Which Congressperson Would You Trust With Your Taxes?

[TheTexan]

Are you saying that in a tax choice system...taxpayers would be happy with how government spent their taxes?

I'd demand my tax money be spent on hookers for everyone. "No, sir your tax money has to be spent on defense, roads, or healthcare"

No. Hookers, and only hookers. That's how my tax money would be spent.

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

Sure, if putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay taxes saved lives...then yeah, I don't see why not. There you go...I just answered your moral question with a moral answer. Now...if we're going to have a fair discussion then please answer my question. Can you make an economic argument for abolishing taxes?

So you would threaten my life to save the life of another?

 

[otherone]

So you would threaten my life to save the life of another?

It's called the Cycle of Life. Beautiful in it's way, actually....

 

[Xerographica]

I'd demand my tax money be spent on hookers for everyone. "No, sir your tax money has to be spent on defense, roads, or healthcare"

No. Hookers, and only hookers. That's how my tax money would be spent.

Have you ever haggled with a hooker? Of course you have. We all want the most bang for our buck. That's the universal economic principle. Now, imagine 150 million taxpayers trying to get the most bang for their buck from the government. How could that not be a good thing?

 

[Xerographica]

So you would threaten my life to save the life of another?

Your moral principle is to focus on the rights of bees while liberals' moral principle is to focus on the rights of the hive. Why are you avoiding my question? Can you make an economic argument for abolishing taxes? The longer you avoid answering the question the more obvious the answer becomes.

 

[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.

If we're supposed to disregard each other's perspectives...then why bother engaging anybody else in discussion? Discussion is simply two or more people exchanging their perspectives on a topic. In other words...discussion is merely free-trade. Why bother participating in free-trade?

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.

Actually I'm 34...and make enough money programming where I don't have to spend all my time programming. Just like when I lived in China and I only had to work three hours a week to cover all my living expenses.

Yeah, for sure only you can know whether it's worth your time to engage in free-trade with me. Nobody is forcing you to engage in discussion...you're really more than welcome to ignore me like most of the other anarcho-capitalists have chosen to do. Personally, I'm better off engaging others in free-trade...even if I fundamentally disagree with them. Neither countries...nor people...develop by limiting their trade.

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.

Yeah, I say the same thing about Brittney Spears.

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.

As I explained in this post...Deontological Ethics vs Pragmatic Ethics...and this post...Confessions of a Libertarian...I used to be a limited government libertarian. Then I stopped disregarding both the critiques of liberals (the free-rider problem) and the critiques of anarcho-capitalists.

Basically I thought...there are people more brilliant than myself on both sides of the debate. If the proof is anywhere...it would be in the tax allocation decisions of millions of self-interested, utility maximizing taxpayers. Let them decide if the government does anything that is worthy of their countless sacrifices. In my opinion, having served in Afghanistan, and having attended UCLA with the GI Bill, and having doctor friends that work with the CDC and having a girlfriend that gets government funding to give therapy to abused children...there's a lot of strong evidence that the government does countless things of value that people have a tendency to take for granted. If the private sector can truly do any of these countless valuable things better than the public sector can...then so be it. There's absolutely no reason...or need...for me to jump to conclusions regarding the proper scope of government. If the evidence is truly self-evident...then why wouldn't I trust the invisible hand to determine the proper scope of government?

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.

LOL...you started off by saying that we should disregard each other's perspectives...and then you end up by asking me to consider your perspective on the topic of where I can and can't share my perspective. Chances are pretty good that, given that forums are dedicated to the free-exchange of perspectives, I'll share my perspective wherever I see fit. If people don't wish to exchange perspectives with me...then that is certainly their prerogative.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Thank you for moving the discussion to a proper thread.

Actually I'm 34...Yeah, for sure only you can know whether it's worth your time to engage in free-trade with me.

Well, you're teetering on the edge.

If we're supposed to disregard each other's perspectives...then why bother engaging anybody else in discussion?

Yeah, well, usually it probably is a waste of time and we shouldn't bother with it. But, we enjoy it. What can I say? Humans are sociable.

But anyway, obviously you have entirely missed my point. Second try:

I want green beans.

You want cigarettes.

Should I twist myself into pretzels making sure that the cigarette store doesn't go out of business? Maybe donate some money to them, or throw some business their way even though I hate cigarettes and don't want any, ever? Why? This makes no sense. I just buy the green beans. But, but, there's no place in town for you to buy cigarettes! Happy day, I really don't care.

Get it?

I want freedom.

You want a group of sociopaths to feed on the productive.

Does it really make a lot of sense for me to go to a lot of effort to make sure that the people who like the sociopaths aren't denied the psychotic system they favor? You want me to cry because these state-loving freaks want to give their money to an institution to cage, slaughter, and rob their fellows? Help, help, they're being deprived! Their choices are being restricted.

There doesn't need to be a cigarette store in every town in Utah. The people there don't smoke. No one's being oppressed. The isolated smokers there can just drive to the next town. They're a niche market. When you're a niche market, that's what you have to do. There's probably no nice sushi restaurants either, nor local emporia to buy hovercraft engines.

There doesn't have to be a blood-thirsty mob of leeches in very town. Those who really want to give their money to one can just drive to the next town over, or even just send checks in the mail. You think these proponents of robbery and slavery are being deprived somehow if I somehow don't care to let them rob and oppress me? Is that really what you think?

Sorry, the slave-owner may have a special and wonderful and personal perspective, uniquely beautiful and just as valid as mine and anyone else's, but as the slave my perspective is: kill the slave owner. It's a unique and beautiful perspective, too. It doesn't exactly take his perspective into account and allow him to express his full self-realization, but then he wasn't taking mine into account either, now was he?

 

[Xerographica]

Thank you for moving the discussion to a proper thread.

I don't know what difference it made...the other thread was already dead. It only had a second life because you revived it. It's like somebody placed a couch on the curb and you took it home and reupholstered it. Then when we were both sitting comfortably on the couch you said, "hey, what are we doing? This is somebody else's couch. Let's put it back on the street." You would have had a tough time as a hermit crab.

Well, you're teetering on the edge.

On the edge of what? Of being close minded? I've already said it's very well possible that our government is not necessary. Unless I've missed it...you're the one that has yet to acknowledge that there's a chance that our government just might be necessary.

Yeah, well, usually it probably is a waste of time and we shouldn't bother with it. But, we enjoy it. What can I say? Humans are sociable.

I have no idea why you think exchanging perspectives is a waste of time. Not all exchanges are equally profitable for sure...but I have no idea why you think all exchanges are wasteful.

But anyway, obviously you have entirely missed my point.

Blood thirsty mob of leeches? Who are the leeches? Are they taxpayers...and/or voters...and/or politicians? Or is a leech simply any statist?

 

[Pragmatarian]

I would trust NO congressman with the taxes,** only the people, who get to directly allocate their taxes into various government agencies. =)

**unless people chose to allocate their taxes to Congress, that is =)

 

[TheTexan]

Pragmatarian, your concepts of tax choice are interesting and persuasive. Thank you for bringing fresh new ideas to this forum.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't know what difference it made...the other thread was already dead. It only had a second life because you revived it. It's like somebody placed a couch on the curb and you took it home and reupholstered it. Then when we were both sitting comfortably on the couch you said, "hey, what are we doing? This is somebody else's couch. Let's put it back on the street." You would have had a tough time as a hermit crab.

Ha ha, very funny, I don't see it that way, though. The two recent posts closest to being back-from-the-dead bumps were Conza (after about 15 day gap, 1/31-2/14) and PaulConventionWV (after about a 20 day gap). I didn't bring it back. And I was actually talking about philosophy and where Ron Paul's ideas come from with newbitech. I was not talking about pragmatarianism.

On the edge of what? Of being close minded? I've already said it's very well possible that our government is not necessary. Unless I've missed it...you're the one that has yet to acknowledge that there's a chance that our government just might be necessary.

What exactly are you trying to say here? Look, I'm saying people's idea's don't change after a certain age. You may be tremendously open-minded in that you think it's very possible that our gov't isn't necessary, but you are locked in to that "open-mindedness". That's not going to change. You're not going to decide "OK, upon examination I no longer think it's possible that our gov't isn't neccesary." Whatever your position is, regardless of how "open-minded" it may be, it is not going to change. You hold position X, you will remain holding position X, until you die. That is just the statistical reality. You may be an outlier. Outlying would be good. Aspire to outlyitude, my friend, it is your only hope.

Blood thirsty mob of leeches? Who are the leeches? Are they taxpayers...and/or voters...and/or politicians? Or is a leech simply any statist?

Get serious. See definition leech.

So did you "get it" this time? Did you get what I was saying about the green beans/cigarettes and freedom/oppression parallel? You totally ignored the only interesting parts of my post and totally focused on the only boring and pointless parts.

 

[Xerographica]

I was not talking about pragmatarianism.

Are you kidding me? You guys were talking about sacrifice...aka the opportunity cost concept. What is pragmatarianism if not applying the opportunity cost concept to the public sector? Was it really a stretch for me to jump in the one time people in this forum were discussing consequentialism?

What exactly are you trying to say here? Look, I'm saying people's idea's don't change after a certain age. You may be tremendously open-minded in that you think it's very possible that our gov't isn't necessary, but you are locked in to that "open-mindedness". That's not going to change. You're not going to decide "OK, upon examination I no longer think it's possible that our gov't isn't neccesary." Whatever your position is, regardless of how "open-minded" it may be, it is not going to change. You hold position X, you will remain holding position X, until you die. That is just the statistical reality. You may be an outlier. Outlying would be good. Aspire to outlyitude, my friend, it is your only hope.

I don't get it. I don't have to be close-minded about the necessity of the state. I don't have to make up my mind. If we implemented a pragmatarian system...and the invisible hand shrunk the public sector down to nothing...then so be it. Why do I have to decide one way or another when I can simply let the invisible hand decide the fate of the state?

Get serious. See definition leech.

So did you "get it" this time? Did you get what I was saying about the green beans/cigarettes and freedom/oppression parallel? You totally ignored the only interesting parts of my post and totally focused on the only boring and pointless parts.

None of that section was at all interesting from my perspective. From my perspective...the only obstacle we're up against is simple economic ignorance. To overcome this obstacle we simply need to teach people why the invisible hand produces better results than the visible hand. No need to call anybody leaches or rapists or robbers or sociopaths or slave owners or psychos or freaks or oppressors...and so on and so forth. None of that interests me in the least bit...and honestly...it was disheartening to see you regress to that level of irrationality.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Are you kidding me? You guys were talking about sacrifice...aka the opportunity cost concept. What is pragmatarianism if not applying the opportunity cost concept to the public sector? Was it really a stretch for me to jump in the one time people in this forum were discussing consequentialism?

It was fine, it was perfect, everything worked out great. Good job.

I don't get it. I don't have to be close-minded about the necessity of the state. I don't have to make up my mind.

You are rigidly locked in to having your mind not made up on this. Not having your mind made up is your position, let us call it X. You hold position X. You will continue holding position X. You will never change your mind. You can call that open-mindedness or close-mindedness or whatever you want. The fact is you're not going to change your mind. Whatever that's called, there you go.

If we implemented a pragmatarian system...and the invisible hand shrunk the public sector down to nothing...then so be it. Why do I have to decide one way or another when I can simply let the invisible hand decide the fate of the state?

Yeah, you can let the invisible hand decide. The invisible hand is deciding, as more and more people become libertarians.

None of that section was at all interesting from my perspective. From my perspective...the only obstacle we're up against is simple economic ignorance. To overcome this obstacle we simply need to teach people why the invisible hand produces better results than the visible hand. No need to call anybody leaches or rapists or robbers or sociopaths or slave owners or psychos or freaks or oppressors...and so on and so forth. None of that interests me in the least bit...and honestly...it was disheartening to see you regress to that level of irrationality.

Oh brother. You seriously can't see the economic argument because of the "bad words". OK, I'll edit out the bad words for your delicate utilitarian sensitivities. Honestly.

I said: What's the path forward for possible victory of Prag'ism? Probably a local takeover. But, if we have the #s and organization I'd rather just repeal the taxes entirely than mess around with tax earmarking.

You said: But then you'd be disregarding other people's preferences.

I said: We're all supposed to disregard each other's perspective.

You said: If that's true then, then, why have a free market? [Basically, you were saying: I don't get it.]

I said: Again, that's how the market works. I work from my perspective to achieve my goals. I don't have to worry about the other guy's perspective. His perspective is probably wrong.

I explained this all with a parable:

I want green beans.

You want cigarettes.

Should I twist myself into pretzels making sure that the cigarette store doesn't go out of business? Maybe donate some money to them, or throw some business their way even though I hate cigarettes and don't want any, ever? Why? This makes no sense. I just buy the green beans. But, but, there's no place in town for you to buy cigarettes! Happy day, I really don't care.

Get it?

I want freedom.

You want a group of sociopaths to feed on the productive the state to continue to exist. Actually, let's just call it Political Goal Y, while mine is Goal X.

Does it really make a lot of sense for me to go to a lot of effort to make sure that the people who like the sociopaths favor Goal Y aren't denied the psychotic system they favor Y? You want me to cry because these state-loving freaks want to give their money to an institution to cage, slaughter, and rob their fellows people want Y, but instead are getting X? Help, help, they're being deprived! Their choices are being restricted.

There doesn't need to be a cigarette store in every town in Utah. The people there don't smoke. No one's being oppressed. The isolated smokers there can just drive to the next town. They're a niche market. When you're a niche market, that's what you have to do. There's probably no nice sushi restaurants either, nor local emporia to buy hovercraft engines.

There doesn't have to be a blood-thirsty mob of leechesvendor/provider of Political Goal Y in very town. Those who really want to give their money to one can just drive to the next town over, or even just send checks in the mail. You think these proponents of robbery and slavery Y are being deprived somehow if I somehow don't care to let them rob and oppress me have Y? Is that really what you think?

If I live in a town where the cigarette smokers have no place to buy cigarettes, it's not my free market duty to help them to get a cigarette store. Let's say one of my interests was to live in a town with low smoking rates. It would be absolutely irrational for me to oppose my own interests and encourage smoking by making donations to the "let's build a smoke shop" fund. To do so would would have nothing to do with helping the free market and everything to do with total bizarre stupidity. Would you agree?

If I live in a town with no Political Goal Y store, it's not my duty to make sure that people who want one get one. Let's say one of my interests was to live in a town with no Y. It would be absolutely irrational for me to oppose my own interests and encourage Y by making donations to the "let's keep a Y store around and just make it a little bit better by allowing tax choice" fund when I could instead have non-Y and get X instead. To do so would would have nothing to do with helping the free market and everything to do with total bizarre stupidity. Would you agree?

Sorry, the slave-owner agent of Y may have a special and wonderful and personal perspective, uniquely beautiful and just as valid as mine and anyone else's, but as the slave preferrer of non-Y my perspective is: kill the slave owner the realization of his preferences is not compatible with the realization of my own. Mine is a unique and beautiful perspective, too. It doesn't exactly take his perspective into account and allow him to express his full self-realization, but then he wasn't taking mine into account either, now was he? People seek their own interests, not the interest of others. The free market just allows them to do so without aggressive interference.

Now do you get it?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

what would the consequences be of applying free-market principles to the public sector?

The public sector is not part of the free market. That's tautological. That's what it means to be a public sector.

 

[Xerographica]

You are rigidly locked in to having your mind not made up on this. Not having your mind made up is your position, let us call it X. You hold position X. You will continue holding position X. You will never change your mind. You can call that open-mindedness or close-mindedness or whatever you want. The fact is you're not going to change your mind. Whatever that's called, there you go.

Being open minded means that my mind isn't going to change? Being open minded means that my mind changes according to the evidence. So the fact is that your conclusion is completely wrong.

Yeah, you can let the invisible hand decide. The invisible hand is deciding, as more and more people become libertarians.

Oh brother. You seriously can't see the economic argument because of the "bad words". OK, I'll edit out the bad words for your delicate utilitarian sensitivities. Honestly.

It had nothing to do with your "bad words" and everything to do with your complete disregard for reality. Clearly you want to get rid of the state. But the vast majority of people want to keep the state. You remind me of the underpants gnomes...

1. Collect Underpants
2. ?
3. Profit

1. Disregard other people's perspectives
2. ?
3. Anarcho-capitalism

If you want anarcho-capitalism then you have to change people's minds. In order to change people's minds you have to figure out why they believe that the state is necessary. Why do they believe that the state is necessary? Because they don't understand how the invisible hand works. How do I know that they don't understand how the invisible hand works? Because I asked them. Because I asked a LOT of them. Because I didn't disregard their perspectives.

In case you missed it the first dozen times...here's my evidence that people do not understand how the invisible hand works...Unglamorous but Important Things. Do you dispute that evidence? Does that evidence matter to you? Does it matter to you that people do not understand how the invisible hand works? Do you understand how that might be more than a "minor" detail in your plan to get rid of the state?

The fact that we allow a committee of 538 congresspeople to determine how public funds are distributed speaks for itself. This "tiny" clue offers clear evidence that the vast majority of people do not understand the economic value of allowing the invisible hand to determine the distribution of resources.

All those people aren't going to give up one thing that they value...congress....in exchange for the invisible hand...unless we can help them understand why the invisible hand is more valuable than the visible hand.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You still have not answered: Do You Get It? Did I make myself clear and are we now all on the same page now regarding how it would *not* be a violation of any sort of free-market principles to go in and turn a town voluntarist? Just as it would not be a violation of any free-market principle to go in and turn the town Pragist?

 

[TheTexan]

I'd trust Congressman Ron Paul with my taxes, if he decided where the money went. (He'd give it back.)

 

[Xerographica]

You still have not answered: Do You Get It? Did I make myself clear and are we now all on the same page now regarding how it would *not* be a violation of any sort of free-market principles to go in and turn a town voluntarist? Just as it would not be a violation of any free-market principle to go in and turn the town Pragist?

Why would I say it's a violation of free-market principles to turn a town voluntarist or pragist? Whether your goal is anarcho-capitalism...or pragmatarianism...you still have to persuade people that the invisible hand is more valuable than the visible hand. That's OUR obstacle. We have different goals but the same obstacle.

In my opinion...telling people that you want to get rid of the state is NOT a good technique to help them understand why the invisible hand is more valuable than the visible hand. Why isn't it a good technique? Because for most people...believing in anarchism...in any form...is right up there with believing in the great pumpkin. How does telling somebody you believe in the great pumpkin help them understand the value of the invisible hand? It doesn't. It just ruins your credibility.

That's why pragmatarianism is a better technique to try and help people understand the value of the invisible hand. Are there better techniques? I'm sure there are. I've been struggling to think of simple analogies to help people understand why the invisible hand produces better results than the visible hand. But I haven't been able to think of any simple, catchy and effective analogies. How can you show people the UNSEEN?

Two heads are better than one. That's the basic premise behind the invisible hand and the reason we should combine and focus our efforts on getting this message out there.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Why would I say it's a violation of free-market principles to turn a town voluntarist or pragist?

Ah, OK. Well, that did seem like what you were saying, in response to my saying it's OK to disregard the townspeople's perspective(s). We may have had a misunderstanding, probably caused by me not explaining myself fully. So let's back up.

The strategy I suggested as a winning one for your philosophy in one of local concentration. Let's say there are 100 Pragmatarians in the world. They want to implement Pragmatarianism. What they can do, to shortcut the process, is to all move to a town of 100 or less and vote themselves into power, then implement Pragism. Success.

Voluntarists could do the same thing.

Whether your goal is anarcho-capitalism...or pragmatarianism...you still have to persuade people that the invisible hand is more valuable than the visible hand. That's OUR obstacle. We have different goals but the same obstacle.

Long-term, you may be right. I would certainly not disparage the value of corrupting young minds into being freedom-lovers. There are different means to persuade, however. One way would be to have a working real-life place wherein the ideas were implemented and were working successfully. I think that would be pretty persuasive to many people.

Plus, my team has the advantage on you in that we already have enough people to do this plan, whereas you do not.

 

[Xerographica]

helmuth_hubener, sure, I'm all for moving to Honduras and taking part in the libertarian project being led by David Friedman's son. I already lived in Honduras for a month and loved it. But I think a Magna Carta movement would be a great publicity stunt and wouldn't require anybody literally moving anywhere. There was the Tea Party movement...and then the Occupy movement...so why not a Magna Carta movement?

Yeah your team certainly has more members...but the fact that you're team "anarchism" is a huge drawback. There's too much connotation going on. The Magna Carta movement would be completely neutral on the scope of government and would instead focus on empowering taxpayers. That has a lot broader appeal. It's inclusive...rather than exclusive. Participants in the movement can be anarcho-capitalists...minarchists...libertarians...and even liberals. We can agree to disagree on the scope of government but we should all be able to agree that the invisible hand is more valuable than the visible hand. That really needs to be our focus.

Let's agree to disagree on a lot of things...but we should all agree that the invisible hand is more valuable than the visible hand. That should be our message. Ceteris paribus...the invisible hand provides more value than the visible hand.