# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  How Would You Allocate Your Taxes?

## Xerographica

The primary criticism of pragmatarianism revolves around how YOU would allocate your taxes.  With that in mind I created a simple survey to find out how YOU would allocate your taxes given the opportunity.  

The survey allows you to allocate your individual taxes among the 15 Cabinet Departments.  But I also included Congress as one of the options so you can allocate as much or as little of your taxes to Congress as you'd like.  The more of your taxes that you allocate to Congress...the more you trust their decisions over your own.  

Filling out the survey will automatically create a pie chart that you can copy and paste into this thread.  Here's how I would allocate my taxes...



Yes, I'm a veteran that graduated from a public university.

----------


## Conza88

Here's mine.



100% of my taxes towards education. Every single dime would go towards purchasing books from LvMI.

What books? Not too sure... probably would buy the Mises Library several times over, that should suffice

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Here's mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of my taxes towards education. Every single dime would go towards purchasing books from *LvMI*.
> 
> What books? Not too sure... probably would buy the *Mises Library* several times over, that should suffice


So, deliberate mind control and the shoving of propaghanda down the throat? All sources of information from the same school of thought?

How is this different than what us Americans (not you) have now?

Ohhhhh I get it, if it's information approved by YOU it's moral, right, just, and all that other good stuff.

Got it.

----------


## Conza88

> So, deliberate mind control and the shoving of propaghanda down the throat? All sources of information from the same school of thought?
> 
> How is this different than what us Americans (not you) have now?
> 
> Ohhhhh I get it, if it's information approved by YOU it's moral, right, just, and all that other good stuff.
> 
> Got it.


Initially I was going to post a graph where everything was 0%. Then I thought that some troll, similar to yourself would harp on about how the tax money has to go somewhere... so I decided on the best way to spend it. This seemed the smartest choice.

*My money* only went towards books, as I specifically said. Do you not understand that? Or are you mentally challenged? You think my taxes would cover the costs for the entire states education system? LOL... 

Who said anything about paying for public schools etc? Teachers etc.?* Non sequitor & strawman fallacy*

Go *EDUCATE* yourself bro.

----------


## Xerographica

Conza88, not sure if my explanation was clear enough...but I mentioned that you could divvy up your individual taxes among the 15 Cabinet Departments and Congress.  That's fine that you chose to allocate 100% of your money to the Department of Education...but it's up to them how they would utilize your contribution.  I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't use it to purchase books from LvMI.

----------


## eduardo89

Here mine: 99% of my taxes go towards a tax refund. 1% goes to national security and the federal courts system.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> * Non sequitor & strawman fallacy*


Doesn't mean it's not true.

Educate yourself, bro.

----------


## Conza88

> Conza88, not sure if my explanation was clear enough...but I mentioned that you could divvy up your individual taxes among the 15 Cabinet Departments and Congress.  That's fine that you chose to allocate 100% of your money to the Department of Education...but it's up to them how they would utilize your contribution.  I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't use it to purchase books from LvMI.


Yes, so it merely highlights the fact that I have no choice how my money is spent. As such government is not a service at all, it is a parasite & coercive entity.




> Doesn't mean it's not true.
> 
> Educate yourself, bro.


And yet so far the arguments put forward by you were logical fallacies, thus invalid arguments... the conclusion you reached? I'll await a non-fallicious argument.

Take your time bro. You need all you can get.

----------


## Raudsarw



----------


## Jake Ralston

> And yet so far the arguments put forward by you were logical fallacies, thus invalid arguments... the conclusion you reached? I'll await a non-fallicious argument.


*
Argument from Fallacy
    If P, then Q.
    P is a fallacious argument.
    Therefore, Q is false.*

Do you understand this? Wow, you really are slow. Here's an example from the link since your obviously not even bothering to educate yourself.

* Tom: All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. This means Ginger is a cat.
    Bill: Ah you just committed the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Sorry, you are wrong, which means that Ginger is not a cat.

    Tom: OK — I'll prove I'm English — I speak English so that proves it.
    Bill: But Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English too. You have committed the package-deal fallacy, assuming that speaking English and being English always go together. That means you are not English.

Both Bill's rebuttals are arguments from fallacy, because Ginger may or may not be a cat, and Tom may or may not be English. 



An argument using fallacious reasoning is capable of being consequentially correct.*

----------


## Xerographica

Raudsarw and Conza88, would a pragmatarian system lead to Voluntaryism?

----------


## Conza88

> Do you understand this?


I do. And yet you don't understand that your assertion of me doing said action is baseless. 

You do understand you are currently guilty of the Argumentum ad nauseam fallacy.

_Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"_

----------


## Conza88

> Raudsarw and Conza88, would a pragmatarian system lead to Voluntaryism?


I don't think so. Maybe if taxpayers got a receipt of what their taxes were spent on... they'd get pissed off somewhat. But if you would like to flesh out the system more than the article, please do.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> I do. And yet you don't understand that your assertion of me doing said action is baseless.


You just did it right now ...




> You do understand you are currently guilty of the Argumentum ad nauseam fallacy.


Nooooo Conza. Bad Conza. This only applies if you assume that by me repeating something, I am trying to make it "more true" than it already is. But that would false, Conza. No matter how many times I repeat that the earth is round ... the statement will always be true. There are no varying degrees of truth. There is only true and false. Understand, Conza?

By the way, you have just committed the Fallacy Fallacy:

_ If P, then Q.
    P is a fallacious argument.
    Therefore, Q is false._

Remember Conza, logic is a double-edged sword.

Logic has no friends and no favors. 

You think logic is on YOUR side, but logic has you FOOLED harder than even the dumbest person on Earth.

----------


## erowe1

> So, deliberate mind control and the shoving of propaghanda down the throat? All sources of information from the same school of thought?
> 
> How is this different than what us Americans (not you) have now?
> 
> Ohhhhh I get it, if it's information approved by YOU it's moral, right, just, and all that other good stuff.
> 
> Got it.


The problem is, every category on that pie chart is immoral. It's not like they gave you any options for allocating taxes that wouldn't result in a 100% immoral pie. At least Conza's pie doesn't spend money on any of those other things. So that's at least one thing you can say about it.

And really, it's not like all government spending is equal. If you told me I could decide for the federal government to spend $1Trillion on dropping bombs on brown kids, or on buying 100 billion copies of some von Mises book, most of which would do nothing but decay in junk yard somewhere, I wouldn't have to think at all before choosing the latter.

----------


## Conza88

> You just did it right now..


Pointing out your inability to put forward a legitimate argument; isn't a fallacy. But by all means, keep trying to claim as such.

----------


## Xerographica

> I don't think so. Maybe if taxpayers got a receipt of what their taxes were spent on... they'd get pissed off somewhat. But if you would like to flesh out the system more than the article, please do.


Anarcho-capitalists:  the free-market...or private organizations (POs)...can produce all goods better than the government can.Socialists:  the government...or government organizations (GOs)...can produce all goods better than the free-market.

Ceteris paribus, what happens if we allow tax payers to decide which GOs receive their taxes?  Would they fund GOs that wasted their taxes?  No.  If a PO produces more of a public good for less money...would tax payers choose to fund a GO that produced less of the same public good for more money?  No.

If you trust the invisible hand then allow the invisible hand to decide the most efficient division of labor between the private and public sector.  If it's true that AC can produce all goods better than the government can then pragmatarianism would be the stepping stone to get there.  It's the only feasible stepping stone you have.  It's feasible because liberals are certain that the government can produce most public goods better than POs can.

----------


## erowe1

> If you trust the invisible hand then allow the invisible hand to decide the most efficient division of labor between the private and public sector.


Allowing the invisible hand to decide this would mean nothing in the public sector, since having anything in the public sector, by definition, means it's not the invisible hand that's deciding it.

----------


## Xerographica

erowe1, yes, that's how the current system is set up.  What I'm proposing is that tax payers be allowed to individually choose which government organizations (GOs) receive their tax dollars.  

Tax payers could divvy up their taxes among three different tiers. The top tier would be Congress, the middle tier would be the Cabinet Departments and the bottom tier would be the individual GOs. Each GO website would have a fundraising progress bar and tax payers could make "donations" directly to the GOs at anytime throughout the year.

What do you think would be the outcome of this system?

----------


## Theocrat

As a rule, I made it where my total taxes would not exceed *10%* because I don't believe the amount we pay in taxes should be above that of what we should pay in our tithes.


Congress - *2%*Defense - *1%*Justice - *2%*State - *1%*Treasury - *1%*Veterans - *3%*

----------


## Sentient Void

> Allowing the invisible hand to decide this would mean nothing in the public sector, since having anything in the public sector, by definition, means it's not the invisible hand that's deciding it.


Indeed. This is not 'the invisible hand' of the free market - but instead 'the iron fist' of the State.

----------


## Xerographica

Sentient Void, so...if the "Invisible Hand" and the "Iron Fist" were to arm wrestle...who do you think would win?  Let me guess that you'd pick the "Invisible Hand".  How much would you be willing to bet that the "Invisible Hand" would win?  A million dollars?  Are you so confident in the "Invisible Hand" that you'd be willing to give it a handicap?   

Do you understand your confidence?  Do you appreciate your confidence?  Now take a second and consider that the opposing side is just as confident in their champion.  If you want to see the "Invisible Hand" beat the "Iron Fist" then use the oppositions' confidence to force a match up.

A pragmatarian is somebody that is confident enough in their political beliefs to be willing to put them to the test.  Everybody else is just talk..and talk...and talk...

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Anarcho-capitalists:  the free-market...or private organizations (POs)...can produce all goods better than the government can.Socialists:  the government...or government organizations (GOs)...can produce all goods better than the free-market.
> 
> Ceteris paribus, what happens if we allow tax payers to decide which GOs receive their taxes?  Would they fund GOs that wasted their taxes?  No.  If a PO produces more of a public good for less money...would tax payers choose to fund a GO that produced less of the same public good for more money?  No.
> 
> If you trust the invisible hand then allow the invisible hand to decide the most efficient division of labor between the private and public sector.  If it's true that AC can produce all goods better than the government can then pragmatarianism would be the stepping stone to get there.  It's the only feasible stepping stone you have.  *It's feasible because liberals are certain that the government can produce most public goods better than POs can*.


Can you please demonstrate how you can know if something is 'better' without profit or loss, that is to say, that system which is most efficient at satisfying consumer demand? Are you serious on your second paragraph? If taxpayers have no choice to keep their own money for themselves, by definition the Government can take from them as much as it wants, as it currently does, merely shifting resources around does not mean it isn't wasted, simply that an individual prefers money to go in one direction than another. You can't tell me if all individuals forced to pay these taxes decided to put it into OSHA or the EPA for instance that it wouldn't be a waste of trillions of dollars. 

What happens if I don't want any of my money to go to the Government? By definition the forcing of me to do so is wasteful.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sentient Void, so...if the "Invisible Hand" and the "Iron Fist" were to arm wrestle...who do you think would win?  Let me guess that you'd pick the "Invisible Hand".  How much would you be willing to bet that the "Invisible Hand" would win?  A million dollars?  Are you so confident in the "Invisible Hand" that you'd be willing to give it a handicap?   
> 
> Do you understand your confidence?  Do you appreciate your confidence?  Now take a second and consider that the opposing side is just as confident in their champion.  If you want to see the "Invisible Hand" beat the "Iron Fist" then use the oppositions' confidence to force a match up.
> 
> A pragmatarian is somebody that is confident enough in their political beliefs to be willing to put them to the test.  Everybody else is just talk..and talk...and talk...


If all things were even, the "invisible hand" would.  It would be many times more efficient at achieving the same ends as the "iron fist"-which is why the state predates on the market to begin with.  Were all productive people to leave all of a sudden and market evaporate, the Iron Fist and the state itself would wither and die.  That's why all the backward tyrannical nation-states in the world are subjects of someone else(or end up that way soon enough).

----------


## osan

> The primary criticism of pragmatarianism revolves around how YOU would allocate your taxes.  With that in mind I created a simple survey to find out how YOU would allocate your taxes given the opportunity.


Right back into my wallet.

Keep your cotton picking hands off my rightfully acquired property.

----------


## Seraphim

Agreed. I would have the taxes invested into a fund under my name and sent back to me so that I can invest it into my local community and my family rather then be sent to the pot belly pig $#@!ers that reside in our Federal and State/Provincial governments.




> Right back into my wallet.
> 
> Keep your cotton picking hands off my rightfully acquired property.

----------


## newbitech

Render unto Caesar...

The concept is interesting, but I would rather have no change from the status quo, rather than the illusion of choice.

----------


## Xerographica

Austrian Econ Disciple, I'm not quite sure how or why you're under the impression that all government organizations are equally wasteful and/or equally ineffective.  Here are a few quotes to consider...




> As I've mentioned before, there are some major problems with gov't spending on programs. And these revolve around measurability and self-correction. When private businesses are running their businesses poorly and not delivering value, the free market drives revenues down and the business either corrects itself or it goes out of business. The gov't doesn't have such mechanisms. They often put in bogus measurements on how effective the program is, and when it doesn't work the first year, they double down and put more money into the program. No self-correction mechanism. - James L, Greta Wire Blog


Would tax payers continue to allocate their taxes to a government organization that is not delivering value?




> For this is the salient point: private organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit, perform or lose their customers or their donors. When a private entity fails to deliver on its promise, or actually causes harm, it is held liable for the failure and pays the damages. When government fails, it gets a bigger budget and even more power. - Mary L. G. Theroux, Public and Private Responses to Katrina


Again, same concept.  If for-profits and non-profits perform or lose customers or donors...why would it be any different if tax payers could choose which government organizations they support with their individual taxes?  




> Because of the existence of consumer and donor choice, private services are rarely offered by only one provider -- there is competition for funding which encourages both quality and affordability as service providers seek to outdo one another. Government services, however, tend to be monopolies because they do not have to fight for funding from countless individual sources. - Bryan, The Government Vs Private Charity


Allowing tax payers to choose which government organizations they support with their individual taxes will force government organizations to compete for funding.  We should force government organizations to fight for funding from countless individual sources (tax payers).




> Charitable organizations are better than government as a source of aid. First, it is easier for donors to hold charitable organizations accountable than it is for taxpayers to hold government accountable. A failed government program can go on forever. An ineffective charity has a more difficult time obtaining funding. - Arnold Kling, Libertarianism and Poverty


How long could a failed government program go on for if we allowed tax payers to choose which government organizations receive their individual taxes?




> Although the term 'NPM' suffers from a degree of concept stretch, Hood (1991) sets out some broad reformist priniciples in which the public choice heritage can be clearly observed. The first is that the focus of public sector reform should be on structural reorganization rather than policy. It is the structure of the public sector that fails to provide adequate incentives for the public sector organizations to respond to citizens' preferences for government goods and services. The provision of public services should be made more competitive, both between publilc sector providers and between the public and private sectors. Contracting out, quasi markets and seperation of the questions of who pays (public finance) from who provides (public provision), are all hallmarks of NPM. They follow from the government failure logic and the objective of greater efficiency in particular. As discussed above, individual contracts in the public sector will generally fail to provide efficiency-enhancing incentives, but the public choice view is that increased competition in the provision of public services will. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy


It's all about competition.  

Now think about...if a for-profit or non-profit provides the same good that a GO provides...would you allocate any of your taxes to that redundant GO?  In other words, if you pay for private healthcare then you're probably not going to allocate any of your taxes to the Department of Health.  If you pay for private education for your kids then you're probably not going to allocate any of your taxes to the Department of Education.

What happens when the Dept of Health and the Dept of Education lose your taxes?  They either adapt or go extinct.  

Why wouldn't Libertarians or Anarcho-capitalists or Voluntaryists want to subject government organizations to survival of the fittest?  If you're confident or certain that few, if any, GOs would survive...then why wouldn't you embrace the concept with the utmost of enthusiasm?  

Again, unlike Libertarianism or Anarcho-capitalism...Pragmatarianism at least has a remote possibility of being implemented because it uses Liberal confidence in the effectiveness of government against them.  If liberals trust that government organizations produce cost effective results that people value then why would they be afraid of putting it to the test?

If the door clearly says PULL...why continue to push?

----------


## mport1

> 


Agreed.  They aren't *my* takes.  It is not like I have some obligation to pay them.  They are the government's taxes that they steal from me at the barrel of a gun.

----------


## osan

> As a rule, I made it where my total taxes would not exceed *10%* because I don't believe the amount we pay in taxes should be above that of what we should pay in our tithes.


Tithing is voluntary.  Taxation is theft at the end of a gun.  How can you equate them in any sense whatsoever?

Taxes should not exceed ZERO percent.

----------


## osan

> Nooooo Conza. Bad Conza.


Hee hee hee.... bad Conza...




> There are no varying degrees of truth.


Depends on what it is to which you refer as "truth".  If we ignore questions of "ultimate reality" such as those that particle physics attempts to address or whether you are really napping on a track with a freight train bearing down on you, we find ourselves often faced with truth that predicates on context.  In one context a proposition is true and in another it is false. We might call this "internal" truth v. "external" or "objective" truth. For example:

"Ron Paul is the best hope for America in a presidential candidate"

If your personal "context" includes a set of beliefs that lead you to agree, then it is true.  If you are a statist pig, then it is likely to be false.




> There is only true and false. Understand, Conza?


And in human affairs they are largely context dependent.  One person thinks vanilla is best, another chocolate.  For each,




> By the way, you have just committed the Fallacy Fallacy:
> 
> _ If P, then Q.
>     P is a fallacious argument.
>     Therefore, Q is false._


Fallacy in formal logic generally refers to formal errors and not those of truth.  A fallacious logical argument, though lacking cogency, may still be true.  The absence of cogency simply makes the argument, as presented, insufficient to prove the conclusion that has been drawn.

Therefore, I may present a formally fallacious argument that is, nevertheless, true in its conclusions.  Conversely, I may make a logically cogent argument (non-fallacious) that draws false conclusions.  This latter can be a real bugger because cogency can be a very emotionally compelling element in an argument.  If the logic is sound, people often ignore the good habit of examining whether the conclusion drawn is actually true.  Cogency (absence of logical fallacy) is a necessary condition for proof, but not a sufficient one.

The example you use, called _modus ponens,_ is generalized as:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

If P is fallacious, Q may still be true.  The only issues in your example that are decided is that P is fallacious (may still draw a true conclusion) and that the truth value of Q _has not been determined_ either way.

Note that you did not assert P to be _false_, but merely _fallacious._  Therefore, the truth value of P may still be true.

It is important to understand and maintain the difference between fallacy and truth-value in terms of their meanings within formal reasoning.




> Remember Conza, logic is a double-edged sword.


Is anything not?

----------


## Theocrat

> Tithing is voluntary.  Taxation is theft at the end of a gun.  How can you equate them in any sense whatsoever?
> 
> Taxes should not exceed ZERO percent.


Yes, and I believe that taxes should be paid voluntarily, too. There is no need for the civil government to use force in order for honest, patriotic citizens to pay their taxes for the services which the civil government is supposed to provide. I agree that any tax taken from the American people without their consent is theft.

----------


## FreeTraveler

The fallacy I see here is the "theft can be made fair" fallacy.

If a guy sticks me up in the alleyway, would I feel better if he asked me if he should spend my money on booze or hookers?

----------


## Xerographica

Back in the day the Jewish people expected Jesus to save them from their Roman oppressors.  They really hated those tax collectors.  Not only did Jesus have no intention of leading a revolution but he told them to..."Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods".

Yeah yeah yeah, interpret it however you like...just like all Christians do with the bible.  Hmmm...when Jesus said that it is easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle...he surely wasn't talking about me!!  I'm not "rich".  I'm not going to conform to the bible...I'm going to conform the bible to me!   

If you're a Christian give away all your money to charity and you won't have to worry about taxes.  

Listen, I have no intention of dissuading you guys from your deontological..aka "terrible twos"...arguments.  That would be as useless as trying to argue against the 10 commandments.  It's fine if you want to compare defense and infrastructure with booze and hookers.  It's fine if you want to assume that in a voluntary society that people wouldn't consume more public goods than they paid for.  

No no no...I don't care about your deontology any more than I care about your 10 commandments.  I've already read the Bible and I've already read Rothbard.  Been there done that and didn't even want the free t-shirt.  

Pragmatarianism and deontology are not mutually exclusive.  You don't have to stop believing that taxes are theft or become an atheist in order to understand the implications of added freedoms.  My hope was that perhaps a few of you would have noticed that since we've been paying taxes for the past 2000 years that chances are pretty good that we're not going to stop paying taxes anytime soon.  

If you value the freedoms you do have...then why wouldn't you value some additional freedom?  When Armstrong landed on the moon he said, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind".  All the small individual steps of tax payers having the freedom to decide which government organizations received their taxes would add up to one giant leap for mankind.

----------


## Revolution9

> [LIST][*]Anarcho-capitalists:  the free-market...or private organizations (POs)...can produce all goods better than the government can.


I am NOT an anarcho-capitalist. In fact I abhor any restrictive to my thought processes labelings. I want to be paid for the fruits of my labor in an open market, have contracts enforced and as crime free a community as is possible given the nature of human beings. That actually makes me human as I believe that all humans basically aspire to these things. So, believing these things does not make me this or that or the other political label. I am a circumscribed Divine Being in a material existence. Furthermore, the realization of this puts me at odds with those who would prefer I not recognize this and dwell mentally in the lower realms of a materialistic existence.

If I had to pay taxes then local jurisdiction common law enforcement of crime, contract enforcement, proper defense. Only one of these is a cabinet position.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> No no no...I don't care about your deontology any more than I care about your 10 commandments.


The 10 Commandments are Mosaic Law. Christ's Law...The New Testament...does not rely on following the strictures of Jewish Temple Law. He had but one command. "Love one another as I have loved you". Perhaps you have an argument with the zio-xtians and not the true Christians who do follow the one command of Jesus.

Rev9

----------


## newbitech

my point was simply this.

That "money" which exist by fiat will return to its source no matter which channel I decide to  send it too.

Given the choice of where that money goes, isn't really a choice IMO.  Again, I think the concept is interesting, but I don't see it as a full step to reigning in the bad spending habits of government.

I will elaborate, and maybe someone could iron out some of the details.  

First off, taxes are collected via payroll for the most part.  So, are we going to have a form to fill out for our employers similar to the one that produced the graph? 

Next, does the treasury dept (where businesses currently have an account) need to set up different accounts for each of these functions?

Assuming the above needs to happen, does the business then need to make deposits each payroll period a portion of those tax as indicated on the form by the employee, for each employee?

Finally, how do we hold our employers and the treasury accountable as individuals to make sure our money goes where we want it to go?

I just think it's the illusion of choice that will eventually be set up by this idea, rather than the actual choice that makes it sound good.  I also think it would end up costing businesses unreasonable amounts of money to participate, on top of what they already have to do as fiat tax collectors.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Yes, and I believe that taxes should be paid voluntarily, too. There is no need for the civil government to use force in order for honest, patriotic citizens to pay their taxes for the services which the civil government is supposed to provide. I agree that any tax taken from the American people without their consent is theft.


What you pay for a voluntary service or product is called a price. Voluntary taxation is a contradiction. When you pay for a magazine subscription or internet bill each month, you don't say that you are paying your magazine tax, or your internet tax. Taxes are either added (by compulsion) on to _existing prices_ that are set by the market, or they are the source of revenue where market prices are _not allowed_ to operate (courts,police, i.e. whatever the government maintains a compulsory monopoly on). The market price is the voluntary price. Taxes (compulsory) are _not_ determined by the market, if they were, they would not be taxes (they would be a price). 

If the funding for governing is voluntary, what you have described resembles nothing of a compulsory monopoly, what you have described is a _market entity_. Unless you are using the term _consent_ very vaguely (to the point where it lost any meaningful definition), then what you have just advocated is Voluntaryism.

----------


## Xerographica

newbitech, in my survey post I included the logistics but I'll copy and paste it here...

This survey only represents the top two of the three tiers in the pragmatarian system. With a pragmatarian system tax payers would be able to divvy up their individual taxes among three different tiers. The top tier is Congress, the middle tier consists of the Cabinet Departments and the bottom tier consists of the individual government organizations (GOs). Each GO would have a fundraising progress bar on their website and tax payers would be able to pay their taxes at any time throughout the year. They would pay their taxes directly to the GOs and the GOs would give them a receipt and send a receipt to the IRS. 

This just addresses federal taxes.  In my post on the Pragmatarianism strategy vs the Hoppe strategy, I quoted Hoppe where he advocates tackling a kind of similar (but less feasible in my opinion) strategy at the local level first.  I agree that starting at the local level might be a good idea as well but it's easier to use the federal government as an example.  

Plus I figured this relatively short and simple video of Milton Friedman saying which departments should be kept or abolished would help people grasp the concept. You seem like a fairly reasonable type so if you get a chance read over my justification for government.

In essence, government organizations would be no different than non-profit organizations.  The only difference would be that a portion of our income would have to be "donated" to the GOs of our choosing.

----------


## Xerographica

Wesker1982, I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the middle ground...or whether you genuinely just don't see it.

Right now we have no direct control which government organizations receive our taxes or how much taxes we pay.  You're advocating a system where we have total control over how much money we contribute to the common good.

The middle ground that I'm advocating is that we should have total control over which government organizations receive our individual taxes but still have to pay the same total quantity of our taxes.  

Ooops, when I said that we would have to "pay the same total quantity of taxes" a switch went off in your brain and your eyes glazed over and your thoughts started racing..."robbery...theft...gunpoint...wrong...evi  l..."

Dang, when you're in Deontology Zombie mode then I just don't know how I can get you to even consider what the implications of forcing the government to compete for our taxes would be.  Let me try writing something in bold and adding an exclamation point and see if that helps...

*Competition means survival of the fittest!*  Forcing government organizations to compete for our individual taxes would result in only the fittest government organizations surviving.  If you don't believe it's at all possible or feasible for a government organization to be fit then *NO GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION WOULD SURVIVE!*.  All the money would have trickled over to the private sector.

I'm not shouting or anything...I'm just checking to see if caps, bold and one exclamation point is sufficient to snap you out of Deontology Zombie mode.

Again, if private organizations are always fitter than public organizations then pragmatarianism will result in voluntaryism (just checking to see if maybe underlining is the cure for Deontology Zombie mode).  

Of course, if there are no private organizations offering better national defense at less cost...then the Department of Defense won't have much competition.  To remedy that all you and your voluntary buddies have to do is start a non-profit organization that goes overseas and kicks some terrorist butts.

----------


## Wesker1982

> The middle ground that I'm advocating is that we should have total control over which *government organizations* receive our individual taxes but still have topay the same total quantity of our taxes.





> if *private organizations* are always fitter than public organizations then pragmatarianism will result in voluntaryism.


Are you advocating private organizations competing with government, or governments competing with governments? The distinction is important, but I can't tell which one you are advocating.





> Forcing government organizations to compete for our individual taxes would result in only the fittest government organizations surviving. If you don't believe it's at all possible or feasible for a government organization to be fit then NO GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION WOULD SURVIVE!. All the money would have trickled over to the private sector.


The first part describes governments competing with governments, then you say the money would go to the private sector if all the government organizations suck. The money would only go to the private sector if they are allowed to compete and enter the market. It would not be real competition though if you don't have the option not to pay anyone. A private entity that is funded through force is not competing, it is part of the monopoly/cartel.

Are you saying that the same amount of taxes will be taken no matter what, but you can choose to allocate the tax money between governments or the private sector? The private sector wouldn't really be private here. Private ownership with public funding (taxes) is Crony Capitalism. It would no way demonstrate what genuine free competition would produce.

If you are still forced to pay taxes, but you can choose between 2 government agencies or 2 State sponsored agencies, then you are still really choosing between 4 different government entities. The monopoly is still there, competition still does not exist.

Now if you could opt out of paying taxes, and true competition was legalized, then this would already be a free market.

----------


## Conza88



----------


## Icymudpuppy

If I had a choice, I wouldn't pay any taxes.

I would however deploy any disposible income toward certain venues of my choice.  For example, I would support my local 4H, and FFA.  I would also support the Boy Scouts, and the Girl Scouts.

I would donate to the United Way, and a few other charities.

Unfortunately, the $4500 in payroll, B&O and other taxes my business pays each month means that I don't have any disposable income.

----------


## Xerographica

Wesker1982, ahhhh...nice.  A response completely free of deontology...it's a breath of fresh air.

Honestly, this part is a little tricky so let me try a different approach.  Let's consider those socialist bastards that want the government to produce every single good.  What would they do in a pragmatarian system?

Well...to steal a famous anarcho-capitalist's example...let's say that they wanted the government to produce socks.  So they start a government organization (GO) dedicated to the production of socks.  The thing is...a GO is completely non-profit so in theory a GO could produce socks cheaper than say Nike.  

After the inception of the dept of socks (DOS) only the most staunch socialists would allocate any of their taxes to the DOS because up to this point, all tax payers have all been purchasing socks from the private sector.  But the socialists produce just enough socks to go out and shoot a foot-warming video of them giving socks to poor little kids wandering around barefoot on the snow covered streets of New York City at night on Christmas eve.

The video goes viral and more and more tax payers visit the DOS website and make "donations" to the cause.  At first only the poorest 10% of society can receive free socks but within a relatively short time they are producing enough socks for anybody that wants free socks to receive a pack in the mail.  

Given that the scope of government has now broadened...it would justify an increase in the tax rate.  By that same logic...to decrease the tax rate you would just need to narrow the scope of government.  Can you think of an example of how an anarcho-capitalist might utilize the pragmatarian system to try and narrow the scope of government?  

The reason I offered an example of how pragmatarianism might be used to broaden the scope of government is because I really want to emphasize that the pragmatarian system is completely neutral and equally applicable to both socialism and anarcho-capitalism.  Therefore, it greatly increases the chances that pragmatarianism would be implemented.

Here are two things to consider when thinking of an example of how pragmatarianism could be used to move society towards anarcho-capitalism...

1. Herbert Spencer on the boundary line of State-duty

2. This scope of government diagram...

----------


## Xerographica

Conza88, nice video.  Let's take a look at the transcript...




> We can say that in principle we would expect this to be the case.  That's because generally speaking if you're spending your own money on yourself you're going to do it very carefully.  If you're spending somebody else's money on yourself you're also going to be reasonably careful about it.  However, if you're spending somebody else's money on somebody else, which is what is the case with governments, then you have no real incentive to use that money effectively or efficiently.  And there are many many examples from history that bear this out.


With the pragmatarian system tax payers would be spending their own money.  Therefore, they would do it very carefully and have the greatest incentive to ensure that their money was used effectively and efficiently.  




> There is a case for saying that there are certain kinds of spending which are more efficient when carried out by government...  because of the economies of scale that government posses.  However, this is almost always outweighed (and I would argue in fact always outweighed) by the huge inefficiency costs that come with the less productive public management and the fact that public provision does not face the profit and loss incentives which lead private providers to constantly look to improve the quality of their service and cut out waste and unnecessary costs.


With the pragmatarian system...government organizations that wasted tax payer money and had unnecessary costs would certainly lose tax payer funding.  If the prospect of losing funding doesn't motivate the GO to operate more efficiently then it won't survive.

Regarding the concept of crowding out...I'll see your source and raise you this one...




> A frustrating aspect of todays public policy debate is that many pundits seem oblivious to the fact that the private sector could take care of those people truly in need if it was allowed to retain more of its earnings from the clutches of government. The government crowds out all kinds of private efforts and resources. If the government were to recede, private sector efforts to aid the needy would expand. - Tad DeHaven, Charitable Donations to the Government


We could certainly debate crowding out...in which case I'd throw out some source like this...




> Our estimates show significant crowding out of about 73 percentevery $1000 grant reduces giving by $727. This figure is slightly higher than in prior studies. However, it is robust to a number of different instruments and the inclusion/exclusion of different types of organizations. Most importantly, we find that most of the crowding out is the result of reduced fund-raising. - James Andreoni and A. Abigail Payne, Is Crowding Out Due Entirely to Fundraising?


...and then you'd throw out some other study...and then I'd just reach for yet another study at my immediate disposal...

Let's skip it and say you win.  If the government did not take our money we would just immediately go out and spend that money on the common good.  Sure.  Fine.  Ok.  What you're not grasping is that thus far this argument hasn't gotten us anywhere.  Rather than trying the same approach over and over but expecting a different outcome each time...we should try a new approach.  

So go out and hit some liberals with a good dose of pragmatarianism.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Wesker1982, ahhhh...nice.  A response completely free of deontology...it's a breath of fresh air.


Good to hear, but your reply didn't really address or answer my questions and points in my post. Maybe you tried and I am just not seeing it... but after reading your reply a few times, my post still seems like it was not addressed. Could you quote point by point and reply that way? It would really help.

----------


## Xerographica

> Are you advocating private organizations competing with government, or governments competing with governments? The distinction is important, but I can't tell which one you are advocating.


I'm advocating both.




> The first part describes governments competing with governments, then you say the money would go to the private sector if all the government organizations suck.


Yes, this is true.  




> The money would only go to the private sector if they are allowed to compete and enter the market.


Not quite.  First, people's allocations in the private market would inevitably influence their spending decisions in the public market.  Think about all the people who pay for private education, private healthcare, private transportation, private welfare, etc.  They might not allocate any of their taxes to the redundant government organizations that supply the same goods but at higher costs.  

Second, if they don't supply any of their taxes to the most redundant GOs...they would have to direct their taxes to the least redundant GOs.  So at this point we would still have the same tax rate.  Here's the key point...the kicker.  As the most redundant GOs start to go extinct...the scope of government will start to narrow.  As the scope of government starts to narrow then our tax rate will be reduced proportionally.  This is how money would transfer from the public sector to the private sector.  




> It would not be real competition though if you don't have the option not to pay anyone.


It would be real competition because you would have the option not to pay any of the GOs...except for one.  You would have to decide which was the least redundant GO.  Which was...of course...the point of this thread.  Unfortunately, so many people are completely focused on deontology that they didn't even bother to participate in this practical exercise...thus missing the point completely.  




> Are you saying that the same amount of taxes will be taken no matter what, but you can choose to allocate the tax money between governments or the private sector?  The private sector wouldn't really be private here. Private ownership with public funding (taxes) is Crony Capitalism. It would no way demonstrate what genuine free competition would produce.


Individuals wouldn't be able to decide how much taxes they paid.  This is what anarcho-capitalists argue and nobody even takes the argument seriously.  But if the anarcho-capitalism argument is true that all GOs are redundant then as the scope of government narrowed then the tax rate would decrease proportionally until it was 0%.

Again and again, pragmatarianism is much more feasible than any of the libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism strategies or approaches because it's completely neutral.  All it does is set up a no-risk method of testing the validity of all the views from socialism to anarcho-capitalism.

----------


## Xerographica

In case anybody would like to try and identify a pattern...here's the same question asked on two other forums...

Political ForumDebate Politics

----------


## heavenlyboy34

xero- I don't mind your pragmatism at all, but it's hard for me to imagine how it will happen when the vast majority of people support the welfare/warfare state.  If you'd discuss that a bit, I'd appreciate it.

----------


## Xerographica

heavenlyboy, just to be sure we're on the same page...are you saying that tax payers wouldn't support the same goods that voters support?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> heavenlyboy, just to be sure we're on the same page...are you saying that tax payers wouldn't support the same goods that voters support?


They would support the same goods (I assume by "goods" you mean such things as defense, roads, etc), but the vast majority of people, in my experience, are not willing to consider even a gradual privatizing of such things.  I get the sense that entitlements are so deeply embedded into the culture that it will be extremely difficult to wean a lot of people off of them.  Is that clear?

----------


## Xerographica

heavenlyboy...




> Put differently, voters in democratic regimes are unwilling to give up the protections offered by the welfare state, even when those protections are produced inefficiently, and at very high cost. Libertarians are not going to succeed politically by telling voters that they should give up welfare-state protections. Rather, libertarians need to show how freemarket programs will produce social security at levels comparable to those provided by welfare-state systems. - Jonathan R. Macey, Problems of market liberalism: Social philosophy and policy





> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. - Jesus


Read over my thread on whether the state is justified, the redundancy test.

Libertarians, tea partyers, conservatives, anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists (aka the usual suspects) generally assume (or could care less) that if we destroyed most (or all) government organizations that private organizations would take up the slack and produce the same goods at levels comparable to those previously provided by government organizations.

Pragmatarianism doesn't make that assumption.  The only assumption that pragmatarianism makes is that...if you give people a choice between two organizations that provide the same exact good....people will choose the organization that offers the good at a lower cost...irrespective of whether the organization is public or private.  

So the goal of pragmatarianism is not to wean people from their entitlements.  The goal is to allow tax payers to choose which organizations, either public or private, can provide those entitlements at lower costs.  Therefore, unlike with the usual suspects...the vast majority of people would not have to fear that pragmatarianism will try and take their "bottle" away from them.

In other words, your point is completely relevant to the usual suspects...but not to pragmatarianism.

----------


## ConCap

My tax money will go to Article 1, Section 8.
Anything else, its not Constitutional.

----------


## Xerographica

ConCap...so you're saying that the small committee of government planners that wrote the constitution knew what the proper scope of government was?

----------


## ConCap

> ConCap...so you're saying that the small committee of government planners that wrote the constitution knew what the proper scope of government was?



Aaaaah, Yes.

The Constitution is a rule of law.  They wrote the Constitution and they set the scope of government.  Any thing out side that scope, technically is against the law. Not counting the ones that were expanded in accordance with that law.

----------


## JVParkour

I like the national parks, and if I HAD to pay, I might as well help preserve something beautiful. Don't look too much into it, I know it isn't in the constitution, but I am not arguing the validity.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger



----------


## bolil

Id pay up for vets.  Other than that... infrastructure seems to me necessary.  No prob paying defense if our military were used for defense.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

I would allocate my taxes to myself, as it is rightfully my money and property (In other words, no income tax..NO FREE LOAN)

----------


## Cabal

> I would allocate my taxes to myself, as it is rightfully my money and property (In other words, no income tax..NO FREE LOAN)


Basically this.

----------


## Xerographica

Maybe you guys should read about Unglamorous but Important Things

----------


## Roxi

Mine looks like this... because, I feel willing to give 1% of my income to the feds to help with national defense. The remaining 9% of my income that I am willing to give to help the system would go to the states for education, health, etc. The Federal government shouldn't have anything to do with this.

----------

