# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Are you confident in congress's competence?

## Xerographica

Imagine if you needed brain surgery. Would you ever seriously consider conducting the surgery yourself? I think that most of us would choose to leave brain surgery to the brain surgeons. There's little doubt that brain surgeons are uniquely and supremely qualified to conduct brain surgery. Therefore, we put our brains in their hands. 

Now imagine that you had the option to spend your taxes yourself (pragmatarianism FAQ). Would you ever seriously consider choosing where your taxes go? Or, would you choose to leave tax allocation to your elected representatives? Do you think that congresspeople are uniquely and supremely qualified to spend your taxes? Would you choose to put your taxes in their hands? 

Nobody, that I know of, debates whether people should have the option to conduct brain surgery on themselves. But ask somebody whether people should have the option to spend their taxes themselves and you might end up in a pretty big debate. Why is that?

How many people would choose to shop for themselves in the public sector? What percentage of the purse would they control? Maybe 50%? Taxpayers would spend half of the public funds themselves and congress would spend the other half? Would people who wanted to shop for themselves in the public sector be more conservative? Or liberal? Rich... or poor? Educated... or uneducated? Would professionals shop for themselves or have congress shop for them? Would brain surgeons choose to put their taxes into the hands of congress like congress chooses to put their brains into the hands of brain surgeons? 

If you're worried about giving people the option to directly allocate their taxes... then you're worried about whether people are competent enough to recognize competence. Except, the very premise of voting is that people are competent enough to recognize competence. So if you trust voters to discern which candidates are the most supremely and uniquely qualified to spend their taxes... then it requires a bit of uh... flexibility... to twist around and argue that you don't trust taxpayers to discern whether or not congress is supremely and uniquely qualified to spend their taxes. 

In a pragmatarian system there would be two main ways for the people to indicate that a politician is supremely and uniquely qualified to spend their taxes...

1. People could give the politician their vote
2. People could give the politician their taxes

If you trust the first way, then how could you possibly distrust the second way? 

And if you don't trust the first way, then you should really want to have the option to directly allocate your taxes. It would be the only way to keep your hard-earned taxes out of incompetent hands. 

Nobody wants to put their brain into incompetent hands. Why would it be any different with taxes? It seems pretty straightforward that giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes would be the best way to minimize the amount of taxes that end up in incompetent hands.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Among many other much more negative characteristics,  exactly the opposite to competence.

*"Government, when it is examined, turns out to be nothing more nor less than a group of fallible men with the political force to act as though they were infallible." -- Bob LeFevre*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Among many other much more negative characteristics,  exactly the opposite to competence.
> 
> *"Government, when it is examined, turns out to be nothing more nor less than a group of fallible men with the political force to act as though they were infallible." -- Bob LeFevre*


This^^  With rare exception, political work attracts the least competent, rational, and moral of men. Decent people are too busy getting work done to play silly games like politics.

----------


## Origanalist

You spelled incompetence wrong.

----------


## Xerographica

> Among many other much more negative characteristics,  exactly the opposite to competence.
> 
> *"Government, when it is examined, turns out to be nothing more nor less than a group of fallible men with the political force to act as though they were infallible." -- Bob LeFevre*


Oh, that's pretty good.  But not quite as good as this... 




> Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.  Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

----------


## Dianne

They have no competence.   I'm surprised anyone would suggest otherwise.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Are you confident in congress's competence?


No.

----------


## Danke



----------


## euphemia

No.  You had to ask?

----------


## The Gold Standard

I think they are very competent, too competent. Their purpose is to milk the people of every penny they can, pad their bank accounts with it, and put forward the agenda of their bosses. They do all of that quite well, and even convince people to keep voting for them so they can continue doing it.

----------


## Xerographica

> No.  You had to ask?


Yeah.  This forum doesn't have very much enthusiasm for the idea of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.  If we can't choose where our taxes go... then it means that congress chooses for us.  Therefore... it would seem that members of this forum are confident in congress's competence.  Or... they aren't confident in congress's competence... but they are even less confident in taxpayers' competence.

----------


## jkr

No

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah.  *This forum doesn't have very much enthusiasm for the idea of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.*  If we can't choose where our taxes go... then it means that congress chooses for us.  Therefore... it would seem that members of this forum are confident in congress's competence.  Or... they aren't confident in congress's competence... but they are even less confident in taxpayers' competence.


I can't speak for the forum, but I don't accept the premise that I should be taxed at all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah.  This forum doesn't have very much enthusiasm for the idea of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.  If we can't choose where our taxes go... then it means that congress chooses for us.  Therefore... it would seem that members of this forum are confident in congress's competence.  Or... they aren't confident in congress's competence... but they are even less confident in taxpayers' competence.


I'm not confident in the competence of Congress or taxpayers.  That's one of the reasons I am against taxation.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Yeah.  This forum doesn't have very much enthusiasm for the idea of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.  If we can't choose where our taxes go... then it means that congress chooses for us.  Therefore... it would seem that members of this forum are confident in congress's competence.  Or... they aren't confident in congress's competence... but they are even less confident in taxpayers' competence.


If they have a legitimate claim to that money, then it isn't yours to worry about how it is spent. If they don't, then I don't give a $#@! how competent they are with it. Give it back.

----------


## Xerographica

> If they have a legitimate claim to that money, then it isn't yours to worry about how it is spent.


If congress has a legitimate claim to my money, then I shouldn't worry about how it's spent?  

How is it possible for congress to have a legitimate claim to my money?

----------


## Xerographica

> I'm not confident in the competence of Congress or taxpayers.  That's one of the reasons I am against taxation.


I really hope you wrote this as a joke.  Because... if you're not confident in congress or taxpayers... then why would you bother being against taxation?  No taxation means that taxpayers would get to spend the money instead of congress.  But why would you want that when you're not confident in taxpayers?  It's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If congress has a legitimate claim to my money, then I shouldn't worry about how it's spent?  
> 
> How is it possible for congress to have a legitimate claim to my money?


No.  You don't have any say in how it's spent.  Even in your system, you wouldn't have any say, because money is fungible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I really hope you wrote this as a joke.  Because... if you're not confident in congress or taxpayers... then why would you bother being against taxation?  No taxation means that taxpayers would get to spend the money instead of congress.  But why would you want that when you're not confident in taxpayers?  It's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.


You've never once answered the question of why there should be taxation in the first place.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> If congress has a legitimate claim to my money, then I shouldn't worry about how it's spent?  
> 
> How is it possible for congress to have a legitimate claim to my money?


You can worry if you want to, you just have no right to. It's their money.

It isn't possible, it's stealing. But I'm more concerned about stopping the theft than how competent the thieves are at spending their ill gotten booty.

----------


## Xerographica

> You've never once answered the question of why there should be taxation in the first place.


Do you agree with the following?




> It’s very easy to support programs that other people will have to pay for. But voters, like everyone else, should bear the costs of their own decisions. Letting people vote for expensive programs that “somebody else” will finance is a good recipe for getting people to vote irresponsibly. - Steve Landsburg, Blast from the Past

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I really hope you wrote this as a joke.  Because... if you're not confident in congress or taxpayers... then why would you bother being against taxation?  *No taxation means that taxpayers* would get to spend the money instead of congress.  But why would you want that when you're not confident in taxpayers?


I really hope you wrote this as a joke, _because "no taxation" means there would be no "taxpayers"_ - and questions concerning confidence in (or the comptence of) "taxpayers" under conditions of "no taxation" are inherently (and blatantly) self-contradictory.

An untaxed person choosing to spend his money as he sees fit (or not at all) is NOT the same as a robbery victim (i.e., a "taxpayer") who is permitted to choose how his stolen money shall be spent from among an arbitrarily and artificially limited menu of options presented to him by the people who robbed him - and to suggest that they are is a deceitfully evasive and question-begging equivocation.




> It's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.


 Are you capable of presenting any kind of argument that is not an incoherent farrago of question-begging equivocations, contradictions and _non sequiturs_?

If so, I have yet to see one in all the years you've been peddling your "pragmatarian" snake oil ...

----------


## Ronin Truth

A camel is a horse, built by a committee.

----------


## Xerographica

> I really hope you wrote this as a joke, _because "no taxation" means there would be no "taxpayers"_ - and questions concerning confidence in (or the comptence of) "taxpayers" under conditions of "no taxation" are inherently (and blatantly) self-contradictory.


Sola_Fide said that he's not confident in the competence of taxpayers.  Bill Gates pays taxes... therefore... Bill Gates is a taxpayer.  This means that Sola_Fide thinks that Bill Gates is incompetent.  If we eliminated taxation would Bill Gates still be a taxpayer?  No.  But why would the elimination of the mere label of "taxpayer" have any impact on his competence?  Obviously it wouldn't.  

If Bill Gates is competent than I can at least _appreciate_ the argument for the elimination of taxes.  But if Bill Gates is competent... then you should appreciate the argument for allowing Bill Gates to choose where his taxes go.  If the IRS is truly unnecessary... then Bill Gates won't spend his taxes on it.  Competent people don't spend their money on unnecessary things.  




> Are you capable of presenting any kind of argument that is not an incoherent farrago of question-begging equivocations, contradictions and _non sequiturs_?
> 
> If so, I have yet to see one in all the years you've been peddling your "pragmatarian" snake oil ...


You sure bravely ran away from this argument.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> If the IRS is truly unnecessary... then Bill Gates won't spend his taxes on it.  Competent people don't spend their money on unnecessary things.


What? Bill Gates spends his money on the IRS because if he doesn't he will have a gun pointed in his face. Not because he thinks it is necessary.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Ha!  I misread the question.  I thought it was how confident am I in their incompetence!  I'm 100% confident in their incompetence...

----------


## Xerographica

> What? Bill Gates spends his money on the IRS because if he doesn't he will have a gun pointed in his face. Not because he thinks it is necessary.


We're talking about Bill Gates in a pragmatarian system.  Pragmatarianism is where people can choose where their taxes go.  If Bill Gates doesn't think the IRS was necessary... then he wouldn't give the IRS his taxes.  Instead, he'd give his taxes to the EPA or the DoD.  The more taxpayers who agreed with Gates that the IRS was unnecessary... the less money the IRS would receive.  The less money the IRS received... the less effectively it could do its job.  

It might help if you read the pragmatarianism FAQ.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> We're talking about Bill Gates in a pragmatarian system.  Pragmatarianism is where people can choose where their taxes go.  If Bill Gates doesn't think the IRS was necessary... then he wouldn't give the IRS his taxes.  Instead, he'd give his taxes to the EPA or the DoD.  The more taxpayers who agreed with Gates that the IRS was unnecessary... the less money the IRS would receive.  The less money the IRS received... the less effectively it could do its job.  
> 
> It might help if you read the pragmatarianism FAQ.


If there was no IRS, there would be no EPA or DoD. If the IRS exists at all, they always take more money, not less.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> I really hope you wrote this as a joke, _because "no taxation" means there would be no "taxpayers"_  - and questions concerning confidence in (or the comptence of)  "taxpayers" under conditions of "no taxation" are inherently (and  blatantly) self-contradictory.
> 
> 
> Sola_Fide said that he's not confident in the competence of taxpayers.  Bill Gates pays taxes... therefore... Bill Gates is a taxpayer.  This means that Sola_Fide thinks that Bill Gates is incompetent.  If we eliminated taxation would Bill Gates still be a taxpayer?  No.  But why would the elimination of the mere label of "taxpayer" have any impact on his competence?  Obviously it wouldn't.  
> 
> If Bill Gates is competent than I can at least _appreciate_ the argument for the elimination of taxes.  But if Bill Gates is competent... then you should appreciate the argument for allowing Bill Gates to choose where his taxes go.  If the IRS is truly unnecessary... then Bill Gates won't spend his taxes on it.  Competent people don't spend their money on unnecessary things.
> ...


I did not "run away" from anything ("bravely" or otherwise ).

In post #14 of that other thread, you chopped out and ignored all the substance of the criticism I made in post #13.

I called you out for that in post #18 - and then in post #28 I repeated what I had said in #13 and told you the following:



> You do not have any argument. All you have  is a set of statements that are self-contradictory and incoherent.
> 
> Unless and until you rectify this incoherence, there is nothing to argue about.


And now, here you are, doing *exactly* the same thing again - you have chopped out and ignored the central point of my previous post in this thread (while repeating the very same incoherent gibberish that I was criticizing in the first place). Did you really think you could sneak by with that sort of elision without it being noticed? Here, let me repeat myself - and this time I'll put it in big, bright, bold red:



> Originally Posted by Xerographica
> 
> 
> I really hope you wrote this as a joke.   Because... if you're not confident in congress or taxpayers... then why  would you bother being against taxation?  *No taxation means that taxpayers* would get to spend the money instead of congress.  But why would you want that when you're not confident in taxpayers?
> 
> 
> I really hope you wrote this as a joke, _because "no taxation" means there would be no "taxpayers"_  - and questions concerning confidence in (or the comptence of)  "taxpayers" under conditions of "no taxation" are inherently (and  blatantly) self-contradictory.
> 
> *An untaxed person choosing to spend his money as he sees fit (or not at  all) is NOT the same as a robbery victim (i.e., a "taxpayer") who is  permitted to choose how his stolen money shall be spent from among an  arbitrarily and artificially limited menu of options presented to him by  the people who robbed him - and to suggest that they are is a  deceitfully evasive and question-begging equivocation.*
> ...


The difference between Bill Gates being allowed to keep all his money and then spend it as and how he pleases (or not at all), on the one hand, and Bill Gates being forcibly robbed of his money and then allowed to choose how his stolen money is spent from among an arbitrarily limited slate of options, on the other hand, *are entirely different things*. The economic dynamics, incentives, etc. involved in each of those scenarios are profoundly divergent, and you DO NOT get to pretend that the only difference between them is (as you are pleased to say) "the elimination of the mere label of 'taxpayer' ..." But of course, if you actually acknowledged those incommensurable differences - which are fundamental, essential, critical and dispositive - then your entire case for so-called "pragmatarianism" would collapse, and "pragmatarianism" would be fully exposed for the fraudulent shell-game and diversionary placebo that it really is.

If you do not understand any of this, then you are a fool - and if you DO understand it but persist in peddling your snake oil anyway, then you are a deceitful fool. In neither case is there any point in trying to "argue" with you about it (as is amply demonstrated by the numerous, tediously repetitve and monomaniacally obsessive threads you have spawned at RPFs over the years) - except for the purpose of pointing out and highlighting these facts.

If you want to advocate for a system that robs people, then dammit, at least have the balls to just come right out and advocate for a system that robs them - and leave off with all this bogus "pragmatarian" sugar-coating. IOW: Stop pissing down our backs while telling us it's raining ...

----------


## Sandemanian

> Yeah.  This forum doesn't have very much enthusiasm for the idea of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.


I'd love to be able to choose where my taxes go. But first I'd like to be able to chose whether I'm taxed at all.

----------


## Xerographica

> If there was no IRS, there would be no EPA or DoD. If the IRS exists at all, they always take more money, not less.


Eh?  If taxpayers gave the IRS less funding... then the IRS would employ less agents.  

In a pragmatarian system... taxpayers would be in charge of funding.  Funding for congress, the IRS, the president, the supreme court, the EPA, the DOD, the DMV and every other government organization/department/agency would be entirely determined by taxpayers.  

Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector.  Taxpayers would choose which public goods they put into their shopping carts.  

How many taxpayers are going to put the IRS in their shopping cart?  Many?  Some?  None?  Would the IRS receive more, the same, or less funding than it currently receives?  

Right now you complain about the government.  You say that the government victimizes taxpayers by stealing their money.  The government is the villain in your story.

But in a pragmatarian system... if there was a villain in your story...  then it would be taxpayers.  The taxpayers would be the villain in your story.  Specifically... whichever taxpayers chose to help fund the IRS.  

If your neighbor helped fund the IRS... then he would be the villain.

*You:* Hey Bob, how's it going?  Who'd you give your taxes to this year?
*Bob:* The IRS
*You:*  What the $#@! Bob?  Why would you do that?
*Bob:* Because I don't trust you
*You:* What?!
*Bob:* Yeah, I don't think you would voluntarily pay for public goods
*You:* Oh yeah?!  Well... $#@! you Bob! 
*Bob:* $#@! you too!   

Well.... that didn't go so well.  Right now you can encourage people to boycott the IRS... but most people don't want to end up in jail.  But in a pragmatarian system people could boycott the IRS without going to jail.  So you would just need to convince people to boycott the IRS.  How hard could that be?  

*You:* Hey Bob, how's it going?  Who'd you give your taxes to this year?
*Bob:* The IRS
*You:*  Oh, didn't you know the IRS is unnecessary?  
*Bob:* Really?
*You:* Yeah, here's why...
*Bob:* Wow!  That's good to know!  I'm never again going to give money to the IRS!
*You:* That's great!  Hey, we should have a BBQ some time!
*Bob:* Yeah!  

Right now there's this thing called rational ignorance.  It's a real thing.  People aren't going to make much effort to try and learn something if they can't benefit from what they learn.  

*Me:* See that big mountain?
*You:* Yeah?
*Me:* The winning lottery number is at the top
*You:*  WOW!  How come you're not racing to the top of the mountain?
*Me:* Because it's impossible to use the numbers
*You:* How's it impossible to use the numbers?
*Me:* Just trust me... it's impossible

Let's say that you spend all your time studying the EPA.  If you learn that the EPA is defective... it's not like you can give the EPA less of your tax dollars.  And if you learn that the EPA is effective... then you can't give the EPA more of your tax dollars.  Therefore, it wouldn't be rational to spend all your time studying the EPA.  Instead, it would be rational to be ignorant about the EPA.  

Allowing people to choose where their taxes go would eliminate rational ignorance.  Taxpayers would really want to do their homework in order to try and avoid having their hard-earned cash flushed down the toilet.  

This means that, in a pragmatarian system, your neighbor Bob would be a lot more receptive and interested in any information that might help him avoid wasting his hard-earned money.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> If there was no IRS, there would be no EPA or DoD. If the IRS exists at all, they always take more money, not less.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Gold Standard again._

Under so-called "pragmatarianism," if tax payers don't "choose" to spend taxes on the IRS, then there can be no tax collection ...

... and if there is no tax collection, then there can be no tax revenue ...

... and if there is no tax revenue, then there can be no tax spending ...

... and if there is no tax spending, then what is the point of allowing tax payers to "choose" what taxes will spent on ... ???

This is just one more example of the numerous circularities and inconsistencies that pervade "pragmatarianism."

(It really doesn't seem terribly "pragmatic," does it?)

----------


## Xerographica

> I did not "run away" from anything ("bravely" or otherwise ).


Of course you did.  If you ever manage to use words like "shortage" and "surplus" and "public good" and "demand" and "supply" then maybe you'll be actually addressing my argument rather than simply bravely running away.




> The difference between Bill Gates being allowed to keep all his money and then spend it as and how he pleases (or not at all), on the one hand, and Bill Gates being forcibly robbed of his money and then allowed to choose how his stolen money is spent from among an arbitrarily limited slate of options, on the other hand, *are entirely different things*. The economic dynamics, incentives, etc. involved in each of those scenarios are profoundly divergent, and you DO NOT get to pretend that the only difference between them is (as you are pleased to say) "the elimination of the mere label of 'taxpayer' ..." But of course, if you actually acknowledged those incommensurable differences - which are fundamental, essential, critical and dispositive - then your entire case for so-called "pragmatarianism" would collapse, and "pragmatarianism" would be fully exposed for the fraudulent shell-game and diversionary placebo that it really is.


Are you assuming that, in a pragmatarian system, Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS?  

A. Bill Gates would choose _not_ to help fund the IRS.  Clearly Gates does not appreciate being robbed.  The question is... is he the rule... or the exception?  

B. Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS.  Clearly Gates appreciates being robbed.  The same question... is he the rule... or the exception?

It matters whether Bill Gates is the exception or the rule because if most taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then... well... you have your work cut out for you.  But if only a few taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then the majority of taxpayers aren't going to stand for being subjected to tyranny of the minority.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Of course you did.  If you ever manage to use words like "shortage" and "surplus" and "public good" and "demand" and "supply" then maybe you'll be actually addressing my argument rather than simply bravely running away.


You have no argument.

Invoke as much jargon as you like, but all you have is a hodge-podge of circular, contradictory and/or obfuscatory verbiage.

(_"If you can't dazzle them brilliance, baffle them with bull$#@!."_)

The following is a perfect example:



> Are you assuming that, in a pragmatarian system, Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS?  
> 
> A. Bill Gates would choose _not_ to help fund the IRS.  Clearly Gates does not appreciate being robbed.  The question is... is he the rule... or the exception?  
> 
> B. Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS.  Clearly Gates appreciates being robbed.  The same question... is he the rule... or the exception?
> 
> It matters whether Bill Gates is the exception or the rule because if most taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then... well... you have your work cut out for you.  But if only a few taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then the majority of taxpayers aren't going to stand for being subjected to tyranny of the minority.


None of this does anything but question-beggingly restate and rephrase the very assertions and assumptions that are at issue.

It does nothing at all to actually address the deceitful equivocation that lies at the foundation of so-called "pragmatarianism."

Unless and until you eliminate that equivocation, you have no business complaining about people who won't waste time arguing with you.

(But of course, as I noted before, eliminating that equivocation would destroy "pragmatarianism" ...)

----------


## osan

> Imagine if you needed brain surgery.


Oh would that I could... for that would mean I had a brain.




> Would you ever seriously consider conducting the surgery yourself? I think that most of us would choose to leave brain surgery to the brain surgeons. There's little doubt that brain surgeons are uniquely and supremely qualified to conduct brain surgery. Therefore, we put our brains in their hands.


Why do I sense a bitter logical fallacy on the immediate horizon?




> Now imagine that you had the option to spend your taxes yourself


Now imagine not having to pay taxes.  That's the ticket.




> Would you ever seriously consider choosing where your taxes go?


You'd better bet your ass I would.




> Or, would you choose to leave tax allocation to your elected representatives?


Surely this is not a serious question.

_Right?_




> Do you think that congresspeople are uniquely and supremely qualified to spend your taxes?


Either you are supremely head-$#@!ed, or your sense of humor is becoming burdensomely tedious.




> Would you choose to put your taxes in their hands?


I'd sooner leave my testicles in their hands... and I'd never leave my testicles in their hands.




> Nobody, that I know of, debates whether people should have the option to conduct brain surgery on themselves. But ask somebody whether people should have the option to spend their taxes themselves and you might end up in a pretty big debate. Why is that?


Because there is no equivalence between the two scenarios.  They are utterly unrelated for reasons that I hope are glaringly obvious to you.




> How many people would choose to shop for themselves in the public sector? What percentage of the purse would they control? Maybe 50%? Taxpayers would spend half of the public funds themselves and congress would spend the other half?


Have you taken up smoking meth?  These questions are inane.  As if that were not bad enough, they are fraught with a vague, dripping innuendo that smacks of something ridiculous or obscene... perhaps ridiculously obscene or obscenely ridiculous.




> Would people who wanted to shop for themselves in the public sector be more conservative? Or liberal? Rich... or poor? Educated... or uneducated? Would professionals shop for themselves or have congress shop for them? Would brain surgeons choose to put their taxes into the hands of congress like congress chooses to put their brains into the hands of brain surgeons?


Forgive me, but this is just stupid.  How about you make your point directly, rather than through the innuendo of irrelevant questions?  Honestly, this is irritating.

<SNIP>




> In a pragmatarian system there would be two main ways for the people to indicate that a politician is supremely and uniquely qualified to spend their taxes...


Still on about that pragmatarian nonsense?  Sweet Jesus.




> 1. People could give the politician their vote
> 2. People could give the politician their taxes


Wow... you get to choose how to be an irrelevant slave.  Where do I sign up?




> If you trust the first way, then how could you possibly distrust the second way? 
> 
> And if you don't trust the first way, then you should really want to have the option to directly allocate your taxes. It would be the only way to keep your hard-earned taxes out of incompetent hands. 
> 
> Nobody wants to put their brain into incompetent hands. Why would it be any different with taxes? It seems pretty straightforward that giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes would be the best way to minimize the amount of taxes that end up in incompetent hands.


I'd come here expecting something worth discussing and found this.  I want my money back.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Eh?  If taxpayers gave the IRS less funding... then the IRS would employ less agents.


What don't you understand? The taxpayers don't give the IRS anything. They take it. By force. If you resist, they lock you in a cage. If you resist that, they kill you. If the taxpayers gave the IRS less funding, many would be dead. If you can tell me how to get around that problem, then I can promise you no government program would ever get another penny from me, regardless of what you call the system.

----------


## Xerographica

> What don't you understand? The taxpayers don't give the IRS anything. They take it. By force. If you resist, they lock you in a cage. If you resist that, they kill you. If the taxpayers gave the IRS less funding, many would be dead. If you can tell me how to get around that problem, then I can promise you no government program would ever get another penny from me, regardless of what you call the system.


This thread is about pragmatarianism.  It's in the economics category.  Of course you're welcome to talk about whatever you want in this thread.  But I just want to be clear that whatever you're talking about isn't related to the topic of this thread or the category that it's in.  

Personally, I prefer to talk about pragmatarianism.  Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector.  I really love markets.  Markets are wonderful.  Markets are the opposite of socialism.  I really hate command economies. 

Right now I'm debating a socialist in this thread.  We go back and forth and back and forth.  He thinks that it would be a stupid idea to create a market in the public sector.  He thinks that government planners do a far better job than taxpayers could.  

I suppose I could simply accuse him of being immoral.  But that would be a pretty short discussion.  I could say "taxes are theft" and he would reply "you're wrong".  It just doesn't seem like it would be a very productive discussion.  

Have you ever had a productive discussion with a socialist?  Or do you just mainly talk with other anarcho-capitalists?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Have you ever had a productive discussion with a socialist?  Or do you just mainly talk with other anarcho-capitalists?


I don't have productive discussions with anyone, least of all you. 

A market in the "public sector" is not a market. It is no different than socialism. If participation is not voluntary, but forced at gunpoint, then prices are meaningless, and so is your market.

----------


## erowe1

> If we can't choose where our taxes go... then it means that congress chooses for us.


On the other hand, if we can choose where our taxes go, they're not taxes.

Also, your sylogism is invalid. You say:



> Therefore... it would seem that members of this forum are confident in congress's competence.


But it's not the case that incompetence is what makes Congress bad. Incompetence is perhaps Congress's one redeeming quality.

----------


## oyarde

> No.


I concur .

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> On the other hand, if we can choose where our taxes go, they're not taxes.
> 
> Also, your sylogism is invalid. You say:
> 
> *
> But it's not the case that incompetence is what makes Congress bad. Incompetence is perhaps Congress's one redeeming quality.*


HA!!  I submit this for RPF quote of the day.  Well played, comrade.

----------


## Xerographica

> But it's not the case that incompetence is what makes Congress bad. Incompetence is perhaps Congress's one redeeming quality.


Every major war that's ever been fought has been the result of the incompetence of one or more governments.  

What's the demand for defense?   _You don't know._  None of us do.  And it's this opacity which allows congress to get away with saying that the supply of defense reflects, rather than subverts, the true will of the people.

----------


## erowe1

> Every major war that's ever been fought has been the result of the incompetence of one or more governments.


I doubt that.




> What's the demand for defense?   _You don't know._  None of us do.  And it's this opacity which allows congress to get away with saying that the supply of defense reflects, rather than subverts, the true will of the people.


No. This opacity is why we need to leave it to the free market. No central manager, not even one following the votes of a direct democracy, could ever replicate the compounded wisdom of hundreds of millions of people acting in their own interest with their own knowledge of what's best for them in their own circumstances. That's what the second Amendment is for.

What should the federal government spend on so-called defense? Nothing. Let us all keep our money and spend it on defense ourselves however we see fit.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> What's the demand for defense?   _You don't know._  None of us do.


And you will never know unless people spend their own money on defense at private providers, sacrificing voluntary purchases of other services to purchase defense. Telling the thieves that stole their money they would rather it be spent on the military than go directly into their bank account or go to the EPA is not a reflection of the demand for defense, or anything.

----------


## Occam's Banana

I already replied to this in post #34 - but I think it bears repeating, with some elaboration:




> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> The difference between Bill Gates being allowed to keep all his money and then spend it as and how he pleases (or not at all), on the one hand, and Bill Gates being forcibly robbed of his money and then allowed to choose how his stolen money is spent from among an arbitrarily limited slate of options, on the other hand, *are entirely different things*. The economic dynamics, incentives, etc. involved in each of those scenarios are profoundly divergent, and you DO NOT get to pretend that the only difference between them is (as you are pleased to say) "the elimination of the mere label of 'taxpayer' ..." But of course, if you actually acknowledged those incommensurable differences - which are fundamental, essential, critical and dispositive - then your entire case for so-called "pragmatarianism" would collapse, and "pragmatarianism" would be fully exposed for the fraudulent shell-game and diversionary   placebo that it really is.
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that, in a pragmatarian system, Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS?  
> 
> A. Bill Gates would choose _not_ to help fund the IRS. Clearly Gates does not appreciate being robbed. The question is... is he the rule... or the exception?  
> ...


Note that not a single word of Xerographica's reply to me addressed (let alone rebutted) anything I said. None of his reply did anything but question-beggingly reembody and rephrase the very assertions and assumptions that are at issue. His entire reply is nothing but a "shuck and jive" evasion of what I said.

Specifically, note that right off the bat, he bizarrely and irrelevantly starts talking about what I may have assumed might happen under a (so-called) "pragmatarian" system - and then he proceeds from there, exclusive of any other concern. He completely ignores the whole point of what I said - namely, that *his "pragmatarian" system is derived upon the illegitimately equivocal pretense that "taxation with an arbitrarily limited set of choices for how taxed money will be spent" is somehow economically commensurable with "no taxation with an unlimited set of choices for how untaxed money will be spent (including the choice not to spend it)"*.

In other words: He did nothing at all to mitigate the deceitful equivocation that lies at the foundation of so-called "pragmatarianism" - and unless and until he eliminates that equivocation, he has no business complaining about people like me who won't waste time arguing with him about the alleged virtues and desirability of "pragmatarianism." (But of course, as I noted at the end of the bit he quoted from me, eliminating that equivocation would destroy "pragmatarianism.")

In other other words: "Pragmatarianism" is nothing more than an elaborate and pseudo-sophisticated facade for what is, at root, just a "bait and switch" scam ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you agree with the following?


No, I don't.   It assumes what it has to prove.

----------


## Xerographica

> No. This opacity is why we need to leave it to the free market. No central manager, not even one following the votes of a direct democracy, could ever replicate the compounded wisdom of hundreds of millions of people acting in their own interest with their own knowledge of what's best for them in their own circumstances. That's what the second Amendment is for.


It really _sounds_ like you love and appreciate the market... which is a breath of fresh air.  But... I'm not sure if you truly do love and appreciate the market. 

The question that we're all debating is whether taxation should be compulsory.

For nearly all of you the answer is a resounding "NO!!!!"

For congress the answer is a clear and definitive "Yes!"

For me, the only pragmatarian on this forum, the answer is "What's the market's answer?"  

1. Should taxation be compulsory?

Anarcho-capitalists: No!!!!
Congress: Yes!
Market: *???*

What's the market's answer?  _We don't know_.  Why don't we know?  Because we don't have a market in the public sector.  If we did have a market in the public sector then each and every taxpayer would be able to answer the question for themselves with their own taxes.  That's how a market works.  A market is the epitome of _inclusive_ valuation.  This is why markets provide the most valuable answers.  

For some reason you aren't very interested in knowing the market's answer.  It's as if you suspect that the market's answer will differ from your own.  Evidently you think that the market's answer will be "yes".... or even "YES"... or maybe even "*YES YES YES YES!!!!!!*"

Should I trust your answer or the market's answer?  Given that I love and trust the market.... I prefer to trust the market's answer.  This definitely does not mean that I'll agree with the market's answer.  It just means that it would be the epitome of hubris and conceit to try and bypass, skip or override the market's answer.  In other words... it's the epitome of hubris and conceit to choose for millions of other people.  Choosing for millions of other people is exactly what happens in a command economy.  I hate command economies.  

If we create a market in the public sector and taxpayers overwhelming boycott the IRS and congress... then so be it.  The market has spoken.  But I'm open to the possibility that the market will say something else.  I'm a pragmatarian because I'm very interested in what the market has to say.  

You seem to love and trust the market... but you don't seem very interested in creating a market in the public sector.  So I don't think that you genuinely love the market.  In other words, you're not a pragmatarian.  

Engage in some soul searching.  Decide whether or not you truly love and trust the market.

----------


## erowe1

> 1. Should taxation be compulsory?
> 
> Anarcho-capitalists: No!!!!
> Congress: Yes!
> Market: *???*
> 
> What's the market's answer?  _We don't know_.  Why don't we know?


We do too know the market's answer. The market's answer is no. If you don't know that, I'm not sure why you don't. There's really no excuse.




> If we create a market in the public sector...


If we create a market in anything at all, it's not the public sector any more.

Tell me, as a pragmatarian, when you want to allow people to decide how their taxes will be allocated, does that include the option of saying, "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?

----------


## Xerographica

> We do too know the market's answer. The market's answer is no. If you don't know that, I'm not sure why you don't. There's really no excuse.


How do you know that the market's answer is "no" when people don't have the freedom to boycott the IRS?  




> Tell me, as a pragmatarian, when you want to allow people to decide how their taxes will be allocated, does that include the option of saying, "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?


Boycotting IRS = "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> How do you know that the market's answer is "no" when people don't have the freedom to boycott the IRS?  
> 
> 
> 
> Boycotting IRS = "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?


So people can decide to withhold everything from the government? Then sure. I don't give a $#@! if you want to send your money to them. I don't see what's so special about this pragmatarian nonsense then. No, I'm not going to read about it. No, I don't care. If government is completely voluntary and has no authority over people that don't participate, then I don't care how you want to arrange it. I won't be involved.

----------


## Xerographica

> So people can decide to withhold everything from the government?


No.  People can decide to withhold everything from the IRS.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> No.  People can decide to withhold everything from the IRS.


Then what you are proposing is not a market of any kind.

----------


## Xerographica

> Then what you are proposing is not a market of any kind.


With the current system... the IRS's budget is around $11 billion dollars.  What do you think the IRS's budget would be if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> With the current system... the IRS's budget is around $11 billion dollars.  What do you think the IRS's budget would be if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go?


The same or maybe more.  Because government agencies can't be trusted, and money is fungible, no matter where the money is sent, all the worst coercive elements of government will still be funded.

----------


## Xerographica

> The same or maybe more.  Because government agencies can't be trusted, and money is fungible, no matter where the money is sent, all the worst coercive elements of government will still be funded.


Money is fungible... therefore... PETA gives money to the NRA?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Money is fungible... therefore... PETA gives money to the NRA?


PETA and the NRA are generally opposed to one another.  What government agencies are opposed to each other?  Plus, those are organizations that are voluntary.  Government is coercive.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> With the current system... the IRS's budget is around $11 billion dollars.  What do you think the IRS's budget would be if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go?


Who the $#@! cares? It would be lining some bureaucrats pocket or killing someone somewhere, no matter where taxpayers choose to send it.

----------


## Xerographica

> PETA and the NRA are generally opposed to one another.  What government agencies are opposed to each other?  Plus, those are organizations that are voluntary.  Government is coercive.


The Marines and Army are opposed to each other.  The DoD is opposed to the EPA and vice versa.  The EPA is opposed to... Republicans.  

Right now congress has the money.  Congress controls the purse... which means that congress has the power.  

But if consumers had the freedom to choose where their taxes go... then consumers would control the purse.... which would give them the power.  

Here... read some Rothbard...




> There are two and only two ways of acquiring wealth: the economic means (voluntary production and exchange) and the political means (confiscation by coercion).  On the free market only the economic means can be used, and consequently everyone earns only what other individuals in society are willing to pay his services.  As long as this continues, there is no separate process called "distribution"; there is only production and exchange of goods.  Let government subsidies enter the scene, however, and the situation changes.  Now the political means to wealth become available.  On the free market, wealth is only a resultant of voluntary choices of all individuals and the extent to which men serve each other.  But the possibility of government subsidy permits a change: it opens the way to an allocation of wealth in accordance with the ability of a person or group to gain control of the State apparatus.
> 
> Government subsidy creates a separate distribution process (not "redistribution" as some would be tempted to say).  For the first time, earnings are severed from production and exchange and become separately determined.  To the extent that this distribution occurs, therefore, the allocation of earnings is distorted away from efficient service to consumers. ...
> 
> It is obvious that production and general living standards are lowered in two ways: (1) by the diversion of energy from production to politics, and (2) by the fact that government inevitably burdens the producers with the incubus of an inefficient, privileged group.  The inefficient achieve a legal claim to ride herd on the efficient.  This is all the more true since those who succeed in any occupation will inevitably tend to be those who are best at it.  Those who succeed on the free market, in economic life, will therefore be those most adept at production and at serving their fellowmen; those who succeed in the political struggle will be those most adept at employing coercion and winning favors from the wielders of coercion.  Generally, different people will be adept at these different tasks, in accordance with universal specialization and the division of labor, and hence the shackling of one set of people will be done for the benefit of another set.


Once consumers can choose where their taxes go... then they will want to be _served_.  And if the DMV or NASA fails to serve consumers then they will boycott the DMV and NASA and the IRS.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Here... read some Rothbard...


As a general rule, I don't initiate neg-reps - but you've earned one here for slandering Murray Rothbard by invoking him in defense of your fatuous nonsense.

You are truly delusional if you actually think that "pragmatarianism" is anything but yet another variant of the "political means" that Rothbard was criticizing.

Rothbard would think "pragmatarianism" is ludicrous - and assuming he'd even be willing to waste his time on it, he'd tear it apart for the double-talking con job it is.

----------


## Xerographica

> As a general rule, I don't initiate neg-reps - but you've earned one here for slandering Murray Rothbard by invoking him in defense of your fatuous nonsense.
> 
> You are truly delusional if you actually think that "pragmatarianism" is anything but yet another variant of the "political means" that Rothbard was criticizing.
> 
> Rothbard would think "pragmatarianism" is ludicrous - and assuming he'd even be willing to waste his time on it, he'd tear it apart for the double-talking con job it is.


Here's Rothbard...




> And what of those individuals who dislike the collective goods, pacifists who are morally outraged at defensive violence, environmentalists who worry over a dam destroying snail darters, and so on? In short, what of those persons who find other people's good their "bad?" Far from being free riders receiving external benefits, they are yoked to absorbing psychic harm from the supply of these goods. - Murray Rothbard, The Myth of Neutral Taxation


And here's a slice from a recent article on tax choice...




> Along similar lines, should civil libertarians have to contribute to the NSA budget? Should pacifists be forced to buy drones and bombs? Should Occupy Wall Street types have to finance bank bailouts? Should drug war opponents pay to shut down medical marijuana growers? Should Black Lives Matter activists fund the Pentagon's 1033 program, paying to funnel military equipment to the police departments they want to demilitarize? - Bonnie Kristian, How to fix America's broken tax system: Let taxpayers decide where their money goes


Why would Rothbard have thought that pragmatarianism is ludicrous?  Rothbard was completely correct that the fundamental problem with government is the complete absence of consumer choice.  Pragmatarianism would solve this problem by giving taxpayers the freedom to choose where their taxes go.  Pacifists would no longer have to pay for violence... environmentalists would no longer have to pay for the destruction of natural habitats... libertarians would no longer have to pay the NSA... liberals would no longer have to pay for bank bailouts... drug war opponents would no longer have to pay for the drug war... and so on.

Unfortunately for both of us... Rothbard isn't around today.  But I'm sure you know and respect some people who follow in his tradition and are around today.  Go ahead and ask any of them... such as Bob Murphy or Tom Woods... to publicly critique pragmatarianism.  See... unlike yourself... they are actually familiar with Rothbard's work.  Which is why they won't publicly critique pragmatarianism. 

The only anarcho-capitalists who have no problem attacking pragmatarianism are those who are completely clueless about economics*.  Rothbard most definitely was not clueless about economics.  He had an excellent grasp of economics.  I love reading his work and I frequently share it on my blog.  It's really great stuff!  Unfortunately... what Rothbard got really wrong was the solution to the problem of government.  He wanted to destroy the government.  He was willing to push a button that would have instantly annihilated the government.  Can he be blamed for failing to see the real solution to the problem of government?  Of course not!  We're all fallible.  We all have limited perspectives.  Nobody has a perfect grasp on reality.  Which is part of the reason that markets work infinitely better than command economies do.  

Of course I might be wrong.  If you're still certain that I'm wrong... then just go ask Bob Murphy or Tom Woods or any other respectable anarcho-capitalist to publicly explain in adequate detail why I'm wrong.  As it stands... they have yet to do so.  And the longer they avoid doing so... the more certain I become that I'm on the right track.  

*So far the only credible anarcho-capitalist who has critiqued pragmatarianism is David Friedman.  This is the extent of his critique...




> I don't think that letting taxpayers allocate their taxes among options provided by the government solves the fundamental problems of government.


Unfortunately, he didn't elaborate.  But from my perspective... and Rothbard's perspective... the fundamental problem with government is the absence of consumer choice.  Which clearly would be solved by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.  And once taxpayers can choose where their taxes go... the options provided by government will quickly diversify to reflect the diverse preferences of taxpayers.  If enough taxpayers prefer for taxes to be voluntary... then this option will be provided soon enough.  Markets work because producers have an incentive to cater to the preferences of consumers.

Right now government officials can get rich by cheating.  A congressperson does some favors for the military industrial complex.  In return... they give him an extremely well compensated position after he leaves public office.  

But in a pragmatarian system... we'll have "rockstars" in the public sector just like we have "rockstars" in the private sector.  J.K. Rowling is an example of a rockstar.  She got stupid rich by effectively serving millions of people.  In a pragmatarian system... if somebody in the public sector cures cancer for example... then taxpayers are going to want to give this person a lot of their tax dollars.  This person will quickly become a rockstar.  The potential to be a rockstar in the public sector will provide producers of public goods the maximum incentive to cater to the interests of taxpayers.  

So the only thing wrong with the government is the absence of consumer choice.  The simple solution is to add consumer choice to the government by giving taxpayers the freedom to choose where their taxes go.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Rothbard was completely correct that *the fundamental problem with government is the complete absence of consumer choice*.


I can pretty much promise you that those words never once came out of Murray Rothbard's mouth. The fundamental problem with government is that it's existence depends on the violation of rights of the people. Your bull$#@! does too.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I can pretty much promise you that those words never once came out of Murray Rothbard's mouth. The fundamental problem with government is that it's existence depends on the violation of rights of the people. Your bull$#@! does too.


Exactly.  It was coercion that Rothbard was arguing against.  This idea does nothing to solve that.

----------


## Xerographica

> I can pretty much promise you that those words never once came out of Murray Rothbard's mouth. The fundamental problem with government is that it's existence depends on the violation of rights of the people. Your bull$#@! does too.


If you look at the top of the page it says, "Austrian Economics / Economic Theory"

I'm here in this category because I _love_ economics.  Like I _really_ love economics.  

Because I really love economics it's ridiculously easy for me to tell that you do not love economics.  You love "rights".  What are "rights"?  Where do "rights" come from?  From the government?  From nature?  From God?  

If you really want to debate the answers to these questions then you might have a lot more luck in another category.  

This is the category for people who are interested in debating results.  What are results?  Results are _consequences_.  

China used to be a command economy.  What were the results?  Millions of people starved to death.  

Then, in 1978, Deng Xiaoping gradually began to implement market reforms.  What were the results?  Millions and millions of people were lifted out of poverty.  

Right now China, like the US, is a mixed economy.  We both have a market in the private sector and socialism in the public sector.  I'm arguing that we create a market in the public sector.  Why am I arguing this?  Because I care about "rights"?  Of course not!  I'm arguing this because I'm interested in results.

Let's say that people could only choose where 1% of their taxes go.  Would I support this step?  Of course I would!  Even though it's just a tiny step... I'd support it because it's in the right direction.  And because it's in the right direction... the results of this step would be beneficial.  

Rothbard talked about both "rights" and results.  Unfortunately, far too many of his followers, such as yourself... focused entirely on the parts about "rights".  This means that you're largely clueless about results.  If you ignored what Rothbard had to say about results... then why should I expect you to pay attention to what I have to say about results?   So again... you'd have a lot more luck in another category.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> If you look at the top of the page it says, "Austrian Economics / Economic Theory"
> 
> I'm here in this category because I _love_ economics.  Like I _really_ love economics.  
> 
> Because I really love economics it's ridiculously easy for me to tell that you do not love economics.  You love "rights".  What are "rights"?  Where do "rights" come from?  From the government?  From nature?  From God?  
> 
> If you really want to debate the answers to these questions then you might have a lot more luck in another category.  
> 
> This is the category for people who are interested in debating results.  What are results?  Results are _consequences_.  
> ...


I was just pointing out where you are making $#@! up. Regardless of rights or results. I don't know what the results of your idiotic plan would be, except they wouldn't be a free market economy, which is what always produces the best results. Would it be an improvement over what we have now? I doubt it, but I don't really care either. If they sent me a form and gave me the options of where to send my tax money, and my name wasn't on the list, I would throw it in the garbage.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Here's Rothbard...


And here's another neg-rep. (You'll get one from me every time you abuse Rothbard by trying to associate him favorably with your gibberish.)




> Why would Rothbard have thought that pragmatarianism is ludicrous?


Because he would have quickly and easily recognized that "pragmatarianism" is nothing but a shuck-and-jive con job ...




> [T]he State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as taxation [... *It might be maintained that taxation is or could be] "really" voluntary [...]. There are, however, a great many flaws in this doctrine.* First is the inner contradiction between voluntarism and coercion; a coercion of all-against-all does not make any of this coercion "voluntary." [... *P]recisely because taxation is compulsory, there is no way to ensure (as is done automatically on the free market) that the amount any person contributes is what he would "really" be willing to pay. [... In] the case of taxation, a mans surrender to the threat of coercion demonstrates no voluntary preference whatsoever for any alleged benefits he receives.*





> State apologists [may] maintain that taxation [might be] "really" voluntary; one simple but instructive refutation of this claim is to ponder what would happen if the government were to abolish taxation, and to confine itself to simple requests for voluntary contributions. [...] The great economist Joseph Schumpeter was correct when he acidly wrote that "*the theory which construes taxes on the analogy* of club dues or *of the purchase of* the *services* of, say, a doctor *only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind*."





> Rothbard was completely correct that the fundamental problem with government is the complete absence of consumer choice.


For all that you claim to have extensively read and enjoyed Rothbard, I can only marvel at the profound lack of understanding of Rothbard's thought that is exhibited by this statement.




> Go ahead and ask [...] Bob Murphy or Tom Woods... to publicly critique pragmatarianism.  See... unlike yourself... they are actually familiar with Rothbard's work.  Which is why they won't publicly critique pragmatarianism. [...] just go ask Bob Murphy or Tom Woods or any other respectable anarcho-capitalist to publicly explain in adequate detail why I'm wrong.  As it stands... they have yet to do so.  And the longer they avoid doing so... the more certain I become that I'm on the right track.


SMDH. You are really full of yourself, aren't you?

Woods, Murphy, etc. should no more waste time arguing with you about "pragmatarianism" than they should waste time arguing with a crazy person who insists that two plus two is equal to five.




> So far the only credible anarcho-capitalist who has critiqued pragmatarianism is David Friedman.  This is the extent of his critique...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				I don't think that letting taxpayers allocate their taxes among options  provided by the government solves the fundamental problems of  government.
> 			
> ...


He didn't need to elaborate. He perfectly summarized the matter. Anything beyond that would have been a waste of time.

He was incredibly generous just to have given you that much.

(And apparently, you are too infatuated with yourself to recognize his polite brush-off for what it was ...)

----------


## erowe1

> How do you know that the market's answer is "no" when people don't have the freedom to boycott the IRS?


Because that lack of freedom is what makes it antithetical to the market.





> Boycotting IRS = "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?


Boycotting the IRS and the rest of the public sector, yes.

----------


## erowe1

> With the current system... the IRS's budget is around $11 billion dollars.  What do you think the IRS's budget would be if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go?


You keep saying "the IRS." Until you take that sentence, and every other mention of yours of the IRS, and replace "the IRS" with "the state," everything you're saying is incoherent and irrelevant.

----------


## Xerographica

> And here's another neg-rep. (You'll get one from me every time you abuse Rothbard by trying to associate him favorably with your gibberish.)


It's so strange that you think I care about neg-rep.  Can you please explain why you think I should care?  Is there some beneficial use of rep that I'm not aware of?  Like, can I redeem it for beer or steak?  

Here's Rothbard...




> Individual valuation is the keystone of economic theory.


Pragmatarianism would increase, rather than decrease, individual valuation.  More Rothbard...




> The concept of demonstrated preference is simply this: that actual choice reveals, or demonstrates, a man’s preferences; that is, that his preferences are deducible from what he has chosen in action. Thus, if a man chooses to spend an hour at a concert rather than a movie, we deduce that the former was preferred, or ranked higher on his value scale. Similarly, if a man spends five dollars on a shirt we deduce that he preferred purchasing the shirt to any other uses he could have found for the money. This concept of preference, rooted in real choices, forms the keystone of the logical structure of economic analysis, and particularly of utility and welfare analysis.


With the current system people don't have the freedom to use their taxes to demonstrate their preference for national defense or environmental protection.  But they would have this freedom with a pragmatarian system.  

More Rothbard on demonstrating preferences...




> The crucial point is that when consumers spend, they benefit, because the expenditures are voluntary. The consumers buy product X because they decide that, for whatever reason, it would benefit them to buy that product rather than use the money on some other product or save or add to their cash balances. They give up money for product X because they expect to prefer that product to whatever they could have done with the money elsewhere; their preference reflects a judgment of relative benefit from that, as compared to another, purchase. In my own terms, spending choices by consumers demonstrate their preference for one, as compared to another, way of using their money.


Clearly... in a pragmatarian system... taxpayers wouldn't be able to put their taxes into the bank or spend their taxes on donuts rather than on defense.  But the part you'll always and forever avoid actually addressing is that... if taxpayers truly do want to put their taxes into the bank or buy donuts with them... then they'll have the freedom to communicate this by boycotting the IRS/congress.  

How many taxpayers will choose to boycott the IRS and/or congress?  What's the answer to this incredibly important question?  For me the answer really matters.  For you... well... you could care less.  You're not interested in the truth.  

Now, maybe the problem is my fault.  Maybe you're actually a smart and open minded guy.  I doubt this but maybe I'm wrong.  

Let's find out if I'm wrong by adding a couple theoretical government departments to the pragmatarian system...

1. Department Of The Private Bank 
2. Department Of Private Goods

We'll say that your tax obligation is $10,000 dollars.  This is how much you have to spend in the public sector.  But what if you don't want to spend any of your $10,000 dollars on public goods?  What if your preference is to put $6,000 in your bank and spend $4,000 on private goods (ie donuts)?   Then you'd simply give $6,000 to the Department of the Private Bank and $4,000 to the Department of Private Goods.  They'd give you a receipt.  What would you get in return?  Nothing.  These Departments wouldn't spend your money... they would simply keep your money for you.  Then what's the point of giving your money to these departments?  The point would be to clearly communicate, within the constraints of pragmatarianism, that you'd really prefer to put your tax dollars in your bank and buy private goods with them.  

The more people that give their money to these two Departments... rather than to the Departments that supply public goods... the more likely it is that taxation would become voluntary and all the money that you allocated to these two Departments would be returned to you so that you could use it entirely as you see fit.  

I would have absolutely no problem with the addition of these two Departments.  I truly want to know how much money people would actually give to these two Departments.  I want to know people's demonstrated preference for...

A. saving, rather than spending, their tax dollars
B. spending their tax dollars on private, rather than public, goods

With this modification to pragmatarianism... you won't be required to spend your tax dollars on public goods.  But... neither will you be able to save your tax dollars in your bank or spend them on private goods.  Well... at least not initially.  Of course you'll always have the option to take your money out of these two Departments and spend it on public goods.  

To be clear... if taxation was voluntary as you so clearly desire... then taxpayers would also be able to clearly demonstrate their preference for spending their "taxes" on private goods and/or saving it in the bank.  But... anarcho-capitalism is too hard to sell.  And, most importantly, as I've completely failed to help you understand... it's entirely unnecessary to try and sell anarcho-capitalism.  In a pragmatarian system... if enough taxpayers want taxation to be voluntary then they will clearly communicate this by boycotting the IRS and/or congress.  But if you don't think this communication would be clear enough... then I see absolutely no problem with the addition of the two Departments which I described.  Then... with these two Departments... not a penny of your tax dollars would be spent on public goods if this was your preference that you wanted to clearly demonstrate.  

Let's continue with trying to find the bottleneck in our exchange.

Let's say again that your tax obligation is $10,000 dollars.  With the current system.... you can't use any of this $10,000 to demonstrate your preference.  But what if the government gave $5,000 dollars back to you?  You could spend this $5,000 however you wanted.  Basically, you'd be able to demonstrate your preference with half of your tax obligation.  

Would you want the government to give you back half your taxes to spend as you please?  I'm pretty sure your answer is yes.  Pretty sure.  

In this case... being able to demonstrate your preferences with half of your taxes is preferable to being able to demonstrate your preferences with none of your taxes.

Ok, we've narrowed things down but we still haven't found the bottleneck.  So let's narrow things down a little more.

Same deal as before... the government offers to give you half of your taxes back.  And you're thrilled to have half of your taxes back to spend as you please.  This time though there's one condition.  You can't spend any of your $5,000 on tampons.  You can spend your $5,000 on anything you want... except for tampons.  You can use your $5,000 dollars to demonstrate your preference for donuts, baseball caps, computers, hookers, booze... anything except for tampons.  You can't use the $5,000 dollars to demonstrate your preference for tampons.  Do you still want your $5,000 dollars back even though a restriction has been placed on how you can spend it?  

I'm guessing that the answer is yes.  We still haven't found the bottleneck.  Let's narrow things yet again...

Same deal as before... you can't spend any of your $5,000 dollars on tampons.  This time... another condition is added.  You can't spend any of your $5,000 dollars on romance novels.  So now there are two items on your "can't buy list"...

1. tampons
2. romance novels

Do you still accept the deal?  Or are romance novels where the bottleneck is?  I'm guessing that you'd still accept the deal.  You strike me as the kind of guy who can forego spending your money on romance novels.  

Ok... I think you understand the process of narrowing things down.  So, rather than go through and add one item at a time to the "can't buy list"... you can just tell me at which point, exactly, you'd refuse to accept the $5,000 dollars.  

From my perspective... with a pragmatarian system... you get your entire $10,000 dollars back.  But, there are significant strings attached.  Rather than receiving a list of things that you can't spend the money on... which would be too long... you get a list of things that you can spend the money on.  Admittedly, it's not a very long list.  But at least you're given the chance to demonstrate your preference for _some_ things.  And for many people... the items on this list aren't frivolous.  They are some of the things that people _seem_ to really value... like infrastructure, defense, healthcare, education and environmental protection.

Let's review and summarize...

1. Being able to demonstrate your preferences with half of your taxes is preferable to being able to demonstrate your preferences with none of your taxes. (you'd want your $5,000 back to be entirely free to spend it as you please).  True/False

2. Being able to demonstrate _some_ of your preferences with half of your taxes is preferable to being able to demonstrate none of your preferences with none of your taxes (you'd want your $5,000 back even if you couldn't use it to buy tampons).  True/False

3. Being able to demonstrate _some_ of your preferences with all of your taxes is preferable to being able to demonstrate none of your preferences with none of your taxes (you'd want your $10,000 back even if you could only use it to buy public goods).  True/False

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And here's another neg-rep. (You'll get  one from me every time you abuse Rothbard by trying to associate him  favorably with your gibberish.)





> It's so strange that you think I care about neg-rep.  Can you please explain why you think I should care?  Is there some beneficial use of rep that I'm not aware of?  Like, can I redeem it for beer or steak?


LOL. I don't know. You tell me.

After all, you apparently care enough about it that this is the only thing from my previous post to which you bothered to reply ...




> Here's Rothbard...


And here's some more neg-rep.




> [snip]


Sorry, but I didn't read the rest of your post, as there is no reason to expect that it contains anything more than yet another tiresomely verbose repitition of all the evasive equivocations, circularities, contradictions and other _non sequiturs_ of which you are so fond.

However, I must confess some mild curiosity as to what motivates you to imagine that I might be inclined to so waste my time, given your obstinate persistence in ignoring or talking past everything that is offered in rebuttal to you. (I rather suspect that it's the same sort of motive that impels your fellow crackpots to emit lengthy disquisitions upon their "solutions" to squaring the circle ...)

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Xerographica

> LOL. I don't know. You tell me.


You seem to derive some utility from neg-rep'ing me.  But you can't explain why I should care if you do so.  So I guess it's more for your benefit than for my detriment.  




> Sorry, but I didn't read the rest of your post, as there is no reason to expect that it contains anything more than yet another tiresomely verbose repitition of all the evasive equivocations, circularities, contradictions and other _non sequiturs_ of which you are so fond.


Among other things I asked whether you would want the government to give you half of your taxes back.  But I understand if this question is too difficult for you to answer.

----------


## Xerographica

> Who shoud I trust to spend the money that's being stolen from me ... that's such a difficult question


Here's an easy question... would you want the government to give you half of your taxes back?  Let's say that the government takes $10,000 dollars from you.  Would you want the government to give $5,000 dollars back to you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here's an easy question... would you want the government to give you half of your taxes back?  Let's say that the government takes $10,000 dollars from you.  Would you want the government to give $5,000 dollars back to you?


No, I'd want an explanation as to why I was stolen from in the first place.

----------


## Xerographica

> No, I'd want an explanation as to why I was stolen from in the first place.


Eh?  Ok, let's try this differently.  Let's say that the tax rate is 40%.  Would you want the tax rate to be reduced to 20%?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Eh?  Ok, let's try this differently.  Let's say that the tax rate is 40%.  Would you want the tax rate to be reduced to 20%?


What justification is there to steal 1%?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Yeah.  This forum doesn't have very much enthusiasm for the idea of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.  If we can't choose where our taxes go... then it means that congress chooses for us.  Therefore... it would seem that members of this forum are confident in congress's competence.  Or... they aren't confident in congress's competence... but they are even less confident in taxpayers' competence.


Decoded:

Congress is incompetent, so we should trust them to be competent in passing legislation that will strip them of their legislative and taxing powers.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> LOL. I don't know. You tell me.
> 
> 
> You seem to derive some utility from neg-rep'ing me. But you can't explain why I should care if you do so. So I guess it's more for your benefit than for my detriment.


LOL again. You're the one obsessing over why you should care. I never said that you should. I've merely told you why I'm doing it.

It seems rather strange for someone to make such a big deal about how indifferent he supposedly is ...




> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I didn't read the rest of your  post, as there is no reason to expect that it contains anything more  than yet another tiresomely verbose repitition of all the evasive  equivocations, circularities, contradictions and other _non sequiturs_ of which you are so fond.
> 
> 
> Among other things I asked whether you would want the government to give  you half of your taxes back.  But I understand if this question is too  difficult for you to answer.


I see. So I was right ...

----------


## Xerographica

> Decoded:
> 
> Congress is incompetent, so we should trust them to be competent in passing legislation that will strip them of their legislative and taxing powers.


It's a moot point if you can't see the merit of giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes.  In other words... it's a moot point if you can't see the merit of consumer choice.

----------


## Xerographica

> What justification is there to steal 1%?


Clearly they have their justification... and clearly you don't accept their justification.  And evidently you wouldn't want half of your taxes back which means that you don't truly mind having your money stolen in the first place.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Clearly they have their justification... and clearly you don't accept their justification.  And evidently you wouldn't want half of your taxes back which means that you don't truly mind having your money stolen in the first place.


What is the justification?

----------


## Xerographica

> What is the justification?


The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.  That's the most widely cited (> 7000) justification for taxation.  It was written by the Nobel liberal economist Paul Samuelson.  

But why does the justification even matter?  You don't even want half of your taxes back.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Wow! Xerographica is really on roll!

In only three short posts, he has presented us with (at least) ten instances of (at least) eight fallacies. I am impressed ...




> It's a moot point if you can't see the merit of giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes. In other words... it's a moot point if you can't see the merit of consumer choice.


- false equivalence

- _ad temperantiam_

- equivocation on "consumer choice"




> [E]vidently you wouldn't want half of your taxes back which means that you don't truly mind having your money stolen in the first place.


- _non sequitur_

- false dilemma

- _ad consequentiam_




> The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. That's the most widely cited (> 7000) justification for taxation.


- _ad populum_




> It was written by the Nobel liberal economist Paul Samuelson.


- _ad verecundiam_




> But why does the justification even matter?  You don't even want half of your taxes back.


- _non sequitur_ (again)

- implicit _ad consequentiam_ (again)

----------


## The Gold Standard

> But why does the justification even matter?  You don't even want half of your taxes back.


I will never say it is ok to give me half of my taxes back if it implies that I am giving them permission to keep the other half. But what does this have to do with your plan? I thought we couldn't take our money back, only choose which department will waste it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.  That's the most widely cited (> 7000) justification for taxation.  It was written by the Nobel liberal economist Paul Samuelson.  
> 
> But why does the justification even matter?  You don't even want half of your taxes back.


What's his justification?

----------


## Xerographica

> What's his justification?


Here you go...




> _However no decentralized pricing system can serve to determine optimally these levels of collective consumption_. Other kinds of "voting" or "signalling" would have to be tried. But, and this is the point sensed by Wicksell but perhaps not fully appreciated by Lindahl, now it is in the selfish interest of each person to give _false_ signals, to pretend to have less interest in a given collective consumption activity than he really has, etc. I must emphasize this: taxing according to a benefit theory of taxation can not at all solve the computational problem in the decentralized manner possible for the first category of "private" goods to which the ordinary market pricing applies and which do not have the "external effects" basic to the very notion of collective consumption goods. - Paul A. Samuelson

----------


## Xerographica

> I will never say it is ok to give me half of my taxes back if it implies that I am giving them permission to keep the other half. But what does this have to do with your plan? I thought we couldn't take our money back, only choose which department will waste it.


I'm not sure how accepting half of your taxes back from the government would at all imply that you condone the "theft" of the other half.  But if you didn't accept half of your taxes back... then this would definitely imply that you don't value your taxes.  

What does this have to do with pragmatarianism?

Let's say that the government takes $10,000 dollars from you but it's willing to give you $5,000 back... on one condition.  You can't spend any of that $5,000 dollars on tampons.  Would you accept this condition?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Clearly they have their justification [for taxation ...]





> What is the justification?





> The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.  [...]  It was written by the Nobel liberal economist Paul Samuelson.  [...]





> What's his justification?





> Here you go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _However no decentralized pricing system can serve to determine optimally these levels of collective consumption_.  Other kinds of "voting" or "signalling" would have to be tried. But,  and this is the point sensed by Wicksell but perhaps not fully  appreciated by Lindahl, now it is in the selfish interest of each person  to give _false_ signals, to pretend to have less interest in a  given collective consumption activity than he really has, etc. I must  emphasize this: taxing according to a benefit theory of taxation can not  at all solve the computational problem in the decentralized manner  possible for the first category of "private" goods to which the ordinary  market pricing applies and which do not have the "external effects"  basic to the very notion of collective consumption goods. - Paul A.  Samuelson


Oh, now, this is just hilarious! Check it out ...

Xerographica has just cited Paul Samuelson's justification for taxation as authoritative - _yet he does not seem to have realized that if Samuelson is correct, then so-called "pragmatarianism" cannot work_.

According to what Samuelson says in the very quotation presented by Xerographica, "pragmatarianism" would be just another one of those "other kinds of 'voting' or 'signalling'" that Samuelson claims is inadequate to the task of correctly pricing and allocating "collective consumption goods." Samuelson asserts elsewhere that such matters must be resolved by means of some kind of "ethical welfare function" - that is, NOT by means of allowing "each person to give ... signals" (signals which Samuelson here claims would be "false" due to "the selfish interest of each person").

In other words, _Samuelson said that you can't leave it up to individuals to decide where their tax dollars should go because they will make the "wrong" decisions_. Yet Xerographica (whose "pragmatarianism" is nothing more than the idea that it should be left up to individuals to decide where their tax dollars should go) is citing what Samuelson said as an authoritative explanation for why taxation is even justified in the first place!

Now I ask you: can it possibly get any more ridiculously and absurdly self-contradictory than that?

----------


## osan

> Oh, now, this is just hilarious! Check it out ...
> 
> Xerographica has just cited Paul Samuelson's justification for taxation as authoritative - _yet he does not seem to have realized that if Samuelson is correct, then so-called "pragmatarianism" cannot work_.


Nicely done.  As for myself, the whole "pragmatarian" thing falls on its face precisely because it validates taxation, which is robbery.  On that note, I will mention that I now call taxation "robbery" rather than theft because robbery carries the threat of violence, whereas theft does not perforce do so.




> Now I ask you: can it possibly get any more ridiculously and absurdly self-contradictory than that?


Probably yes, but the difference is the same as two dead flies resting before you, one killed with a swatter and the other with a low-yield nuclear warhead.  Dead is dead.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's a moot point if you can't see the merit of giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes.  In other words... it's a moot point if you can't see the merit of consumer choice.


Whereas trying to reason with you is moot if you can't see the distinct possibility that half the population might very well allocate all of their taxes to the department of puppies and rainbows, thus netting that department far, far more money than it could or should ever spend.

And that if the gross excess is automatically diverted to where it's actually needed, then this free market of government you keep touting does not exist.  And all you're doing with this whole silliness is twanging your wang because you're so delighted with your high opinion of yourself.

A free market does _not_ force you to expend _x_ and give you choices as to where to invest it.  A free market also involves enticing your money out of your pocket in the first place.  And the distinct possibility that nothing will be produced that has any value to anyone, therefore no money will flow at all, is an integral part of the equation.

Government is the ultimate source of waste in the world today because it removes _that_ part of the free market equation.  It isn't wasteful because of the way funds are allocated, it's wasteful because funds are allocated even when they should be saved for a rainy day.

How many hammers will it take to insert this notion into your skull?

----------


## Xerographica

> Oh, now, this is just hilarious! Check it out ...
> 
> Xerographica has just cited Paul Samuelson's justification for taxation as authoritative - _yet he does not seem to have realized that if Samuelson is correct, then so-called "pragmatarianism" cannot work_.
> 
> According to what Samuelson says in the very quotation presented by Xerographica, "pragmatarianism" would be just another one of those "other kinds of 'voting' or 'signalling'" that Samuelson claims is inadequate to the task of correctly pricing and allocating "collective consumption goods." Samuelson asserts elsewhere that such matters must be resolved by means of some kind of "ethical welfare function" - that is, NOT by means of allowing "each person to give ... signals" (signals which Samuelson here claims would be "false" due to "the selfish interest of each person").


Samuelson never addressed pragmatarianism.  He was critiquing a system without compulsory taxation... aka anarcho-capitalism.  

Let's pick two goods... a private good... donuts... and a public (collective consumption) good... defense.

We'll say that you value both goods...  but you value defense a lot more than you value donuts.  If taxation wasn't compulsory... then you wouldn't be required to spend any money on defense or on any other public goods.  Because you want the most bang for your buck (benefit/utility/value maximization)... you wouldn't pay for defense if you guess that other people will pay for defense.  This would appear to be a smart strategy because it would allow you to have your defense and eat your donuts too (more benefit with less spending).  The problem probably with this strategy is that you're not the only one who wants to have their cake and eat it too.  As a result... defense might be underfunded.  

This was Samuelson's justification for compulsory taxation.  And, from my perspective, it really wasn't a bad justification.  I wholeheartedly agree that...

1. People want the most bang for their buck (markets wouldn't work if this wasn't true)
2. People can benefit from public goods without paying for them
3. 1 + 2 = underfunded public goods

Unfortunately... Samuelson didn't stop with justifying compulsory taxation.  He also threw in the assumption that government planners are omniscient.  He threw in this assumption because he understood that the supply of public goods can only be optimal when it meets the true demand for public goods.  Of course it's extremely absurd to assume that anybody is omniscient.  But this is exactly the assumption that our current system is based on.

What if we remove this assumption?  Then government planners aren't omniscient...  they don't know the true demand for defense.... and the amount of defense that they supply is really wrong.    

What Samuelson entirely missed was that... if taxes were a foregone conclusion... then people would no longer have any incentive to give false signals.  Even though Samuelson missed this... my favorite recently dead market Nobel economist did not...




> Under most real-world taxing institutions, the tax price per unit at which collective goods are made available to the individual will depend, at least to some degree, on his own behavior. This element is not, however, important under the major tax institutions such as the personal income tax, the general sales tax, or the real property tax. With such structures, the individual may, by changing his private behavior, modify the tax base (and thus the tax price per unit of collective goods he utilizes), but he need not have any incentive to conceal his "true" preferences for public goods. - James M. Buchanan, The Economics of Earmarked Taxes


Once taxation is a foregone conclusion... then you can't snatch any sneaky benefit.  You can't pay less and get more.  The only way that you could get more is by spending your taxes on the public goods that match your preferences.  The incentive would be to give true, rather than false, signals.  

The economy works better when resources are allocated according to true, rather than false, signals...




> 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 Perry, Why Socialism Failed


This is the problem with the minimum wage.  It sends a false signal that a certain type of job is in greater demand than it truly is.  As a result of this false signal... people's economic behavior is less than beneficial.  Workers move to places that have too much labor rather than move to places that don't have enough labor.  Students drop out of school because they think that the demand for unskilled labor is greater than it truly is.  The false information provided by the minimum wage results in the inefficient allocation of labor.

False signals result in the inefficient allocation of society's limited resources.  Socialism fails because it's based on false signals.  Our public sector is based on false signals... which is why our public sector fails.  

Evidently you missed my 2013 attempt to try and explain all this... Voluntary Exchange Theory.

----------


## acptulsa

> What if we remove this assumption?  Then government planners aren't omniscient...  they don't know the true demand for defense.... and the amount of defense that they supply is really wrong.


And rather than address my point, you simply turn around and prove I'm right.

So long as your theory of tax allocation has no option for 'leave that money in the private sector' then government will demand more every year--even if the entirety of the population believes it has been spending more than it needs to for decades.  Not just for defense, either--I'm talking about the whole government.

This is what free markets control, that you have no plan to control.  Therefore, your plan completely and categorically fails to address the primary problem _at all._

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Samuelson never addressed pragmatarianism.


Yes he did - and he did so precisely in the manner which I have previously described.

Further to which:

_"However no decentralized pricing system can serve   to determine optimally these levels of collective consumption." - Paul Samuelson_
Your so-called "pragmatarianism" (right along with anarcho-capitalism) is exactly the sort of thing that Samuelson meant by a "decentralized pricing system."

"Pragmatariansim" is a system that would allow taxpayers as individuals  to decide how to allocate spending on "collective consumption goods."

But Samuelson makes it VERY clear that he thinks that ANY system that allows individuals to decide how to allocate spending on "collective consumption goods" will produce sub-optimal allocations of those goods - because "the selfish interest of each person" would lead individuals to make the "wrong" decisions about those allocations (that is, Samuelson says that taxpayers would selfishly pick the "wrong" things to spend their taxes on).

So if Samuelson is correct, then "pragmatarianism" must necessarily result in sub-optimal allocations of "collective consumption goods" - _and Samuelson would therefore obviously and emphatically reject "pragmatariansim" for that very reason_.

QED.

You have only to be able to comprehend plain and obvious English in order to understand this.

So your denial indicates either that you are an incompetent reader and thinker, or that you are deliberately being willfully obtuse (or both).




> He was critiquing a system without compulsory taxation... aka anarcho-capitalism.


This statement further illustrates your pathetic and miserable reading comprehension skills.

Samuelson wasn't just critiquing systems "without compulsory taxation" (which, by the way, are not exclusive to anarcho-capitalism - your attempted "aka" to the contrary only serving to yet further illustrate your lexical incompetence). He was critiquing ALL systems that use anything other than (so-called) "ethical welfare functions" in order to determine the "correct" allocation of compulsory taxation to "collective consumption goods." Samuelson's critique very obviously applies to "pragmatarianism" every bit as much as it does to anarcho-capitalism, as neither "pragmatariansim" nor anarcho-capitalism makes any such use of "ethical welfare functions."

Samuelson was wrong about this, of course - but that does not change the fact that your self-contradictory attempt to cite him in defense of "pragmatarianism" is as ludicrous as it is hypocritical. In fact, your invocation of Samuelson's nonsense only serves to highlight the absurdity of your own. (After all, this was the same man who, in the 1989 edition of his distressingly popular college textbook on economics, declared that "the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had  earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even  thrive" - and who wrote this a mere two years prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.)




> [snip]


To which I repeat:




> Sorry, but I didn't read the rest of your post, as there is no reason to expect that it contains anything more than yet another tiresomely verbose repitition of all the evasive equivocations, circularities, contradictions and other _non sequiturs_ of which you are so fond.
> 
> However, I must confess some mild curiosity as to what motivates you to imagine that I might be inclined to so waste my time, given your obstinate persistence in ignoring or talking past everything that is offered in rebuttal to you. (I rather suspect that it's the same sort of motive that impels your fellow crackpots to emit lengthy disquisitions upon their "solutions" to squaring the circle ...)

----------


## Xerographica

> You have only to be able to comprehend plain and obvious English in order to understand this.
> 
> So your denial indicates either that you are an incompetent reader and thinker, or that you are deliberately being willfully obtuse (or both).
> 
> This statement further illustrates your pathetic and miserable reading comprehension skills.


In the very first paragraph of his paper Samuelson wrote...




> Therefore, I explicitly assume two categories of goods: ordinary _private consumption goods_... and _collective consumption goods_...


He was critiquing donuts (private consumption good) versus defense (public consumption good).  But as you've pointed out many many many times... pragmatarianism wouldn't give you the option to spend your taxes on private goods rather than on public goods.  Why the heck would you complain about pragmatarianism if you could spend your taxes on whatever you wanted?  In a pragmatarian system... you could only spend your taxes on public goods.  So it wouldn't be private goods versus public goods... it would be public goods versus public goods.  

Like I tried to explain to you... Samuelson was justifying compulsory taxation.  This means that he was critiquing a system _without_ compulsory taxation.  So Samuelson definitely wasn't critiquing pragmatarianism because pragmatarianism _has_ compulsory taxation.  Your system doesn't have compulsory taxation.  Therefore, his paper was a critique of your system... not my system.  

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist because I agree with the basic premise of his critique... 

*Everybody wants the most bang for their buck.*  

This is why markets usually work so how could I not agree with this?

----------


## Xerographica

> And rather than address my point, you simply turn around and prove I'm right.
> 
> So long as your theory of tax allocation has no option for 'leave that money in the private sector' then government will demand more every year--even if the entirety of the population believes it has been spending more than it needs to for decades.  Not just for defense, either--I'm talking about the whole government.
> 
> This is what free markets control, that you have no plan to control.  Therefore, your plan completely and categorically fails to address the primary problem _at all._


In a pragmatarian system... taxpayers would be able to very easily and clearly communicate that they want their money to be left in the private sector.  How?  *By boycotting the IRS and/or congress*.  

Right now congress is in charge of the tax rate.  In a pragmatarian system congress would still be in charge of the tax rate.  The difference is... in a pragmatarian system the taxpayers would be in charge of congress's funding.  

Many years ago I was in a van returning to campus. The van had around 10 other college students and it was driven by a student worker. We were driving down a residential street when the van started to pick up speed. Which didn't make sense because we were heading straight for a T-section with a red light. On the other side of the red light was a curb, the sidewalk, a relatively short stretch of grass and the school library. People in the van started shouting to the driver to slow down but he kept speeding up. The van went faster and faster until it flew through the intersection... went over the curb and onto the grass. Fortunately... the van didn't flip... and it stopped before hitting the library. We were all thoroughly shaken but nobody was seriously injured. Nothing seemed obviously wrong with the driver... and I don't remember exactly what the official explanation was.

The driver's judgement quickly went from moderately decent to extremely poor. If there had been some emergency brake that I could have pulled or pushed then I definitely would have done so with all my might. And I'm sure that the other passengers would have done the same thing. 

Let's say that congress was driving the van.  If congress put its foot on the gas... then the tax rate would go up.  If congress put its foot on the brake... then the tax rate would go down.

Would you give money to congress if it puts its foot on the gas?  I'm guessing that you wouldn't.  So maybe you'd give money to congress if it put its foot on the brake.  

Right now taxpayers are not in charge of funding congress.  Therefore, congress has no incentive to do what taxpayers want.  Maybe they have some incentive to do what voters want.  What do voters want?  To reach into the pockets of taxpayers.  So that's what congress does for voters.  Congress reaches into the pockets of taxpayers and buys things that voters say they want.  This is a pretty good way for congresspeople to get reelected.  Lowering taxes isn't a good way to be reelected when the majority doesn't pay taxes.

But if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go.... then who would congress cater to?  Voters or taxpayers?  Well... what happens to the relationship between voters and congress when congress can no longer reach into the pockets of taxpayers?  

The challenge here is convincing voters that they'll derive far more benefit when their true representatives (taxpayers) control the power of the purse.  Voters, as consumers, chose to put their money into the pockets of taxpayers.  This is because taxpayers gave them the most bang for their buck.  So voters are only hurting themselves when they use congress to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers.  With the current system... voters are essentially biting the hands that feed, clothe, entertain, protect, heal and shelter them.

----------

