Pragmatarianism -- *The FINAL Thread*

[Xerographica]

LOL. I'm not responding to it because I think it's a strawman, which my critique already addressed. You're assuming that my critique actually assumes that a pragmatarian society will have a tax rate of 100%. This isn't the case. It could be 30%, but all the problems I described still apply (just to a smaller extent). xD

What are the problems with a 30% tax rate that wouldn't/couldn't be solved by value-seeking, self-interested, utility maximizing, purposefully acting, psychic profit-seeking taxpayers? Taxpayers would control the purse strings...therefore they would control the public sector. Consumers would control the public sector just as much as consumers control the private sector. Taxpayers would be able to withhold their taxes from every single government organization except for one. Why wouldn't they withhold their taxes from whichever government organization was the source of the problem? How big could a problem possibly be if taxpayers did not boycott the organization that was the source/cause of the problem?

Your only possible answer is that the taxpayers themselves would be the source of the problem. Are you, an anarcho-capitalist, really going to argue that giving people more control over their own property would be the source of the problem?

 

[Xerographica]

If it's a set list, which it probably would be, then yes, you're right -- it's not an open-ended choice as in the free market, it's a very constrained multiple-choice decision. I should have put it differently, or taken that out altogether or something. Anyway Mr. X. has never defined to me exactly what kind of choices the taxpayer could make, just that he could make a choice. Could he "write-in" a new agency to be formed? So could the taxpayer say "I want to use this money to buy a new car. To be delivered to my house for me to use. This shall be called the Department of My New Car."? Who knows. Lots of questions. None likely to be answered.

I'm sure you could have answered that question yourself. My goal is for pragmatarianism to be implemented. If people could just allocate their taxes back to their own pocket then pragmatarianism would be no different than anarcho-capitalism. Freedom is all about options. Right now people have a limited number of choices...

• Socialism
• Liberalism
• Libertarianism
• Anarcho-capitalism

My goal is to give them another possible option...pragmatarianism...not just rename an already available option (anarcho-capitalism).

Would people want more options to spend their taxes on...or would they want to pay less taxes?

1. Higher tax rate = more spending options in the public sector and less spending options in the private sector
2. Lower tax rate = more spending options in the private sector and less spending options in the public sector

If the tax rate increased...it would be because taxpayers/consumers wanted more options to spend their taxes on. If the tax rate decreased...it would be because taxpayers/consumers wanted less options to spend their taxes on.

I don't know what the outcome would be. There's no way anybody could know what the outcome would be. All I know is that I trust the process. The process is simple...nobody wants to sacrifice their life slaving away for a company just to have their rewards/earnings (taxes) wasted in the public sector.

 

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

If it's a set list, which it probably would be, then yes, you're right.

It is in fact the set list of a majority vote, which Xerographica has explicitly stated. See: “In a pragmatarian system voters would determine the functions of government and taxpayers would determine which functions to fund.” [emphasis added]

In Pragmatarianism, you can't choose to put money into "The Department of My New Car," unless the voters rule, by the majority, that this is a function of govt.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm sure you could have answered that question yourself.

Oh really, how would I do that, mind reading? It is extremely telling that you wrote 215 words in response to my implicit question, none of which came even close to answering it or even saying anything coherent. You took 215 words to say nothing whatsoever. I mean, I'm sorry if that offends you but that's how I see it. I read: "Prag gives options. I trust options." You don't say how these options would be made. No details whatsoever. What do you mean if taxpayers/consumers wanted less options to spend taxes on then the tax rate would decrease? Why would it decrease? How? What's the mechanism? Is there a line-item on the tax form for "None of the Above"? You don't explain any of this.

It is in fact the set list of a majority vote, which Xerographica has explicitly stated.

What's ironic is that while you, the originator of this sad theory, take 215 words to tell me zip-squat, Anarcho-Capitalist has the intelligence and reading comprehension to answer my question, and to answer it three times for redundancy and clarity, one of which is a direct quote from you, and to answer it extremely clearly, all in 67 words and just 3 sentences.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Remember that we already disproved it here too: http://libertariananarchy.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/hello-world/

Let's see some things he didn't address from our critique: (a) the infeasibility of capital structure, (b) the impossibility of true savings, (c) the idea that economic calculation would be messed up, (d) the subsequent inevitability of shortages and surpluses, (e) the idea that pragmatarianism would force the people into propping up at least one government agency and hence income is fixed, (f) the moral nihilism and failures of the system, (g) the idea that the majority vote on the Pragmatarian Agency List doesn't represent the desires of various individuals, (h) the fact that he is misdefining terms like the invisible hand, (i) the fact that pragmatarianism imposes an even more partial knowledge on the partial knowledge which already exists, (j) the fact that we support "pragmatarianism" to the extent it is a conducive strategy in reducing the state, but not to the extent that it increases the state.

Good essay! And footnotes, citations, and and everything. And what's interesting: there's hardly a repeated point between us! You came at the issue from a altogether different angle.

Good work though helmuth!

Thank you! It's really just a beginning. I make the observations about the nature of one single market transaction, vs. one single Pragmatarian transaction. A typical market transaction would be, let's say, buying a newspaper, whereas the parallel Pragmatarian transaction would be akin to being forced to give $10,000 to the newsstand man once a year, and being allowed to dictate to the newsstand man how to spend it, within the confines of a list of possibilities selected by the newspaper man or some kind of voting process of the city at large.

One can see some of the differences between the two (I hope) by reading my essay, and can begin to see some of the problems these differences would suggest. But it's really only a beginning. A beginning, however, which will probably never be finished, because the only purveyor of this system (other than Pragmatarian) is apparently not capable or not interested (or both) in answering the points I brought up. Nor in answering the points you brought up. He really is just lonely and addicted to the internet. Why do you think he needs to have multiple accounts on every high-volume political forum he can find?

Nevertheless, he has fooled some, such as deadfish and danno, and so it's good to have this thread to direct all attempted "Pragmatarian" evangelizing into, so that potential converts can see that tax-earmarking would actually make our situation worse, not better. Just as Congressional-level earmarking leads to pork-barrel projects and inefficiencies, so taxpayer-level earmarking would lead to the same thing.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm still wondering, Mr. X., which books of Mises, Rothbard, or Smith you have read in their totality. Buehler?

 

[Sam I am]

Technically speaking, The government is a mediator between the taxpayer and a third party( normally some sort of contractor)

 

[Sam I am]

Between Anarchism, and Socialism, Xerographica's Not-thought-Throughism has the weaknesses of both and the strengths of none.

 

[Sam I am]

That is the last thing I'd want to be. I did realize that was kind of what I was being and so I wrote post #9 above. You have to realize Xerographica's pattern of behavior -- I was not entirely unprovoked -- but still, I always try to take the high road.

Do you think I was being nasty even in the opening post? I thought that kept a even and fair tone; just an honest scholarly look at Pragmatarianism.

This was my original position, until Mr. X., by being so block-headed and annoying, provoked me into taking a closer look. Upon further examination, there are some problems.

We have some influence over spending currently, through various mechanisms. Prag just cuts out the middle-man, it streamlines the process. Is streamlining a good thing? Not always. As in the case of the Basic Minimum Income / Reverse Income Tax proposal, it can actually be far worse than the convoluted, inefficient, unresponsive system. Unresponsive is sometimes less destructive than responsive.

What would happen if the State were more responsive to the people's spending demands in the specific way Mr. X. proposes? What do you think, deadfish? Did you understand some of my economic arguments in the Opening Post?

The major disadvantage of not-thought-throughism vs the current system is that if individuals allocated their taxes, then it is very likely that the majority of taxpayers really won't pay very much attention to how everyone else is spending their taxes. This will cause the following problems

1. some projects will not receive enough funds and will be doomed to fail. Everyone who sent money those projects will have completely wasted it.
2. some projects will receive way more funds than they actually can use, and unless the surplus is allowed to go toward other projects, it will go to waste.

Now, I know that the government doesn't always perfectly predict how much money projects will cost, but I assure you that they will do a whole lot better than a group of laymen who aren't communicating with each-other. And when things do go wrong, it will be impossible for public funds to be re-allocated to correct with inaccuracies.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The major disadvantage of not-thought-throughism vs the current system is that if individuals allocated their taxes, then it is very likely that the majority of taxpayers really won't pay very much attention to how everyone else is spending their taxes. This will cause the following problems

1. some projects will not receive enough funds and will be doomed to fail. Everyone who sent money those projects will have completely wasted it.
2. some projects will receive way more funds than they actually can use, and unless the surplus is allowed to go toward other projects, it will go to waste.

Now, I know that the government doesn't always perfectly predict how much money projects will cost, but I assure you that they will do a whole lot better than a group of laymen who aren't communicating with each-other. And when things do go wrong, it will be impossible for public funds to be re-allocated to correct with inaccuracies.

Another very valid point, and one that I in my (beginnings of an) analysis did not even consider, since I was focusing on only one single Prag transaction, not the whole system of many such transactions.

 

[Xerographica]

Another very valid point, and one that I in my (beginnings of an) analysis did not even consider, since I was focusing on only one single Prag transaction, not the whole system of many such transactions.

Sam I am: Anarcho-capitalism on training wheels would surely fail
helmuth_hubener: That's a valid point

That's a valid point? If anarcho-capitalism on training wheels would surely fail then how would anarcho-capitalism possibly succeed? If you agree with Sam I am that people's spending decisions need to be coordinated...then how in the world could you justify your own goal of getting rid of government altogether? If people's spending decisions need to be coordinated...then you must have Sam I am and 300 million other people on your speed dial. Which is strange...because you've never called me to coordinate our purchases. Yet, for some reason I manage just fine to respond to shortages of the things that I value.

Either you truly don't understand how the invisible hand works...or you're so desperate to score points against pragmatarianism that you'll even cut your nose to spite your face.

 

[Xerographica]

The major disadvantage of not-thought-throughism vs the current system is that if individuals allocated their taxes, then it is very likely that the majority of taxpayers really won't pay very much attention to how everyone else is spending their taxes. This will cause the following problems

1. some projects will not receive enough funds and will be doomed to fail. Everyone who sent money those projects will have completely wasted it.
2. some projects will receive way more funds than they actually can use, and unless the surplus is allowed to go toward other projects, it will go to waste.

Now, I know that the government doesn't always perfectly predict how much money projects will cost, but I assure you that they will do a whole lot better than a group of laymen who aren't communicating with each-other. And when things do go wrong, it will be impossible for public funds to be re-allocated to correct with inaccuracies.

This response of yours is the 73rd response that I've added to this page...Unglamorous but Important Things. If you're genuinely interested in learning something about economics then you might want to carefully and thoroughly read that page.

 

[Sam I am]

This response of yours is the 73rd response that I've added to this page...Unglamorous but Important Things. If you're genuinely interested in learning something about economics then you might want to carefully and thoroughly read that page.

Your blog mentions the problem as a line item, but I can't find where It addresses the issue at all.

 

[Xerographica]

Your blog mentions the problem as a line item, but I can't find where It addresses the issue at all.

Well...not quite sure what you mean by "line item". I tried to explain how the invisible hand works by talking about BBQs and potlucks. In any case...here's an article by Russell Roberts that I linked to in my blog entry... A Marvel of Cooperation: How Order Emerges without a Conscious Planner. That article references two essays that I reference "ad nauseum"...Hayek's essay on partial knowledge and Bastiat's essay on opportunity costs.

From my perspective...if you genuinely and sincerely want to learn about economics...then it's worth it for you to carefully read those 3 articles several times. Economics basically boils down to one question..."Is it worth it?". Something that might be worth it for you might not be worth it for me...and vice versa. That's why you can't decide whether something is worth it for me and I can't decide whether something is worth it for you. All we can do is share our partial knowledge with each other in order to encourage each other to change our priorities.

Xero: You should spend more of your taxes on national defense
Sam I am: Naw, they've got enough money
Xero: Didn't you hear that Canada is planning to attack us?
Sam I am: That's ridiculous. Can you provide any concrete evidence to support your claim?
Xero: Sure, just go on the Canadian government's official website.
Sam I am: Huh, I guess I'll go ahead and do that

What does the milk industry do if they want us to drink more milk? They start an ad campaign..."Got Milk?". What should the defense industry do if they want us to spend more taxes on national defense? They should start an ad campaign..."Got Defense?".

We don't persuade people to pay taxes...we simply force them to. That's not my fight. That's the fight of the anarcho-capitalists. My fight is to help people understand why we don't need to go beyond that step. We don't need to take an additional step. We don't need to force taxpayers to fund government organizations that they do not value. They are the ones making the involuntary sacrifice...so they should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. If we aren't happy with how they are spending their taxes in the public sector...then it's on us to share our partial knowledge with them in order to encourage them to change their priorities.

Just like I'm doing here. I'm sharing my partial knowledge (economics) with you in order to encourage you to change your priorities.

 

[Sam I am]

Well...not quite sure what you mean by "line item". I tried to explain how the invisible hand works by talking about BBQs and potlucks. In any case...here's an article by Russell Roberts that I linked to in my blog entry... A Marvel of Cooperation: How Order Emerges without a Conscious Planner. That article references two essays that I reference "ad nauseum"...Hayek's essay on partial knowledge and Bastiat's essay on opportunity costs.

From my perspective...if you genuinely and sincerely want to learn about economics...then it's worth it for you to carefully read those 3 articles several times. Economics basically boils down to one question..."Is it worth it?". Something that might be worth it for you might not be worth it for me...and vice versa. That's why you can't decide whether something is worth it for me and I can't decide whether something is worth it for you. All we can do is share our partial knowledge with each other in order to encourage each other to change our priorities.

Xero: You should spend more of your taxes on national defense
Sam I am: Naw, they've got enough money
Xero: Didn't you hear that Canada is planning to attack us?
Sam I am: That's ridiculous. Can you provide any concrete evidence to support your claim?
Xero: Sure, just go on the Canadian government's official website.
Sam I am: Huh, I guess I'll go ahead and do that

What does the milk industry do if they want us to drink more milk? They start an ad campaign..."Got Milk?". What should the defense industry do if they want us to spend more taxes on national defense? They should start an ad campaign..."Got Defense?".

We don't persuade people to pay taxes...we simply force them to. That's not my fight. That's the fight of the anarcho-capitalists. My fight is to help people understand why we don't need to go beyond that step. We don't need to take an additional step. We don't need to force taxpayers to fund government organizations that they do not value. They are the ones making the involuntary sacrifice...so they should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. If we aren't happy with how they are spending their taxes in the public sector...then it's on us to share our partial knowledge with them in order to encourage them to change their priorities.

Just like I'm doing here. I'm sharing my partial knowledge (economics) with you in order to encourage you to change your priorities.

just because groups of 2 or 3 or 5 or 50 people might communicate with each-other, or just because an individual department wastes your tax dollars on advertizement doesn't mean that individual allocation of taxes is going to be anything short of a clusterfuck.


And stop pretending like you have any economic credentials beyond getting a passing grade in your required public high-school economics course.

 

[Xerographica]

just because groups of 2 or 3 or 5 or 50 people might communicate with each-other, or just because an individual department wastes your tax dollars on advertizement doesn't mean that individual allocation of taxes is going to be anything short of a clusterfuck.

And stop pretending like you have any economic credentials beyond getting a passing grade in your required public high-school economics course.

This very first link in my post...Unglamorous but Important Things...is to a blog entry on the opportunity cost concept. That blog entry contains this passage...

Thomas Carlyle famously called economics "the dismal science". I saw this in action when on a panel, interviewing health economists. We decided to ask all candidates an amusing "unexpected" question at the end: "Which concept from economics should be better known by the general public?" Any economist reading this will already know how they all answered: "opportunity cost". - Jonathan Wolff

The fact that I'm trying to help you understand the opportunity cost concept is all the economic credentials that I need.

Economics is the study of scarcity. One use of a limited resources is not as good as any. One use of your limited time is not as good as any. One use of your limited money is not good as any. Some uses of limited resources are more valuable than other uses. But value is entirely subjective. From my perspective it was worth your time to read those three articles but clearly, from your own perspective, it was not.

Which public goods do you value? If we value different public goods are you going to argue that my values are wrong while your values are right? What is freedom if not our ability to spend our own time/money on the things that we respectively value? What is freedom if not my tolerance of the things that you value and your tolerance of the things that I value?

There wouldn't be a coordination problem simply because taxpayers would just be responding to the shortages of the things that they value. There's no coordination problem between donors to the NRA and donors to PETA...nor is there a coordination problem among donors of their respective non-profit organizations. The NRA and PETA either need more funding...or they do not. Whether or not they need more funding is entirely subjective and depends entirely on the values of people in our society. We either tolerate their values...or we do not.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm still wondering, Mr. X., which books of Mises, Rothbard, or Smith you have read in their totality. Buehler?

 

[Pragmatarian]

LOL, as if this essay could defeat the triumphant Xerographica.

You got me ROFLing helmuth, I tell ya.

Who could deny that giving tax choice to rational, self-interested individuals -- and stealing from them but letting them put $$ into options of their choice -- would result in the most economically beneficial system!!??!111???1!!!?????!!?!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Not sure if it was intentional or not...but you didn't respond to my post.

Not sure if it was intentional or not...but you didn't respond to my post.

I'm still wondering, Mr. X., which books of Mises, Rothbard, or Smith you have read in their totality. Buehler?

 

[Xerographica]

Not sure if it was intentional or not...but you didn't respond to my post.

I'm still wondering, Mr. X., which books of Mises, Rothbard, or Smith you have read in their totality. Buehler?

I haven't read any of their books in their totality. Heck, I don't think I've read a single economics book in its totality. So what about my question? You still haven't explained exactly why pragmatarianism wouldn't lead to anarcho-capitalism. Are there some passages I missed in the books of Mises, Rothbard and Smith that offer some exceptions to the rule of self-interested, purposefully acting and psychic profit-seeking individuals? If so it would be awesome if you could share them.