their money only on the stuff they want (and to the extent they want it). 




> For sure Bob's $500 dollars have been misallocated.


Indeed




> The issue is...how many other people are in the same boat?  If everybody's in the same boat as Bob... then what?  Then they all boycott congress until congress lowers the tax rate.


Yes, if enough people want lower taxes, Congress will lower taxes; and if enough people want higher taxes, Congress will raise taxes - like in the present system. 

In effect, P-ism is like a democratic system, but instead of 1 vote per person, you get 1 vote per dollar tax liability.

It's still majority rule, it's still entirely possible for a minority to be forced to pay for services that it doesn't want. 




> The stronger your argument the weaker it becomes.  If Bob's the only person in the boat then your argument is all around weak.  If everybody's in the boat with Bob then you've got a really strong argument... but it's completely undermined by the fact that nobody wants to be in a boat where half of their tax dollars are wasted.  So everybody would boycott congress... and as congress lowers the tax rate... there are less and less people in the boat.


But different people have different ideas of what it means to "waste" their tax dollars. 




> Consider the EPA.  With the current system it receives X amount of tax dollars.  With a pragmatarian system it would receive Y amount of dollars.  What's the difference between X and Y?  
> 
> Do you want to argue that there's barely any difference between X and Y?


I would argue that I've seen no reason to think that Y would be less than X.




> According to your argument, congresspeople are amazing impersonal shoppers.


My position is not that the present system is better than P-ism, but rather that I see no reason to prefer one to the other. 

My preference would be for something else altogether. 




> The complexity of the desires, demands, concerns, priorities of an entire country of unique individuals is impossible for any single person to comprehend.  Liberals foolishly believe they comprehend it so they have no problem overriding it.  Libertarians do a little better but they still fall short.  Same thing with anarcho-capitalists.  If you see very little value in allowing the entire country to shop for themselves in the public sector... then you're still far from appreciating/respecting the power of complexity.


Are you arguing only that P-ism is better than the present system, or that it is also better than a pure market economy?

If the latter, is that because you think it solves the problem of positive externalities?




> If it helps, imagine it's 1977 and you're in China...
> 
> *Deng Xiaoping*: Maybe China should have a little market?
> *r3volution*: Naw, what good is a little market going to do?


What you're proposing is not a market.

----------


## Xerographica

> But under P-ism, everyone _doesn't_ get to spend their money only on the stuff they want (and to the extent they want it).


With the current system, pacifists have to pay for war.  With p-ism, they wouldn't have to pay for war.  Do you not perceive this as a huge improvement?  




> Yes, if enough people want lower taxes, Congress will lower taxes; and if enough people want higher taxes, Congress will raise taxes - like in the present system.


If a ballot vote communicated your "want" as accurately as a dollar vote does... then yeah, p-ism would be pointless.  




> But different people have different ideas of what it means to "waste" their tax dollars.


If everybody had the same idea what "waste" was... then again, p-ism would be pointless.  




> I would argue that I've seen no reason to think that Y would be less than X.


Here's what the EPA's budget was in 2013... $7.901 billion dollars.  What do you think it would have been with p-ism?  




> Are you arguing only that P-ism is better than the present system, or that it is also better than a pure market economy?


I'm arguing that p-ism is better than the present system.  And if p-ism doesn't lead us to a pure market economy... then, according to the invisible hand, p-ism is better than a pure market economy.  And if you're arguing that I shouldn't trust the invisible hand's definition of better... then you must be arguing that I should trust the visible hand's definition of better.  No deal.  




> If the latter, is that because you think it solves the problem of positive externalities?


If p-ism doesn't lead us to a pure market economy... then it will be because p-ism facilitates more accurate transmission of information regarding relative scarcities.  

Like I send in my first post... I can't allocate $0.50 cents to this thread that you created.  In essence, I'm a free-rider.  The free-rider problem is a problem because it results in suboptimal amounts of goods being supplied.  It's entirely possible that p-ism will do a much better job than a pure market economy at decreasing the breadth/depth of the free-rider problem.




> What you're proposing is not a market.


If this forum facilitated micropayments... then would it be a market?  If not, then why not?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> With the current system, pacifists have to  pay for war.  With p-ism, they wouldn't have to pay for war.  Do you not  perceive this as a huge improvement?


Not if he still has to pay for _something_ he doesn't want to, which he would whenever his tax liability exceeds the total value of the available GOs.  




> If a ballot vote communicated your "want" as accurately as a  dollar vote does... then yeah, p-ism would be pointless.


Congress is only going to be influenced by _net_ changes in the taxpayers' allocations to Congress, right?

Suppose everyone had an equal tax liability.

If  51% of taxpayers allocate 10% more to Congress, while 49% of taxpayers  allocate 10% less to Congress, Congress gains revenue - which, if  anything, encourages it to keep doing what the 51% liked and which the  49% did _not_ like. Right?




> Here's what the EPA's budget was in 2013... $7.901 billion  dollars.  What do you think it would have been with p-ism?


As I said, I have no idea. That's my point. 

Until/unless  someone can prove that the state's economic intervention would be  reduced under P-ism, I have no reason to prefer it to the present  system. 




> The free-rider problem is a problem because it results in  suboptimal amounts of goods being supplied.  It's entirely possible that  p-ism will do a much better job than a pure market economy at  decreasing the breadth/depth of the free-rider problem.


Every good/service produced on the market can have positive  externalities, to be sure. But there is no solution to this problem. 

We  may know that a good/service is being under-produced because we can  point to positive externalities, but it is impossible to know the  optimum level of production, because it is impossible to know how much  the recipients of those non-excludable benefits would pay for them if  they were excludable (which we would have to know to determine the  optimum level of production).

Is there a market failure? Sure, if you want to call it that. But there is no government solution. 

Neither  the normal method (more or less arbitrarily charging people for alleged  positive externalities) nor P-ism is going to result in optimal levels  of production, except accidentally, and could well make the situation  worse (as by causing overproduction).  




> If this forum facilitated micropayments... then would it be a market?  If not, then why not?


Not if we were _forced_ to pay for it. 

Optimal resource allocations are impossible by definition whenever there are coerced exchanges. 

The benefits of the market go out the window as soon as force is introduced.

----------


## Xerographica

> Not if he still has to pay for _something_ he doesn't want to, which he would whenever his tax liability exceeds the total value of the available GOs.


It feels like we're kinda going circles here.  Again, if he's paying for something that he doesn't want to, then he'll boycott congress.  

Part of the issue is that you don't see consumer choice as an extremely beneficial/powerful force.  When I said in my first post that grocery stores now have 30,000 more items than they did 40 years ago... your eyes glazed over and this information went over your head.  From your perspective... if we created a market in the public sector... then the quantity, quality and variety of public goods would be exactly the same 40 years from now.  

As if, somehow, government organizations (GOs) are going to be entirely impervious to taxpayers being free to choose where their taxes go.  As if, somehow, results won't be rewarded and failure won't be punished.  As if, somehow, the market process is Superman and the public sector is kryptonite.  Incentive works wonders in the private sector... but in the public sector it won't work at all.  Because... GOs won't want more money.  And consumers/taxpayers won't want more benefit.  




> Congress is only going to be influenced by _net_ changes in the taxpayers' allocations to Congress, right?
> 
> Suppose everyone had an equal tax liability.
> 
> If  51% of taxpayers allocate 10% more to Congress, while 49% of taxpayers  allocate 10% less to Congress, Congress gains revenue - which, if  anything, encourages it to keep doing what the 51% liked and which the  49% did _not_ like. Right?


Supposing that everyone has an equal tax liability is the same thing as supposing that everyone creates the same value with society's limited resources.  

There are voters... and then there are taxpayers.  Right now you're critiquing tax choice with _voters_ in mind.  It's an easy mistake to make.  You're certainly not the first to make it.  When the issue of government comes up people naturally think of voters.  But pragmatarianism is about _taxpayers_.  Taxpayers are the people that you voluntarily give your money to.  They are the people who create the most value with society's limited resources.  In a pragmatarian system... these people will be _shopping_ in the public sector.  

What is shopping?  It's the process where you try really hard not to get ripped off.  When we have millions and millions of taxpayers trying really hard not to get ripped off by GOs... then how could the results be anything less than awesome?  





> As I said, I have no idea. That's my point.
> 
> Until/unless  someone can prove that the state's economic intervention would be  reduced under P-ism, I have no reason to prefer it to the present  system.


With the current system, 500 people, who _didn't earn_ the money that they're spending, determine the EPA's budget.  With a pragmatarian system, millions and millions of taxpayers, who _did earn_ the money that they'd be spending, would determine the EPA's budget.  

These two systems are *vastly* different.  Which means that the results they produce will be *vastly* different.  




> There are four ways to spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why you really watch out for what you're doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well then, I'm not so careful about the content of the present, but I'm very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else's money on myself. And if I spend somebody else's money on myself, then I'm going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else's money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else's money on somebody else, I'm not concerned about how much it costs, and I'm not concerned about what I get. And that's government. And that's close to 40 percent of our national income. - Milton Friedman, Other people's money


From your perspective... taxpayers are just as likely to build a bridge to nowhere as congress is.  From your perspective... taxpayers are just as likely to fund an unnecessary war as congress is.  




> Every good/service produced on the market can have positive  externalities, to be sure. But there is no solution to this problem. 
> 
> We  may know that a good/service is being under-produced because we can  point to positive externalities, but it is impossible to know the  optimum level of production, because it is impossible to know how much  the recipients of those non-excludable benefits would pay for them if  they were excludable (which we would have to know to determine the  optimum level of production).
> 
> Is there a market failure? Sure, if you want to call it that. But there is no government solution. 
> 
> Neither  the normal method (more or less arbitrarily charging people for alleged  positive externalities) nor P-ism is going to result in optimal levels  of production, except accidentally, and could well make the situation  worse (as by causing overproduction).


Again, if you perceive that taxpayers are going to build more roads than they really need... then your issue isn't with pragmatarianism... it's with markets.  You're concerned that farmers are going to spend too much money on tractors.  And contractors are going to spend too much money on hammers.  And bakers are going to spend too much on flour.  You're ignoring the fact that markets work because people who misallocate their resources _lose_ influence over society's limited resources.  

Bark up the wrong trees?  -> Less influence over society's limited resources
Tilt at windmills?  - > Less influence over society's limited resources
Go on wild goose chases?  -> Less influence over society's limited resources

Taxpayers are the people who do the _best_ job of allocating society's limited resources.  That's why they're taxpayers.    




> Not if we were _forced_ to pay for it. 
> 
> Optimal resource allocations are impossible by definition whenever there are coerced exchanges. 
> 
> The benefits of the market go out the window as soon as force is introduced.


Liberty.me charges $5/month.  This website doesn't charge anything.  If both sites facilitated micropayments, which website would create the most value?

----------

