# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Dear Rothbard, The Government Isn't Beyond Repair

## Xerographica

Dear Rothbard, The Government Isn't Beyond Repair




> 1. Rothbard correctly diagnosed the disease (absence of individual valuation)
> 2. But he incorrectly assumed that there wasn't a cure (addition of individual valuation)
> 3. So he incorrectly recommended that the patient be euthanized.

----------


## Ronin Truth

And when you finally realize that individual valuation will not and can not EVER be added by the government, you will come to the conclusion that the sociopathic parasitic monster must be killed before it kills us all.

----------


## Xerographica

> And when you finally realize that individual valuation will not and can not EVER be added by the government, you will come to the conclusion that the sociopathic parasitic monster must be killed before it kills us all.


I think that if you had a decent explanation why individual valuation couldn't be added to the government then you would have shared it.  But I could be wrong.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I think that if you had a decent explanation why individual valuation couldn't be added to the government then you would have shared it. But I could be wrong.


How about governments don't really give a frick about individuals, collectives are there only concerns, voters, taxpayers, slaves, etc. in the aggregate.

----------


## Xerographica

> How about governments don't really give a frick about individuals, collectives are there only concerns, voters, taxpayers, slaves, etc. in the aggregate.


The obstacle isn't the government...the obstacle is economic ignorance.  People don't understand how they could benefit from freedom in the public sector...which means that they don't understand how they do benefit from freedom in the private sector.  This means that people don't understand how they benefit from freedom.

Therefore, in order to strike at the root of bad government, we have to help people understand that consumer choice has very beneficial consequences.    

What happens when people are free to choose which items they put in their shopping carts?

Cost?  Plummet
Variety?  Skyrocket
Quality?  Skyrocket

The opposite occurs when people are not free to choose.  

The current government _really_ isn't the cause of economic ignorance...it's the result of it.  The government is simply a reflection of widespread economic ignorance.  If we want to fix the government then we have to help people understand the beneficial consequences of consumer choice.  This is what pragmatarianism is all about.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The obstacle isn't the government...the obstacle is economic ignorance. People don't understand how they could benefit from freedom in the public sector...which means that they don't understand how they do benefit from freedom in the private sector. This means that people don't understand how they benefit from freedom.
> 
> Therefore, in order to strike at the root of bad government, we have to help people understand that consumer choice has very beneficial consequences. 
> 
> What happens when people are free to choose which items they put in their shopping carts?
> 
> Cost? Plummet
> Variety? Skyrocket
> Quality? Skyrocket
> ...


http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...atarianism?s=t




> *pragmatarianism* - no dictionary results 
> 
> No results found for _pragmatarianism_:
> 
> Find definitions, audio pronunciations, example sentences, spelling, synonyms, antonyms, translations, word games and more.


The problem with pragmatism is that, it doesn't work.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The problem with pragmatism is that, it doesn't work.


Neither does anarchy.

----------


## idiom

> People don't understand how they could benefit from freedom in the public sector...which means that they don't understand how they do benefit from freedom in the private sector.


That doesn't follow.

----------


## idiom

> What happens when people are free to choose which items they put in their shopping carts?
> 
> Cost?  Plummet
> Variety?  Skyrocket
> Quality?  Skyrocket
> 
> The opposite occurs when people are not free to choose.


People are free to choose their government. Governments however are pretty insensitive to market forces due to high in-elasticity and barriers to entry. It doesn't mean they are invulnerable to market forces though.

New governments are forming all the time, old ones fall, all in response to market forces. People vote with their dollars. Millions of people migrate around the world looking for freedom or prosperity every month.

You can choose exactly where you want your taxes to go.

There are governments with extremely low costs, there are governments with a lot of features.

Perhaps freedom is not really what you are looking to provide?

----------


## idiom

Just been looking at this thing...

http://thenewirs.com/taxplan/new

A couple of things... It doesn't allow one to allocate less than 100% of the tax rate. Ergo the tax rate is being set somewhere else. Perhaps Omniscient Congress. It has completely failed to establish the aggregate demand for coercion in any meaningful way.

Congress currently allocates 200% of its revenue. How do I set the allocations for my 200% of revenue?

See, the current demand for coercion in the United States is roughly twice the capacity for coercion. US GDP minus Govt borrowing is down 15% or so since 2007. That is the economic ignorance. People think they can steal from tomorrow forever.

Your system has two outcomes....

1. Doubling the tax rate, which has never been successfully raised above 20% in the U.S.
2. Halving spending. 1% cuts in Europe have people in the streets burning cars.

Rothbardianism is riddled with coercion too, but its hidden in definitions, like what and what isn't subject to the so-called NAP.

There is only one way to lower the aggregate demand for coercion, and that is moral and economic education. You can't force people to stop using force. Mind blowing I know.

----------


## otherone

> The opposite occurs when people are not free to choose.


Someone holding a gun to my head and demanding I shop is not freedom.

----------


## Xerographica

> Someone holding a gun to my head and demanding I shop is not freedom.


What's the demand for coercion?  If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector...how many of them would put coercion in their shopping cart?  You have no idea.  Unless...

1. ...you're omniscient.  If you're omniscient then you'd know exactly how much money taxpayers would spend on coercion.  

2. ...you're a socialist.  A socialist would say that our congresspeople are so darn smart with their perfect statistics and econometrics that the current supply of coercion perfectly matches the _actual_ demand for coercion.  

So...if you're saying that in a pragmatarian system someone is going to hold a gun to your head...then you're either omniscient or a socialist.  Which one is it?

----------


## idiom

> What's the demand for coercion?  If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector...how many of them would put coercion in their shopping cart?  You have no idea.  Unless...
> 
> 1. ...you're omniscient.  If you're omniscient then you'd know exactly how much money taxpayers would spend on coercion.  
> 
> 2. ...you're a socialist.  A socialist would say that our congresspeople are so darn smart with their perfect statistics and econometrics that the current supply of coercion perfectly matches the _actual_ demand for coercion.  
> 
> So...if you're saying that in a pragmatarian system someone is going to hold a gun to your head...then you're either omniscient or a socialist.  Which one is it?


_Your system doesn't measure the demand for coercion!_

I tried setting my allocation at less than 100%, but its not an option. Your entire idea fails on its basic premise.

It can measure where the coercion is desired, but not how much is wanted, a.k.a. demand.

The tax rate under your system relies on 1 or 2. So you are either omniscient or a socialist?

----------


## Xerographica

> _Your system doesn't measure the demand for coercion!_
> 
> I tried setting my allocation at less than 100%, but its not an option. Your entire idea fails on its basic premise.
> 
> It can measure where the coercion is desired, but not how much is wanted, a.k.a. demand.
> 
> The tax rate under your system relies on 1 or 2. So you are either omniscient or a socialist?


It might help to check the pragmatarianism FAQ or actually read the blog entry that I linked to in the OP.

Congress would still be in charge of the tax rate.  If you're not happy with the tax rate...then you could let congress know by not giving them any of your tax dollars.  If enough other people boycott congress...then congress would either change the tax rate or go bankrupt.  

Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector.  Markets work because consumers don't buy products that fail to adequately match their preferences.  As a result, producers are incentivized to supply products that better match the preferences of consumers.  

So, if we created a market in the public sector...then government organizations would be incentivized to supply better products.  Is a 20% tax rate a better product than a 40% tax rate?  Is a 10% tax rate better than a 20% tax rate?  This would be up to taxpayers to decide.  If they weren't happy with the tax rate...then they would boycott congress.  

Is the problem that you don't know how markets work?  Or is the problem that you think that congress isn't a government organization?  Perhaps you imagine that congress wouldn't be subjected to market forces in the public sector?  They could do whatever they liked regardless of the preferences of taxpayers?

----------


## otherone

> If enough other people boycott congress...then congress would either change the tax rate or go bankrupt.


Ok.
Imagine they go bankrupt....

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The obstacle isn't the government...the obstacle is economic ignorance. People don't understand how they could benefit from freedom in the public sector...which means that they don't understand how they do benefit from freedom in the private sector. This means that people don't understand how they benefit from freedom.
> 
> Therefore, in order to strike at the root of bad government, we have to help people understand that consumer choice has very beneficial consequences. 
> 
> What happens when people are free to choose which items they put in their shopping carts?
> 
> Cost? Plummet
> Variety? Skyrocket
> Quality? Skyrocket
> ...


 Have you considered the possibility that the government benefits from the public's economic ignorance? That may explain the abysmal boring economics teaching in the government school systems.

----------


## idiom

> It might help to check the pragmatarianism FAQ or actually read the blog entry that I linked to in the OP.
> 
> Congress would still be in charge of the tax rate.  If you're not happy with the tax rate...then you could let congress know by not giving them any of your tax dollars.  If enough other people boycott congress...then congress would either change the tax rate or go bankrupt.  
> 
> Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector.  Markets work because consumers don't buy products that fail to adequately match their preferences.  As a result, producers are incentivized to supply products that better match the preferences of consumers.  
> 
> So, if we created a market in the public sector...then government organizations would be incentivized to supply better products.  Is a 20% tax rate a better product than a 40% tax rate?  Is a 10% tax rate better than a 20% tax rate?  This would be up to taxpayers to decide.  If they weren't happy with the tax rate...then they would boycott congress.  
> 
> Is the problem that you don't know how markets work?  Or is the problem that you think that congress isn't a government organization?  Perhaps you imagine that congress wouldn't be subjected to market forces in the public sector?  They could do whatever they liked regardless of the preferences of taxpayers?


That is 0% different from anyone else's solutions. You are advocating going Galt.

Everything else you have is irrelevant to the problem of measuring aggregate demand for coercion.

"If you don't like the tax rate, stop paying taxes?" _That is your market based solution to government_?

Literally everyone else has that plan expressed in one of 3 ways:

1. Leave the country and pay a tax rate that you like more somewhere else
2. Go Galt and stop earning so that you don't have to pay tax
3. Open revolt, just refuse to pay what you owe and shoot back when they come for you.

You are adding *nothing* to the conversation.

You have also failed to address that fact that current demand for coercion in the US is 200% of the tax rate.




> If you're not happy with the tax rate...then you could let congress know by not giving them any of your tax dollars.


Why doesn't your NEWIRS site let me allocate more or less than 100% of my Tax Rate?

Surely that would be the easy fix? Just let everyone pick how much tax they want to pay and into which sector?

----------


## Xerographica

> Ok.
> Imagine they go bankrupt....


If congress goes bankrupt...then there's zero demand for coercion...welcome to anarcho-capitalism.

----------


## Xerographica

> Have you considered the possibility that the government benefits from the public's economic ignorance? That may explain the abysmal boring economics teaching in the government school systems.


It's really not a conspiracy.  Elizabeth Warren is just as ignorant of the preference revelation problem as you are.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's really not a conspiracy. Elizabeth Warren is just as ignorant of the preference revelation problem as you are.


 She probably attended government schools. Did you?

----------


## Xerographica

> "If you don't like the tax rate, stop paying taxes?" _That is your market based solution to government_?


No.  My market based solution to government is...if you don't like the tax rate, then stop paying taxes..._to the government organization that determines the tax rate...congress_.  




> Why doesn't your NEWIRS site let me allocate more or less than 100% of my Tax Rate?


Do I look like Alex Ebert from Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros?  It's his site not mine.  I link to it because I support the general idea.  Clearly Ebert's specific idea is different from my own.

When I first thought of people choosing where their taxes go...I figured they'd simply fill out a form when they paid their taxes.  But when I spent more time thinking about it...I realized that if it makes sense for the public sector...then why doesn't it also make sense for the private sector?  Except, it really doesn't make any sense for the private sector...which means that it really doesn't make any sense for the public sector.  

If you perceive that there's a problem with the environment...then waiting until the end of the year to support the EPA makes as little sense as waiting until the end of the year to go to the grocery store.  Markets work because people can address shortages whenever they valuate it worth it to do so.  Would it make any sense for Home Depot to be open only one day of the month?  Nope.  

So, my specific idea is that people could shop in the public sector whenever they wanted to.  You would simply go directly to the government organization's website and make a contribution.  They'd give you a receipt and you'd submit all your receipts to the IRS by April 15.  

And if you weren't happy with the tax rate...then you wouldn't go directly to congress's website and you wouldn't make a contribution to congress.  If enough other people also boycotted congress...then congress would either change the tax rate or go out of business.  Same thing if you weren't happy with the IRS.  Same thing if you weren't happy with the DoD.  Same thing if you weren't happy with the DMV.  Same thing if you weren't happy with NASA.  Shall I continue or do you get the idea?   

Markets mean that producers cater to the preferences of consumers.  Why?  Because producers want our money.  So creating a market in the public sector would mean that congress would want our tax dollars.  So would the IRS.  So would every other government organization.  Therefore, it would behoove them to discern our preferences.  If they fail to discern our preferences...then we will let them know by not given them our tax dollars.  This would effectively communicate to them that they need to improve how they are using society's limited resources.    

Would you be happy with the selection of items on the shelves in the public store?  Of course not.  It's a given that you would want better options.  We always want better options.  It's a fact that you would be _willing to pay_ for better options.  And it's a fact that producers _want more money_.  What happens when we put these two facts together?  We learn why consumer choice ensures a consistent supply of better options.  

If you know this...if you understand this...then you should love the idea of creating a market in the public sector as much as I do.  You would start a blog to help spread the idea.  Doing so would help create a larger net...and with a larger net we would catch more fish.  So are you going to start a blog?  If not, then you don't love pragmatarianism as much as I do.  If this is the case then let me know which part of consumer choice in the public sector you don't know/understand/appreciate.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> How about governments don't really give a frick about individuals, collectives are there only concerns, voters, taxpayers, slaves, etc. in the aggregate.


I agree, many people like their Liberty, but they like other people's money more. There's the rub.

----------


## idiom

> No.  My market based solution to government is...if you don't like the tax rate, then stop paying taxes..._to the government organization that determines the tax rate...congress_.  
> 
> 
> 
> Do I look like Alex Ebert from Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros?  It's his site not mine.  I link to it because I support the general idea.  Clearly Ebert's specific idea is different from my own.
> 
> When I first thought of people choosing where their taxes go...I figured they'd simply fill out a form when they paid their taxes.  But when I spent more time thinking about it...I realized that if it makes sense for the public sector...then why doesn't it also make sense for the private sector?  Except, it really doesn't make any sense for the private sector...which means that it really doesn't make any sense for the public sector.  
> 
> If you perceive that there's a problem with the environment...then waiting until the end of the year to support the EPA makes as little sense as waiting until the end of the year to go to the grocery store.  Markets work because people can address shortages whenever they valuate it worth it to do so.  Would it make any sense for Home Depot to be open only one day of the month?  Nope.  
> ...


Is paying the full tax rate voluntary or not?

----------


## Xerographica

> Is paying the full tax rate voluntary or not?


Paying the full tax rate is _not_ voluntary.  What _is_ voluntary is paying the government organization that determines the tax rate...congress.

----------


## idiom

So if congress has been boycotted by 100% of taxpayers... is this an indicator that:

1. They need to move the tax rate up?
2. They need to move the tax rate down?
3. Taxpayers think the position should be unpaid?
4. Taxpayers just couldn't be bothered looking for congress among the 20,000 possible options for their tax allocations and just stuck to their favorites?
5. The Taxpayers are angry about so tangential congressional policy?

Given that you seem to think we are going to get sharp market signals from your system, pray tell how would one accurately interpret the data?
Further, How many people would it take to cancel out any boycott? Its not like Congress is a big ticket item.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Of course government is beyond repair.  It was broken before day one. It's a failed concept.  6,000 years on the road to nowhere.

----------


## Xerographica

> So if congress has been boycotted by 100% of taxpayers... is this an indicator that:
> 
> 1. They need to move the tax rate up?
> 2. They need to move the tax rate down?
> 3. Taxpayers think the position should be unpaid?
> 4. Taxpayers just couldn't be bothered looking for congress among the 20,000 possible options for their tax allocations and just stuck to their favorites?
> 5. The Taxpayers are angry about so tangential congressional policy?
> 
> Given that you seem to think we are going to get sharp market signals from your system, pray tell how would one accurately interpret the data?


If congress changes the tax rate and they lose money...then they went the wrong way.  If they can't go either way without losing money...then they've discovered the optimal tax rate.  It's the tax rate that will net them the maximum revenue.  

But maybe congress lost money because it simultaneously passed an extremely unpopular law?  Clearly the more disparate things that congress does with society's limited resources...the more ambiguous the feedback from taxpayers.  

What do you do if you don't like a law that congress passed but you like the tax rate?  Well...you advocate that congress split into two separate government organizations.

Overbundling is what's wrong with the government.  Consumers can't offer precise feedback.  It would be an improvement even if taxpayers only had two items on the "shelves" to choose from...

A. military
B. not military

This ties into the important economic concept of "exit".  So another way of wording the problem with government is that there's insufficient exit granularity.  You can exit from the entire government by moving to another country...but you can't exit from specific government organizations.  Pragmatarianism would allow you to exit from specific government organizations.  If you don't like what the DoD is doing, then, rather than foot voting for a different country...you can simply tax vote for a different government organization.  




> Further, How many people would it take to cancel out any boycott? Its not like Congress is a big ticket item.


Not sure if I understand this question.  Let me go ahead and guess.  _Enough_ people have to allocate their taxes to a government organization in order for it to remain on the shelves.  So if everybody but one person boycotts congress...then it would be hard to say that congress is a _public_ good.  The _public_ is more than just one person.  

So what's the minimum percentage of the public that has to spend their taxes on something in order for it to remain on the shelves?  Clearly there's a threshold...but I don't know where it is.  It would definitely be a topic of debate.    

Here are two of my blog entries where I illustrate this concept...

Clarifying the Demand for Public Goods
Visualizing And Evaluating The Public Goodness Threshold

----------


## idiom

> What do you do if you don't like a law that congress passed but you like the tax rate?  Well...you advocate that congress split into two separate government organizations.


Okay, you have to have better solutions than:

1. Advocacy
2. Splitting congress into more and more bodies.

The more you twist to solve the issues the close you get to advocating a completely rothbardian voluntarily funded set of institutions, everything tiny and modular and appealing to the public for funding, like so many kickstarters, because you are applying the wrong tools to the wrong problems.

----------


## Xerographica

> Okay, you have to have better solutions than:
> 
> 1. Advocacy
> 2. Splitting congress into more and more bodies.
> 
> The more you twist to solve the issues the close you get to advocating a completely rothbardian voluntarily funded set of institutions, everything tiny and modular and appealing to the public for funding, like so many kickstarters, because you are applying the wrong tools to the wrong problems.


How am I twisting?  Let me put this super simply...

Imagine the public sector as a giant store.  You really want to abolish it because you strongly believe that people are being ripped off.  From your perspective...taxpayers really aren't getting their money's worth.  Is your perspective correct?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?

If your perspective is correct...then the best way to prove this is to allow consumers to shop for themselves in the public store.  If you're not delusional...then when consumers compare their receipts to the contents of their shopping carts...they will have an epiphany.  It will dawn on them that the government is really screwing them.  They will realize that the wool has been pulled over their eyes.  Pragmatarianism will remove the wool and consumers will clearly see that the government has been tricking them into buying lemons.  

So are you delusional?  Probably...right?  Because you're really not a huge fan of allowing consumers to decide for themselves whether the government is giving them big bang for their buck.  

You really want to skip the part where consumers decide for themselves.  Why?  

Here's an analogy...

You believe in the Great Pumpkin.  You want other people to believe in him too...so you go around telling them that the Great Pumpkin is real.  Of course people think that you're crazy.  

My idea is to try and persuade people to go to the pumpkin patch.  Because...if they go to the pumpkin patch then they will be able to see for themselves whether or not the Great Pumpkin is real.  

Except, you think my idea is stupid.  You think it would be really dumb if people actually went to the pumpkin patch.  

How am I supposed to interpret your reaction to my idea?  

You're trying to convince people that the Great Pumpkin is real...but you really don't want them to go to the pumpkin patch.

----------


## TheTexan

> Neither does anarchy.


Neither does the ten commandments, but it's still a worthy goal.

----------


## idiom

> Imagine the public sector as a giant store.  You really want to abolish it because you strongly believe that people are being ripped off.  From your perspective...taxpayers really aren't getting their money's worth.  Is your perspective correct?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?


That's a really poor motivation for abolishing the government. Nobody expects it to be efficient, although it can be.




> If your perspective is correct...then the best way to prove this is to allow consumers to shop for themselves in the public store. If you're not delusional...then when consumers compare their receipts to the contents of their shopping carts...they will have an epiphany. It will dawn on them that the government is really screwing them. They will realize that the wool has been pulled over their eyes. Pragmatarianism will remove the wool and consumers will clearly see that the government has been tricking them into buying lemons.


The simple way is to let them shop at multiple stores, or to chose how much they wish to spend. You still have one store and a fixed amount to spend. They just get to choose how they get ripped off.

Your solutions are all for problems that don't exist.

----------

