Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[Xerographica]

helmuth_hubener, I can't read all that. The opportunity costs are too high. But I always make the effort to read about specific people that you anarcho-capitalists promote. From Conza I learned about Hoppe...from Wesker I learned about Molyneux...from you I learned about LeFevre.

Why not just use all the anarcho-capitalist literature you've read to offer a critique of pragmatarianism? You can use it as an excuse to start a blog.

 

[newbitech]

newbitech, what about the opportunity cost concept? That says nothing about quantifiable values. For example, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Clearly you can't put a price on sacrificing your own child to save the world...but clearly there is the opportunity cost concept.

Just doing a little more reading to understand how the idea you bring might relate to self-sacrifice. Here is another blurb from the source collection you mentioned.

Opportunity costs are not always measured in monetary units or being able to produce one good over another. The opportunity cost can also be unknown, or spawn a series of infinite sub opportunity costs. For instance, an individual could choose not to ask a girl out on a date, in an attempt to make her more interested by playing hard to get, but the opportunity cost could be that they get completely ignored, which could lead to other opportunity costs.

I am not sure how useful the concept is in understanding WHY people do what they do when we are unable to KNOW the opportunity cost or when calculating the opportunity cost is like asking a computer to solve pI with no constraints.

So in trying to understand things like WHY would Ron Paul give up a life of say being a highly successful FULL TIME doctor, which certainly put more gold in his pocket, as opposed to the highly UNLIKELY "cause" he is attempting, well how do you figure out the opportunity cost? Did he one day sit down and think, hmmm what is going to be better for my bottom line?

I understand the desire to put every person's action in the context of economic law. I also believe that economic law doesn't really handle what I would consider non economic decisions. We do not always sit around considering the economic consequences of our actions. These economic laws may describe what is going on, but they do not really give a WHY. I appreciate the description and the context. Economic certainly gives me a baseline to compare. Humans are not robots or calculators though. I understand that the Austrian Economic Model is different than Keynesian or Chicago etc etc. But they are still economic models.

I am not saying economics aren't useful, but when trying to describe actions of other humans that are confounding and uncover apparent paradox in what we understand, I think it's useful to bring in other sources of knowledge and wisdom. Thinking outside the box so to speak.

I don't view these as competing ideas, but rather complimentary.

Here is another excerpt from the source I cited. I think it helps explain some of the paradox that economics uncovers. Particularly, the paradox that comes up when we cannot know the opportunity cost, or the calculation of opportunity cost must be "rounded up" because of the infinite spawns.

What I have set myself to make plain in this series of graded examples is simply this: self-sacrifice is not something exceptional, something occurring at crises of our lives, something for which we need perpetually to be preparing ourselves, so that when the great occasion comes we may be ready to lay ourselves upon its altar. Such romanticism distorts and obscures. Self-sacrifice is an everyday affair. By it we live. It is the very air of our moral lungs. Without it society could not go on for an hour. And that is precisely why we reverence it so–not for its rarity, but for its importance. Nothing else, I suppose, so instantly calls on the beholder for a bowing of the head. Even a slight exhibit of it sends through the sensitive observer a thrill of reverent abasement. Other acts we may admire; others we may envy; this we adore.

So basically, there is no opportunity cost in self sacrifice and their is infinite opportunity cost in self sacrifice. This principle stands on it's own and must be explained and understood on it's own. The idea of self sacrifice picks up where other ideas leave off or get stuck in loops. The reason I believe this happens is because as individuals we are unable to penetrate the individual "shell" or "sphere". It is the base unit, and in relationships self sacrifice is the bonding agent.

Another analogy I just thought of. Think about building some complex product. A house or a car. These items are made up of hundreds if not thousands of parts. Think of the nail or the screw. Without these parts, we could never put the house or the car together. Yet, each nail and each screw are "worth" what? We could say that those nails and screws are priceless, because without them, you'd not build the house or the car. Of course when looking at this from the perspective of opportunity cost, they are extremely cheap because these essential items are plentiful and abundant.

So you have the economic "value" of these nails, but you also understand that removing the "glue" that holds all the parts together make the entire idea of a house or a car fall completely apart.

This is what self sacrifice is for relationships. Yet, we don't look at a nail or a screw and say.. wow that is such an awesome thing. What a site to behold. But when we see someone like Ron Paul, or Jesus Christ, the furthest thing from our minds is the opportunity cost as we understand just how amazing their actions are for the "good" of the human species.

 

[Xerographica]

newbitech, well.........honestly...your examples would leave me to believe that you're not 100% clear on the opportunity cost concept. People's opportunity cost decisions reflect their priorities and values.

If I went to a doctors office...and the doctor happened to be Ron Paul...and he told me that he really values libertarian ideas and principles...my thought would be...well...perhaps not as much as you value being a doctor. That Ron Paul choose to fight for his libertarian beliefs...indicates that he values this cause more than he values being a doctor.

In the bible...when Jesus told the rich young ruler that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to get into heaven...then the rich young ruler was faced with an opportunity cost decision.

When somebody is considering whether to build a house or a car...the first thing that pops into people's minds is...hmmm...are there better things that I could be doing with my time? They are presented with an opportunity cost decision.

In this sense...when somebody sacrifices "A" for "B" it reveals to us their values. When somebody says, "put your money where your mouth is" or "actions speak louder than words" or "you can't have your cake and eat it too"....then they are referring to the opportunity cost concept.

When I was little, I loved to collect rocks when I went hiking. The problem was...I always found more rocks than my pockets could hold. This would force me prioritize which rocks I kept and which rocks I discarded. Opportunity costs decisions reveal preferences/values/priorities...and as such...they help us understand how scarce resources are efficiently allocated.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

So in trying to understand things like WHY would Ron Paul give up a life of say being a highly successful FULL TIME doctor, which certainly put more gold in his pocket, as opposed to the highly UNLIKELY "cause" he is attempting, well how do you figure out the opportunity cost? Did he one day sit down and think, hmmm what is going to be better for my bottom line?

We don't need to though, because Ron has written specifically about his reasons himself:

He specifically states that he got into politics because he felt that there should be a representative of Austrian ideas and to spread them.

He also specifically states that his driving motivator was his own desire to live free.

But when we see someone like Ron Paul, or Jesus Christ, the furthest thing from our minds is the opportunity cost as we understand just how amazing their actions are for the "good" of the human species.

A lot of your post seems to be trying to paint Ron into some sort of altruistic spiritual figure. It seems like you're saying "this is an area where economics doesn't apply".

But Ron would likely agree that it does.

Ron values liberty, it's really not much more complicated than that. He describes his motivations pretty clearly.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Did he one day sit down and think, hmmm what is going to be better for my bottom line?

We think of economics as applying only to money and businesses and trying to make dollar profits, things like that. But actually, it is much broader. Austrian Economics certainly is. Ludwig von Mises titled his magnum opus Human Action (in English). Economics can explain human actions which have nothing to do with monetary "bottom lines." For instance, my Ron Paul value scale example. That was an economic argument I was making. People value lots of things besides money. People value leisure time. People value thinking of themselves as a good person. Etc.

Clearly Ron Paul values his being a representative of Austrian Economics. It brings him happiness in some sense, or eliminates some felt uneasiness.

"Strictly speaking the end, goal, or aim of any action is always the relief from a felt uneasiness." -- Mises, Human Action

So yes, when he went into politics, Dr. Paul was judging what was going to be better for his total, all-encompassing "bottom line." His spiritual bottom line, if you will, or his happiness or fulfillment bottom line. We all do this, every time we make a choice. You can look at his choice as a sacrifice. But actually, it was giving up a lower value for a higher one. Just so, many will label the actions of the Christian martyrs, or philanthropists, or dedicated parents, or whoever, as self-sacrifices. Actually, they are merely putting their highest values into practice. Of course, "merely" is not the correct word. We admire them because they have chosen such admirable and high-quality values, and done such an outstanding job in realizing them.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

helmuth_hubener, I can't read all that. The opportunity costs are too high.

Ha, ha, ha! I just meant eventually. Confession: I haven't read all those links either. But browse through, click on what you think might be interesting.

If you read enough (if you are young enough), eventually the truth will become evident and you will realize that having one group have a monopoly on ultimate decision-making over an arbitrary geographical area is total craziness! You'll have an aha! moment, and step back and look at that idea and say "how could anyone think that's a good idea? Why would a monopoly over all ultimate decision-making be likely to lead to good results, when a monopoly over anything else, say, paper-making, inevitably leads to bad results?" You'll likely realize things like:

1. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making doesn't work. How could it? It's crazy.
2. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making destroys prosperity.
3. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making is immoral. It is opposed to natural rights / human nature.

You are a proponent of decentralization already, you already understand many Austrian and Libertarian concepts already, and so as long as you are under 30 you will eventually come around.

 

[newbitech]

newbitech, well.........honestly...your examples would leave me to believe that you're not 100% clear on the opportunity cost concept. People's opportunity cost decisions reflect their priorities and values.

If I went to a doctors office...and the doctor happened to be Ron Paul...and he told me that he really values libertarian ideas and principles...my thought would be...well...perhaps not as much as you value being a doctor. That Ron Paul choose to fight for his libertarian beliefs...indicates that he values this cause more than he values being a doctor.

In the bible...when Jesus told the rich young ruler that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to get into heaven...then the rich young ruler was faced with an opportunity cost decision.

When somebody is considering whether to build a house or a car...the first thing that pops into people's minds is...hmmm...are there better things that I could be doing with my time? They are presented with an opportunity cost decision.

In this sense...when somebody sacrifices "A" for "B" it reveals to us their values. When somebody says, "put your money where your mouth is" or "actions speak louder than words" or "you can't have your cake and eat it too"....then they are referring to the opportunity cost concept.

When I was little, I loved to collect rocks when I went hiking. The problem was...I always found more rocks than my pockets could hold. This would force me prioritize which rocks I kept and which rocks I discarded. Opportunity costs decisions reveal preferences/values/priorities...and as such...they help us understand how scarce resources are efficiently allocated.

People make decisions based on neither priorities nor value. This is the paradox you are faced with. I understand that sometimes I set aside my priorities for trivial things. Why? Sometimes I set aside what I value to do things that have little or no value. Why? You may think that because Ron Paul is a politician he values political activism more than he values being a doctor, you cannot know this unless you ask. What do you think Ron Paul would say if you asked him, which do you value more, being a politician or being a doctor? What do you think his answer would be?

What if he said, being a doctor? Would you then ask him, well, why are you a politician? What do you think his answer would be to that? What if he told you he values being a politician more than he values being a doctor? Wouldn't you want to know why? Why do you think Ron Paul values being a politician more than he values being a doctor? Do you think that when he decided to get in to politics that he knew how much of an influence he would eventually have? Do you think that he sacrifice his career as a full time doctor because he weighed the cost and decided that against all odds, he'd be more "successful" as a politician than he would be as a doctor? I don't.

I think he made the decision not based on any opportunity cost "formula". I don't think he considered being a politician a priority or anything he valued. Similar to the way many of his supporters never made politics a priority or something they valued. Personally, I got involved in spite of myself. I have no idea if I will be personally successful in my involvement, and in fact, I haven't even calculated the cost of being involved. All I know is that it is the right thing to do. Regardless if I am personally successful, regardless of what I will lose or how I may be perceived as being irresponsible, the act of being involved is the reward. I do not value or prioritize what I am doing. Rather, I know that as long as I am involved "something good" will come of it.

Will it be more valuable that what I could get doing something else? Who knows, who cares? Will it be a priority above all else? No, it will be integrated in to every one of my priorities.

Maybe I don't understand opportunity cost. I do not think it is necessary to perform that analysis, maybe it is maybe it isn't. Maybe you don't understand self sacrifice, but I KNOW you don't have to. I will be happy to go more in to detail about self sacrifice. I will also be happy to see how you compare this with opportunity cost. Consider another quote from the book I am reading.

But I still underestimate the prevalence of the principle. Our instances must be homelier yet. Each day come petty citations to self- sacrifice which are accepted as a matter of course. As I walk to my lecture-room somebody stops me and says, “What is the way to Berkeley Street?” Do I reprovingly answer, “You must have made a mistake. I have no interest in Berkeley Street. I think it is you who are going there, and why are you putting me to inconvenience merely that you may the more easily find your way?” Should I answer so, he would think and possibly say, “There are strange people in Cambridge, remoter from human kind than any known elsewhere.” Every one would feel astonishment at the man who declined to bear his little portion of a neighbor’s burden. Our commonest acceptance of society involves self- sacrifice, and in all our trivial intercourse we expect to put ourselves to unrewarded inconvenience for the sake of others.

Please read this quote and point out to me the opportunity cost analysis going on in this scenario. I see none.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

People make decisions based on neither priorities nor value. This is the paradox you are faced with. I understand that sometimes I set aside my priorities for trivial things. Why?

It means that at that time, you are valuing thing A more than thing B. Later on, upon reflection or whatever, you may decide you were wrong and that thing A was actually trivial, whereas thing B is in line with one of your majorly important priorities. That doesn't change anything.

The choices people make demonstrate their preferences. That is just apodictically true. That is just the nature of human action. That cannot be refuted. This does not mean that people are perfect and never error, nor that they all have calculators for brains and adding machines for hearts.

Sometimes I set aside what I value to do things that have little or no value. Why?

Because at the time, you do value the things of little or no value. You prefer to do them over the things which you allegedly value. Before and after your mistake, your values may have been different. People's frame of mind changes all the time. People make mistakes all the time.

You may think that because Ron Paul is a politician he values political activism more than he values being a doctor, you cannot know this unless you ask.

No, even then you only know what he tells you. He could lie. He himself may not be in touch with his inner feelings and motivations.

Economics isn't psychology. Who knows what he's valuing and feeling and pondering deep in his inner soul? Economics cannot tell us. But economics can tell us what his demonstrated preferences are, via his actual outward actions.

[The man will, or won't, give directions to a stranger] Please read this quote and point out to me the opportunity cost analysis going on in this scenario. I see none.

All human choices involve opportunity cost analysis. It's ingrained as part of our nature.

In this case, the man may weigh the advantages of giving the directions as being either more, or less, than those of not doing so. Now that's just weighing cost and benefit. This is actually a perfect thought-experiment for opportunity cost, though, because the actual cost is so low. Giving directions is very easy and effortless, and so though the pay-off is relatively low (good social standing, not being berated for rudeness) the price is low as well, so usually the man will choose to do it. But what if the same man is once in an extreme hurry, rushing to get his wife to the hospital for instance? If he is asked for directions then, will he stop what he is doing and give them? If not, why not? The cost is the same: just 30 seconds or so of easy explanation. The reward is the same: a smile, and 'thank you sir, you've been very helpful'. What is the only thing which has changed? The opportunity cost! The thing which he would be doing instead! He now has a very important engagement, so he will ignore the supplicant or shove him aside, and proceed with his more important business. His opportunity cost for giving directions has suddenly gotten very, very high, even though the real cost has stayed the same.

Are you on board with me here? None of the above means the man has an adding-machine heart, calculating out the opportunity cost and carrying the one and all that. "Opportunity cost" is just a fancy term for something very natural and intuitive that we humans do all the time, every day.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Please read this quote and point out to me the opportunity cost analysis going on in this scenario. I see none.

it's right here:

Every one would feel astonishment at the man who declined to bear his little portion of a neighbor’s burden.

 

[Xerographica]

newbitech, helmuth_hubener put it better than I could...especially with his example of the man rushing to get his wife to the hospital. From the anarcho-capitalist perspective...forcing people to pay taxes is like forcing that man to stop and give that other guy directions. That wouldn't be an efficient allocation of his limited resources.

Pragmatarianism, on the other hand, says that people should be forced to pay taxes...but they should be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their taxes. Forcing people to pay taxes recognizes the value of the collective...while allowing people to choose which government organizations receive their taxes recognizes the value of the individual.

Let's consider the following...

If you read enough (if you are young enough), eventually the truth will become evident and you will realize that having one group have a monopoly on ultimate decision-making over an arbitrary geographical area is total craziness! You'll have an aha! moment, and step back and look at that idea and say "how could anyone think that's a good idea? Why would a monopoly over all ultimate decision-making be likely to lead to good results, when a monopoly over anything else, say, paper-making, inevitably leads to bad results?" You'll likely realize things like:

1. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making doesn't work. How could it? It's crazy.
2. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making destroys prosperity.
3. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making is immoral. It is opposed to natural rights / human nature.

The challenge here is to try and figure out how allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes could lead to bad results. How could injecting individualism into the public sector be a bad thing?

Pragmatarianism is pragmatic consequentialism. My hero...Deng Xiaoping...was a pragmatic consequentialist. He went around saying that it shouldn't matter whether a cat was black or white...what matters is whether it catches mice. What I'm going around saying is that it shouldn't matter whether an organization is public or private...what matters is whether it produces good results.

Why would any taxpayers spend their money on an organization that produces bad results? Would you? Nobody would. Yet helmuth_hubener and others don't seem to trust the opportunity cost decisions of millions and millions of taxpayers. This is the part I really struggle to understand. The problem has never ever ever ever been with the taking...it's always been with the spending.

A committee should never impose priorities. They are welcome to respond to priorities...they are welcome to try and tell you what your priorities should be...they are welcome to try and influence your priorities by sharing partial knowledge with you. Congress though, unlike the board of a fortune 500 company, tries to impose its priorities on an entire nation. This is a recipe for substantial failures.

Unlike with socialism though...congress does't control all the resources. So rather than producing epic failures...our system produces recessions/depressions. Mises and many others were certain that a mixed system was unsustainable...and it would inevitably slide towards socialism. I kind of doubt this though because our system does self-correct to some extent...but the core problem is never addressed. Well...aside from those that advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have no problem with the existence of government...or congress...or taxes....as long as taxpayers are allowed to use their individual taxes to indicate what their priorities are. I can't argue against the priorities of 150 million taxpayers. The priorities of taxpayers should shape the government...the government should not shape the priorities of taxpayers.

In other words...taxpayers should be the sculptor...and the government should be the medium. It's a fatal conceit to believe that it should be the other way around.

Honestly though...for as long as I've been a member of this forum...this is the first time we've ever had an honest to goodness consequentialist discussion. Every other time it's been the deontological argument..."taxes are theft".

 

[helmuth_hubener]

My hero...Deng Xiaoping...was a pragmatic consequentialist. He went around saying that it shouldn't matter whether a cat was black or white...what matters is whether it catches mice.

Right, excellent example, and interesting that he is a hero of yours. Certainly his actions caused a great increase in the well-being of hundreds of millions of people, something which is more than most of us can say about our lives.

In context, he was saying that to justify his adoption of more-or-less free market ideas and tossing communism in the garbage heap. One European economic paradigm, that of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, got tossed out because it didn't work, and another, the European or Western-style free market, got brought in. He was saying: guess what, guys? The free market works. It catches mice.

Now where did capitalism or the Western-style free market come from? It arose from the state of relative political anarchy that existed in Western Europe in the middle ages. That works. It really works. It really works really really well. It's proven. It's done. Everyone half-way intellectually honest can see that. Europe won. Europe's per-capita income increased year after year, decade after decade, for centuries on end! That had never happened! Nowhere else had ever had an economic miracle like that. Everywhere that has had an economic miracle since has had to emulate the liberal policies that Europe pioneered (though they rarely if ever have emulated the extreme political decentralization that led to these policies in the first place).

More pragmatic than your tax-earmarking plan -- which I'm not against mind you -- is to advocate for smaller polities. Political breakup. Secession. Nullification. 10th Amendment. Any movement toward the radically decentralized tiny polities that existed in the Western European situation that was so stunningly, unprecedentedly, shockingly, thunderingly successful. Your tax-earmarking plan I put in kind of the same category as the "Read the Bills" plan -- a nice idea, sure let's have Congress pass that, I'm all for it. Is Congress going to pass it? No. So in the meantime, let's do other things which are proven to work. Political decentralization has a track record like nothing else ever -- its track record is that it completely transformed an entire world and made us all rich.

Yeah, that's a pretty good track record. That's pretty pragmatic, I say.

Lectures 1 and 2 especially in this series are relevant and really very enjoyable, high-quality, and enlightening:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=65

 

[Xerographica]

Here's my reply...The Magna Carta Movement.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Went through your post Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson.

The question then remains...does your perspective matter?

It's a pretty good article, and yes, my perspective matters. As does yours, though more to you than to me.

Err? You don't think that tax choice...aka pragmatarianism...aka the Magna Carta Movement would work.

I didn't say it wouldn't work. Speaking of "Err?"! I said I'm all for it. Didn't I? Allow me to quote myself:

I'm all for it.

Yep, I did.

So there we have it.

To reply to another little point:

I think it's almost certain that Deng Xiaoping wouldn't have been able to accomplish what he did manage to accomplish if he had suggested tossing communism in the garbage can. In a nation full of indoctrinated communists...that probably wouldn't have gone over too well.

Yeah, he said it diplomatically, in a classic textbook "Chinese" way. But "throw Communism in the garbage; it is starving our people" is obviously what he was saying. What matters is whether the cat catches mice, means what matters is whether the economic system works. People were accusing him of not being true to Communist principles. An American response would have been just to say "I'm being practical; look at the results," or "Are you better off now than four years ago?" ala Reagan. Instead he put it on a fortune cookie.

So let's start a Magna Carta Movement!

As I say, I would be very happy to see "tax choice" come about, and I think it would lead to real improvement in society. I'm not sure I can see any strategic path forward for it to come to fruition, however. Perhaps it could first be implemented locally, in some town or county.

But, then again, if we've gotten enough influence over said town/county to impose tax choice, I'd just as soon skip over that step straight to tax repeal and then begin the road to secession.

 

[Xerographica]

Went through your post Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson. It's a pretty good article, and yes, my perspective matters. As does yours, though more to you than to me. I didn't say it wouldn't work. Speaking of "Err?"! I said I'm all for it. Didn't I? Allow me to quote myself:
Yep, I did. So there we have it.

As I say, I would be very happy to see "tax choice" come about, and I think it would lead to real improvement in society. I'm not sure I can see any strategic path forward for it to come to fruition, however. Perhaps it could first be implemented locally, in some town or county. But, then again, if we've gotten enough influence over said town/county to impose tax choice, I'd just as soon skip over that step straight to tax repeal and then begin the road to secession.

You want to skip over tax choice (people's perspectives mattering) so you can implement secession (people's perspectives mattering). Except, to skip over tax choice...or to even hint at some specific "end goal"...would mean disregarding the perspectives of the large majority of people that believe that the state is necessary. Would that help or hinder our efforts to persuade people that their perspectives should matter?

I think we really need to focus on ceteris paribus...all things being equal. The value of ceteris paribus is that we're only changing one thing. When you only change one thing then people have no choice but to only consider that one thing that you changed. There are no distractions that would easily hamstring our efforts. All things being equal...what's the value of transferring the power of the purse from 538 congresspeople to 150 million taxpayers? In other words...what's the value of the combined perspectives of 538 congresspeople compared to the value of the combined perspectives of 150 million taxpayers? Where would we be without the perspectives of the 150 most productive citizens that our country has to offer?

In other words...we're trying to Keep it Simple Stupid (KISS). The less distractions the better. The more impartial we appear the better. What would the "end result" be of pragmatarianism? A larger public sector? A smaller public sector? No public sector? Who knows? Who cares? What we do know for a fact is that the combined perspectives of 150 million taxpayers are infinitely more valuable than the combined perspectives of 538 congresspeople. And when it comes to economics...perspectives matter.

We started off this discussion on the topic of sacrifice. People had to sacrifice for their money. Taxpayers know exactly what they had to give up in order to earn their money. Once taxpayers are given the freedom to directly allocate their taxes...then they'll have the opportunity to see what they can get from the government that would be worth all the sacrifices that they had to make in order to earn their money. What's the value of 150 million taxpayers asking themselves "is it worth it?" when paying their taxes? What exactly does the government do, if anything, that taxpayers would consider to be worthy of their countless sacrifices? Why wouldn't we want to find out? Why would we be scared to discover that the government does do some things that some taxpayers somewhat value?

To reply to another little point:
Yeah, he said it diplomatically, in a classic textbook "Chinese" way. But "throw Communism in the garbage; it is starving our people" is obviously what he was saying. What matters is whether the cat catches mice, means what matters is whether the economic system works. People were accusing him of not being true to Communist principles. An American response would have been just to say "I'm being practical; look at the results," or "Are you better off now than four years ago?" ala Reagan. Instead he put it on a fortune cookie.

Either an organization produces results or it doesn't. Our challenge is to phrase it in a way that helps taxpayers understand that they are the best judges of whether a government organization produces results. If a government organization does not produce results...or provide some subjective benefit...then there's no reason that utility maximizing, psychic profit-seeking, purposefully acting taxpayers would give their taxes to that government organization.

If you get a chance...look over these 66 responses to pragmatarianism...Unglamorous but Important Things. Every single one of those responses is a critique of pragmatarianism that is equally applicable to anarcho-capitalism...given that they all concern the invisible hand. With each of the responses I included a link to the context so you can read how I addressed each person's critique.

How would you have addressed those critiques? How would you have phrased it? Would you have followed Xiaoping's approach or Rothbard's approach? Is the state our obstacle? Or is the obstacle all the people who don't understand that their perspectives should matter in the public sector? How can we help them understand that their perspectives should matter in the public sector?

What's your hesitation in starting a blog? What would you have to sacrifice to start a blog? Would it be worth it? Can congress answer that question for you? No. Can I answer that question for you? Yes. I mean no. Well...certainly better than congress can given that congress doesn't even know that you exist.

Not sure if you read this thread...Which Congressperson Would You Trust With Your Taxes?...but in it I referenced Turgot who I learned about thanks to your suggestion that I listen to the second lecture by Raico.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

As I say, I would be very happy to see "tax choice" come about, and I think it would lead to real improvement in society. I'm not sure I can see any strategic path forward for it to come to fruition, however. Perhaps it could first be implemented locally, in some town or county.

But, then again, if we've gotten enough influence over said town/county to impose tax choice, I'd just as soon skip over that step straight to tax repeal and then begin the road to secession.

 

[Xerographica]

noneedtoaggress, I don't know what you think freedom is if not people's ability to make choices with how they spend their limited time/money. By advocating that taxpayers be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to...I'm out there advocating for greater freedom.

You choose to put freedom in moral terms and I choose to put freedom in economic terms. The only people that reject pragmatarianism on moral grounds are people like yourself. In other words...people who are not my target audience. Everybody else rejects pragmatarianism on the basis of their flawed understanding of economics. And it's not like I don't have substantial evidence to prove this...Unglamorous but Important Things.

Is it worth it for me to sacrifice other things that I value in order to try and help people understand basic economic concepts? Yeah, it is. Am I making any progress? It would be nice to think that I was...but clearly I'm not really cut out as a salesperson or an economics professor. As a computer programmer my strength is in analysis...not people skills.

Yet, obviously my motivation is not based on my ability to recruit people to my cause. Instead, my motivation is based entirely on respected economist's failure to refute pragmatarianism. Well...that and I thrive on challenges. From where I stand...promoting tax choice is a challenge that's worthy of my personal sacrifice.

So...if you want to take the wind from my sails...it's really simple. Just ask David Friedman or Peter Boettke to disprove pragmatarianism. Don't bother asking Walter Block. His critique was "taxes are theft".

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Except, to skip over tax choice...or to even hint at some specific "end goal"...would mean disregarding the perspectives of the large majority of people that believe that the state is necessary.

But right now, they're disregarding my perspective! Turn-about is fair play. Anyway, I think you're off base. I'm supposed to disregard their perspective. We're all supposed to disregard each other's perspective. Everybody pursues things according to his own perspective, not everyone else's; that's the whole point.

A larger public sector? A smaller public sector? No public sector? Who knows? Who cares?

The thing is, that's really all I care about (political-wise). So we aren't really coming at things from the same perspective nor with the same goals. And I assume now you are not under 30 since you didn't say you were, you're probably retired to have so much time to write on the internet, so you're over 50 and so it's hopeless to try to change your mind. Too late. Your neural pathways have calcified. Not worth my time.

Why would we be scared to discover that the government does do some things that some taxpayers somewhat value?

I would not be scared of this, nor would it be a discovery. Everyone already knows that many people have a crush on most of the junk the goons do. This torrid affair is not automatically valid just because it exists.

That last is where I differ with you, I guess, to the extent that anyone knows whether they differ with you (including yourself, perhaps) since you never say what your actual goals are nor what your political philosophy is, you just hit this one note and won't talk about anything else. But anyway, yes Mises and Hayek talked about how everyone's values are subjective and different and everyone's knowledge is decentralized and different. But they were not saying that because of that everyone's values and ideas are correct . No, the political and economic ideas of everyone are most often stupid and poorly-thought-out.

Anyway, Ron Paul's ideas definitely did not come from Xerographica and pragmatarianism. So you have hijacked this thread and I have gone along with said hijacking. I apologize, everyone, and please, Xerographica, if you want to discuss pragmatarianism just keep it in a pragmatarianism thread (preferably just one!) and don't inject it into threads that have nothing to do with it.

 

[Pragmatarian]

No, Xerographica has one follower, noneedtoaggress: Me.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

 

[Xerographica]

But right now, they're disregarding my perspective! Turn-about is fair play. Anyway, I think you're off base. I'm supposed to disregard their perspective. We're all supposed to disregard each other's perspective. Everybody pursues things according to his own perspective, not everyone else's; that's the whole point.

Anyway, Ron Paul's ideas definitely did not come from Xerographica and pragmatarianism. So you have hijacked this thread and I have gone along with said hijacking. I apologize, everyone, and please, Xerographica, if you want to discuss pragmatarianism just keep it in a pragmatarianism thread (preferably just one!) and don't inject it into threads that have nothing to do with it.

First you tell me that we're supposed to disregard other people's perspectives...and then you ask me to consider your perspective on where I can and can't discuss pragmatarianism. Well...here's my response.