Hazlitt - Public works mean taxes

[Steven Douglas]

Did I understand you here correctly.

Because the private sector might not have built the bridge, less people would be working, therefore less people buying both in the construction sector (materials for the bridge) and workers who could spend their wages to buy food, petrol etc?

But because the government decides to build a bridge, money is spent back into the private sector, creating this "artificial demand" that perhaps might not have existed had people not been taxed?

Do you mean artificial demand because public programs were not perhaps the choice of the consumers?

Yes, that last sentence, choice being the operative word. Anything funded by forced extraction (mandatory taxes) is a fundamental shift of one thing at the expense of another (even if private capital formation alone), and therefore an artificial market distortion.

It doesn't matter if there was some choice in allocation so long as "ZERO ALLOCATION TO ANYTHING" is not offered as a choice, and likewise, whether or not the fruits of a forced extraction are deemed valuable by anyone at all is wholly irrelevant to the fact that a fundamental SHIFT has occurred, and by force within the economy (as one thing is artificially mandated at the expense of others). This shift would not have otherwise occurred in the absence of that force.

If the private sector builds a bridge, similar dynamics could occur, but only with 100% willing participants on the finance/demand side, so no artificial distortion. All of that occurs in a free market that is fair game to any and all willing participants, supply and demand side.

Also, no assumptions are made with regard to the number of people working, or even where they came from. If I own a large private firm, and set up shop and put locals to work, I might also end up bringing new locals into the local economy. I might import all the labor, and put no locals to work. Whatever the case, my objective is only to offer goods or services at a profit, not to provide employment to anyone, which is wholly incidental. I may well cause competition to suffer, and I might even cause commonly used goods and services to be bid up before it is corrected with more competition for the supply of those goods and services. None of that matters, because as long as I am responsible for all the funding, all of the risks and rewards are mine, and the effects on various people's economies, beneficial or adverse, are mine to bestow or inflict, as the case may be, as a matter of right.

In the case of a work project, like a bridge, the element of choice (from whatever portion of the market would have made different choices, had the option to abstain been present) is DESTROYED--at the expense of something else that will not exist as capital in some other form.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Now, I didn't have much success explaining to you what the outcome would be of implementing tax choice. So please go right on ahead and do my job for me instead, as you explain exactly what would happen if taxpayers could consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions.

There, I fixed it for you.

Your proposal will be meaningless without the inclusion of "None of the above" as an option. Even if you had the option, "Government must save this money, which many NOT be spent, but will be allocated by me at some later date," then there would still be a market distortion, as funding that is EXTRACTED BY FORCE may no longer go to what is unseen. However, if there was a portion that could theoretically be accrued indefinitely, never allocated to anything at all, then you might be onto something, as the public sector would then more resemble what actually happens in the private sector, since SAVING WITHOUT SPENDING is a VERY IMPORTANT OPTION.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Compared to the current tax system, positive. Can't wait till we get to "Thr Curse of Machinery". By the way mohassan you have started some great threads in the short time you've been here.

 

[Xerographica]

There, I fixed it for you.

Your proposal will be meaningless without the inclusion of "None of the above" as an option. Even if you had the option, "Government must save this money, which many NOT be spent, but will be allocated by me at some later date," then there would still be a market distortion, as funding that is EXTRACTED BY FORCE may no longer go to what is unseen. However, if there was a portion that could theoretically be accrued indefinitely, never allocated to anything at all, then you might be onto something, as the public sector would then more resemble what actually happens in the private sector, since SAVING WITHOUT SPENDING is a VERY IMPORTANT OPTION.

There is no "unseen" for each individual taxpayer...you can't spend your money on something that you aren't aware of. If somebody chooses to save their money it's simply because their future spending is a more urgent priority than their present spending is. In other words...you save up for a rainy day...unless it's raining today.

In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers will have far more spending opportunities in the private sector than they will in the public sector. As you love to point out...they won't have the option to save their tax money. But neither will they have the option to spend their taxes on booze, hookers, or whatever inputs they need to eliminate bottlenecks from their businesses.

Does the fact that a baker can't save his taxes or spend his taxes on a new oven or more baker racks or a new employee diminish the positive impact of tax choice? Not even in the least bit. Because we really really really really really want Mr. Baker to understand what he is being forced to sacrifice. The point of pragmatarianism is to open taxpayers' eyes.

In the first place, justice always suffers from it somewhat. Since James Goodfellow has sweated to earn his hundred-sou piece with some satisfaction in view, he is irritated, to say the least, that the tax intervenes to take this satisfaction away from him and give it to someone else. Now, certainly it is up to those who levy the tax to give some good reasons for it. We have seen that the state gives a detestable reason when it says: "With these hundred sous I am going to put some men to work," for James Goodfellow (as soon as he has seen the light) will not fail to respond: "Good Lord! With a hundred sous I could have put them to work myself." - Bastiat

 

[Steven Douglas]

There is no "unseen" for each individual taxpayer...you can't spend your money on something that you aren't aware of.

Well, since you obviously lack even the most rudimentary understanding of Bastiat's Broken Window parable, let me take this opportunity to share it with you. Pay attention to the part I put in bold, and special attention to the part I put in red.

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Note that at the end of Bastiat's broken window fallacy parable, there is no more than a speculative attempt to describe what the shopkeeper would/could have spent his money on had it not gone toward fixing the broken window. As an individual shopkeeper, he is very much analogous to an individual taxpayer, who does indeed have the "unseen" element of a six francs taken from him, which would have gone to something else--something which not even the shopkeeper need be aware of.

For EVERY individual taxpayer there is something "unseen", which does not even have to be identified, nor does the individual have to a specific awareness for that "unseen" (EVEN TO HIM) to exist. It does not matter where the money would have been spent, or even IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT. It is "unseen" precisely because it can no longer happen using that particular money that went for something else.

In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers will have far more spending opportunities in the private sector than they will in the public sector.

RUBBISH. False on its face. Far less money for spending in the private sector automatically equates to far less spending opportunities in that same sector.

As you love to point out...they won't have the option to save their tax money.

And as you are loathe to point out, not even the option to make the choice for government to save.

But neither will they have the option to spend their taxes on booze, hookers, or whatever inputs they need to eliminate bottlenecks from their businesses.

Oh, how "it's-for-their-own-good" of you. So you're saving people from themselves, eh?

"See folks, taxing you eliminates bottlenecks from your businesses!"

Well, why didn't you say so before?! That should resonate nicely with libertarians, who, as we all know, are just clamoring for a government to save them from themselves.

Does the fact that a baker can't save his taxes or spend his taxes on a new oven or more baker racks or a new employee diminish the positive impact of tax choice?

Compound question fallacy. If you get to choose between would-be thieves, does the fact that you were stolen from, and can no longer spend that money as you see fitting, diminish whatever positive impact there might be of being able to choose which thief your money goes to? Which of course, is an attempt to slippery-ooze past the fact that there would be a far more positive impact had no theft occurred in the first place.

That's like telling me that a mafia don who promises to protect me from other thieves is preferable to a thug on the street. How about we throw that stinking false choice into the sewer where it belongs, and all thieves--good/bad/value-returning/non-value-returning--can all go fuck themselves?

The point of pragmatarianism is to open taxpayers' eyes.

You misspelled purses, wallets and bank accounts. The entire proposed system is BLIND to those taxpayers whose eyes are indeed opened--to the fact that NOTHING that they would ever freely choose even exists.

Like I said, if the option for individuals to save (not be forced to pay anything or make any false choice at gunpoint) does not exist, but the option to force government to save did, the very existence of a NO CONFIDENCE TO ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY vote would be at least a beginning of the effect you're looking for, but would would not exist in the regime you propose. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FREE MARKET about a "Favorites Take All" Idiocy regime, wherein the absolute lunacy of a constant flood of revenue that is absolutely guaranteed in the aggregate, the only question being who the lucky pandering favorites are going to be. That's not pragmatic, and it's not a free market. It's absolute rubbish.

 

[Xerographica]

Well, since you obviously lack even the most rudimentary understanding of Bastiat's Broken Window parable, let me take this opportunity to share it with you. Pay attention to the part I put in bold, and special attention to the part I put in red.

Yeah, you completely misread my post. Let me try again. Mr. Baker depends on numerous inputs for the successful operation of his bakery...flour, salt, sugar, butter, ovens, baker racks, employees and so on. As all liberals and libertarians will argue...he also depends on inputs from the public sector as well. As a side note...for the sake of facilitating communication...I don't lump anarcho-capitalists under the libertarian umbrella.

Here's what Ms. Congresslady had to say about the importance of public sector inputs...

I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.”—No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. - Elizabeth Warren

As a pragmatarian my argument has two parts...1. Mr. Baker knows far better than Ms. Congresslady which public sector inputs he needs and 2. he has a far greater incentive than she does to eliminate public sector bottlenecks. Why? Because his bottom line depends on it.

The fact of the matter is...there's absolutely no need for me to try and dissuade people of their belief that Mr. Baker depends on public sector inputs. Can Mr. Baker utilize private roads to transport his goods? Yes? Great...he won't see any need to give his taxes to public roads. Can Mr. Baker teach new employees all the skills they need to work for him? Yes? Great...he won't see any need to give his taxes to public education. Can Mr. Baker hire private security people to prevent theft and fight fires? Yes? Great...he won't see any need to give his taxes to police and firemen.

This is why there's absolutely no need for anarcho-capitalism...or even libertarianism or liberalism. There's simply people who understand how and why markets work...aka pragmatarians...and then there's everybody else.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Yeah, you completely misread my post. Let me try again.

I know, as attacks on the very legitimacy and premise of your question have distracted you from the meat of the "pragmatarian" sales pitch you'd like to get on with.

Mr. Baker depends on numerous inputs for the successful operation of his bakery...flour, salt, sugar, butter, ovens, baker racks, employees and so on. As all liberals and libertarians will argue...he also depends on inputs from the public sector as well.

"inputs" - what a convenient choice of words, and how very appealing to all fact-obfuscating, reality-jumbling, aggregate-thinking collectivists everywhere.

FedEx to China is one of the "inputs" to my business, just as a fire and police departments are also "inputs" to my business? Great...now that we've jumbled everything up nicely, and are firmly prepped for the leftist "YOU DIDN'T MAKE THAT ALONE! YOU DEPENDED ON HELP!" slippery slope, let's allow Ms. Congresslady to blow smoke up our collective asses as we go down that ride:

Here's what Ms. Congresslady had to say about the importance of public sector inputs...

You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.
You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.
You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.
You didn’t have to worry [about blah blah blah] because of the work the rest of us did.

- Blithering Fallacious Collectivist Excerpts from Elizabeth Warren

News Flashes to Elizabeth (and Zero):

1) There is no You VS. The Rest of Us - that is a fiction. You cannot separate a single "You" from "The Rest of Us", as if one was taking benefit from what "The Rest of Us" paid for.
2) Equal opportunity does not equate to equal benefits or entitlements. Opportunities to access to common goods and services DOES NOT, NOR SHOULD IT EVER, equate to equal benefits derived. If the state provides a common exercise facility - with track, gym, weights, showers you name it (common road, common police, common utilities, common defense, or anything at all) with equal access OPPORTUNITY to EVERYONE, and someone uses that facility to gain extra health, or run a mile in under four minutes, while another only sits back, but is still forced to pay for the track but NEVER uses it -- TOUGH SHIT. S/he is owed NOTHING. To point to another athlete and say, "I HELPED YOU WITH YOUR HEALTH!" does not entitle you to any of their health. Only vampires and blood-sucking parasites even think with that mindset.
3) Common Goods and Services ARE NOT FOR STATE PROFIT. Stop putting the government into a CORPORATE framework as though we were all shareholders in a FOR PROFIT firm. WE ARE NOT COMMUNISTS OR FASCISTS, and THE STATE IS NOT A FIRM.
4) IF we are stupid enough to view the state as a firm, then let the state operate in a STRICTLY PERFECTLY COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET. That means ZERO SUBSIDIES, ZERO REVENUE GUARANTEES, ZERO BAILOUTS. If you can't hang with your competition -- YOU CAN DIE. You want to talk pragmatic? There it is. Take the protectionist diaper off of the public sector. There is no guaranteed PIE that is gathered in by force for them to all compete for, but is guaranteed to exist. Let each part of them sink or swim, and if none of them can hang, let them all die a well-deserved death.

As a pragmatarian my argument has two parts...
1. Mr. Baker knows far better than Ms. Congresslady which public sector inputs he needs and

Bullshit, and all because you did not acknowledge the most pragmatic fact of all and that is that Mr. Baker "knows far better than Ms. Congresslady" (or you) that he may indeed have EXTREMELY LIMITED needs for anything at all from the public sector.

2. he has a far greater incentive than she does to eliminate public sector bottlenecks. Why? Because his bottom line depends on it.

Bottlenecks FOR WHAT, exactly? If your entire public sector shopping mall menu sucks complete ass, and offers NOTHING desirable, that information is Very Important. Why would I want to reward the lesser of many Sucks Total Ass Evils, and turn that into some creepy behemoth? If I go to a beauty pageant, and it is full of nothing but beasties, the fact that one was crowned at the end is MEANINGLESS.

The fact of the matter is...there's absolutely no need for me to try and dissuade people of their belief that Mr. Baker depends on public sector inputs.

Why would you try to dissuade anyone of that belief, since it is your belief--the very premise from which you are arguing--which goes hand in hand with your treatment of the state as if it was a firm.

Can Mr. Baker utilize private roads to transport his goods? Yes? Great...he won't see any need to give his taxes to public roads. Can Mr. Baker teach new employees all the skills they need to work for him? Yes? Great...he won't see any need to give his taxes to public education. Can Mr. Baker hire private security people to prevent theft and fight fires? Yes? Great...he won't see any need to give his taxes to police and firemen.

Great...now add to that:

Can Mr. Baker, upon looking at all the public sector menu items, see no need to give ANY taxes to anything at all? Great...because now "his taxes" remain truly his, and nobody knows better than Mr. Baker how to allocate those more efficiently than does Mr. Baker himself. No need for any kind of forced false choice, and all of the MISINFORMATION that entails.

 

[Henry Rogue]

As all liberals and libertarians will argue......I don't lump anarcho-capitalists under the libertarian umbrella.

Probably shouldn't lump liberals under the libertarian umbrella either since they're commu-fascist socialist, unless you mean Classical Liberalism.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

tax choice

what an interesting, and completely ridiculous phrase given the context in which you use it.

choice implies the ability to make ones own decision. you are not promoting a true 'choice', as your options are very fixed and very limited. choice would imply i could pay the taxes, not pay the taxes, pay only a portion, pay the full amount with reservations, or any other number of things of my own volition.

what you're really promoting is some sort of 'tax preference' in which YOU decided my options ahead of time, and I am forced to agree with one of them.

 

[Xerographica]

Can Mr. Baker, upon looking at all the public sector menu items, see no need to give ANY taxes to anything at all? Great...because now "his taxes" remain truly his, and nobody knows better than Mr. Baker how to allocate those more efficiently than does Mr. Baker himself. No need for any kind of forced false choice, and all of the MISINFORMATION that entails.

If Mr. Baker is not happy with the return on his tax investment...and Mr. Baker is not alone...then what happens? You haven't even thought it through that far. Can you? Give it a try. If taxpayers are allowed to shop for themselves in the public sector...and they all feel like they are getting ripped off...then what happens?

 

[Xerographica]

Probably shouldn't lump liberals under the libertarian umbrella either since they're commu-fascist socialist, unless you mean Classical Liberalism.

It's a continuum. Liberals and libertarians both believe that the government should supply at least three public goods...defense, the courts and police...



Our objective should be to help people understand why it's impossible for congress (government planners) to know the optimal level of funding that any organization should receive.

Why is it impossible? Because if it were possible...then we wouldn't need markets. Markets work because all our spending decisions determine exactly how much funding an organization should receive. Therefore, the problem with the public sector is that taxpayers are not the ones making the spending decisions...a small group of government planners are making the spending decisions for them.

So rather than trying to argue over whether something should...or shouldn't be...a public good...we should simply argue that taxpayers be given the option to directly allocate their taxes. This will force the opposition to come up with new counter arguments.

We've been attacking liberals from the same exact direction for the past 300 years...so they've built up their fortifications accordingly. It's time we attack from a completely new direction. What arguments will they make to defend congress? Will they argue that congress is so superior? Will they argue that taxpayers are too stupid?

 

[Xerographica]

what an interesting, and completely ridiculous phrase given the context in which you use it.

Actually, the term "tax choice" wasn't my idea...I came up with "pragmatarianism".

choice implies the ability to make ones own decision. you are not promoting a true 'choice', as your options are very fixed and very limited. choice would imply i could pay the taxes, not pay the taxes, pay only a portion, pay the full amount with reservations, or any other number of things of my own volition.

Errr...and you're exceptional because...you want more choices? Who doesn't want more choices? Markets work because we have the freedom to reward the organizations that offer new and better options.

Right now we have a command economy in the public sector. Yet, here you are making the argument that we would have a small selection of crappy options to choose from. Errr...yeah...that's because we have a command economy in the public sector...which is why I'm arguing that we should create a market in the public sector.

what you're really promoting is some sort of 'tax preference' in which YOU decided my options ahead of time, and I am forced to agree with one of them.

I'm advocating that we create a market in the public sector. If you don't believe that doing so will have extremely beneficial consequences...then clearly you don't understand how markets work. That's a fundamental problem which pragmatarianism helps to expose.

 

[Steven Douglas]

If Mr. Baker is not happy with the return on his tax investment...

There you go again. Earth to Xero: Tax revenues are not investments in the usual sense of the word, the State is not a for-profit firm, and not all taxpayers are created equal.

If taxpayers are allowed forced to shop for themselves in the public sector...and they all feel like they are getting ripped off...then what happens?

Fixed it for you again. Change that so that it really is a case of being "allowed" (READ=OPTIONAL), and the rest of your question can be answered simply, using free market principles. If any one taxpayer (it most certainly does not have to be "all of them") feels like they are not getting any bang for their tax buck, they'll take their "shopping" business elsewhere. That is because no sector in any truly free market, public or private, would enjoy any legislated funding guarantees in the aggregate.

 

[Steven Douglas]

...it's impossible for congress (government planners) to know the optimal level of funding that any organization or organizations in the aggregate, should receive.

Fixed it for you again, as you seemed to have left out the most important part.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Markets work because we have the freedom to reward the organizations that offer new and better options...

...and to withhold any rewards at all in the aggregate. If the entire market is a stinking pile of rotten value-sucking bullshit, that's OK. The free market works because we can exercise another very important market principle called Private Capital Formation (including the all-important SAVINGS); a process whereby we may actually become one of those organizations that offers new and better options to the market.

 

[Xerographica]

There you go again. Earth to Xero: Tax revenues are not investments in the usual sense of the word, the State is not a for-profit firm, and not all taxpayers are created equal.

Are organizations in the non-profit sector for-profit firms? Obviously not. And obviously not all taxpayers are created equal. No two people use society's limited resources in exactly the same way.

Fixed it for you again. Change that so that it really is a case of being "allowed" (READ=OPTIONAL), and the rest of your question can be answered simply, using free market principles. If any one taxpayer (it most certainly does not have to be "all of them") feels like they are not getting any bang for their tax buck, they'll take their "shopping" business elsewhere. That is because no sector in any truly free market, public or private, would enjoy any legislated funding guarantees in the aggregate.

If taxpayers don't have to pay taxes then that is the same thing as anarcho-capitalism. I want people to have a new and better option...pragmatarianism.

...and to withhold any rewards at all in the aggregate. If the entire market is a stinking pile of rotten value-sucking bullshit, that's OK. The free market works because we can exercise another very important market principle called Private Capital Formation (including the all-important SAVINGS); a process whereby we may actually become one of those organizations that offers new and better options to the market.

You argue that not all taxpayers are equal...yet now you want to argue that all government organizations are equally shitty. All organizations...be they for-profit or non-profit...are simply a collection of people working together to solve agreed upon problems. If people aren't all equal...then how is it possible for organizations to all be equal?

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

If a government organization fails...will taxpayers give it more taxes? Obviously not. And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. – Milton Friedman

Will a market in the public sector weed out failures? Of course...because that's what markets do. Nobody would choose to pay for failure...you know why? Because everybody wants to pay for results. And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

 

[Henry Rogue]

LL Something is amiss if you can't fully include Conservatism into your circle jerk. While the republican form of conservatism may hold some free economic similarities to Libertarianism. The republican form of conservatism's social mandate mates with progressivism. They may have different agendas, but their solutions are the same. People calling themselves liberal, idea of Freedom of Choice is the choices they choose to allow. I see little difference between liberals, fascist, communist, socialist, and progressives. You included Anarchism, but left out Totalitarianism. Why because nobody calls themself a totalitarianist? Anarchism is as fanciful as Totalitarianism. It can not exist. At the very least An-caps have Principles that follow to a conclusion. By the way where does Pragmatarianism fit in the circle jerk? I don't see it. To paraphrase Dr. Paul at some point Economic Freedom became divorced of Social Freedom. Perhaps in prehistory the value of Dundar's number averaged to 150 people. Perhaps the perfect size of governance. Society expanded from this small number through markets, perhaps free ones and aggression of the controlling type. The elegance of the Free Market evolved from the social interaction of Humanity. Likewise the desire to control and manipulate others derives itself from our inherent inhumanity. Think of it as the good and evil on your shoulders. You think the solution is to inject the market into government. If markets are the answer would they have already done so naturally? A merger of Markets and government already exist, only its government that has injected itself into the market. They are both part of our humanity, but they are not alike, they are opposites. I guess anything can make sense when viewed in a bubble.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

I came up with "pragmatarianism".

there is a more common, colloquial term for what you call 'pragmatarianism' - the 'status quo'. you would rather men falter from their principles in the sake of 'doing something' than fighting against the evil of coercion and violence. i have very little faith that your 'pragmatarianism' will take root here.

Yet, here you are making the argument that we would have a small selection of crappy options to choose from. Errr...yeah...that's because we have a command economy in the public sector...which is why I'm arguing that we should create a market in the public sector.

i have made no such argument. i simply stated the ludicrousness of your claim. if I were to make an argument, it would be that there should be no 'public sector' at all, because the only way it can exist in the first place is through coercion and theft, and truly free markets are devoid of such concepts as much as possible. those things should definitely not be 'baked' into the system fundamentally as a matter of 'that's just the way it is'.

I'm advocating that we create a market in the public sector. If you don't believe that doing so will have extremely beneficial consequences...then clearly you don't understand how markets work. That's a fundamental problem which pragmatarianism helps to expose.

no, you're advocating the same thing that politicians and people who fundamentally misunderstand markets have been advocating for years. if we steal just a *little* more wealth from this group or that group, to target this pet project or that pet project, the people will benefit tremendously! i didn't buy it when it was said before - i still don't buy it from you. just because i get to target where my stolen wealth goes does not make your system any better. it is like saying things are so much better under your system because now i get to pick which of the toes on my right foot i will have cut off, versus before when one would be cut off arbitrarily by someone elses decision.

 

[Xerographica]

LL Something is amiss if you can't fully include Conservatism into your circle jerk. While the republican form of conservatism may hold some free economic similarities to Libertarianism. The republican form of conservatism's social mandate mates with progressivism. They may have different agendas, but their solutions are the same. People calling themselves liberal, idea of Freedom of Choice is the choices they choose to allow. I see little difference between liberals, fascist, communist, socialist, and progressives. You included Anarchism, but left out Totalitarianism. Why because nobody calls themself a totalitarianist? Anarchism is as fanciful as Totalitarianism. It can not exist. At the very least An-caps have Principles that follow to a conclusion. By the way where does Pragmatarianism fit in the circle jerk? I don't see it.

Concepts such as conservatism or liberalism are simply "shortcuts" we use. The technical term is heuristic. But if taxpayers were allowed to directly allocate their taxes...do you think they would be concerned about spending their taxes according to popular stereotypes? For example...if you and I happened to be grocery shopping at the same time...then what are the chances we'd purchase exactly the same items?

That's why pragmatarianism doesn't fit into the circle jerk...it's a completely different paradigm. It doesn't offer an answer regarding what the government should or shouldn't do...it offers a means of finding an answer. We'd shop for ourselves in the public sector and all our spending decisions would reveal the proper scope of government.

To paraphrase Dr. Paul at some point Economic Freedom became divorced of Social Freedom. Perhaps in prehistory the value of Dundar's number averaged to 150 people. Perhaps the perfect size of governance. Society expanded from this small number through markets, perhaps free ones and aggression of the controlling type. The elegance of the Free Market evolved from the social interaction of Humanity. Likewise the desire to control and manipulate others derives itself from our inherent inhumanity. Think of it as the good and evil on your shoulders. You think the solution is to inject the market into government. If markets are the answer would they have already done so naturally?

But modern economic theory is...well...modern. Adam Smith is primarily responsible for introducing the idea of the invisible hand. And the idea of introducing the invisible hand to the government is extremely new. This...here...us...is the market. We decide whether we inject the market into the government. If we decide to do so then it will be accomplished via democratic means. Is that considered naturally?

A merger of Markets and government already exist, only its government that has injected itself into the market. They are both part of our humanity, but they are not alike, they are opposites. I guess anything can make sense when viewed in a bubble.

Pragmatarianism is simply a more effective way of guiding the government. Directly allocating your taxes would be optional. Why would people choose this option? They would do so if they believed that our government was guiding the country in the "wrong" direction.

 

[staerker]

If a government organization fails...will taxpayers give it more taxes? Obviously not. And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

Will a market in the public sector weed out failures? Of course...because that's what markets do. Nobody would choose to pay for failure...you know why? Because everybody wants to pay for results. And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

Would I be allowed to not pay taxes if I determined that all of the available government organizations have failed?