Which Congressperson Would You Trust With Your Taxes?

[Xerographica]

Actually, you do. That is exactly what you do. That is called "buying a share."

Yeah, let's now debate the difference between investing in a firm and purchasing products from a firm. Let's pursue yet another completely unproductive line of debate.

Oh really? Why is that? Is the Omaha School Board the only organization in the schooling sector? Have you presented any reason or logic as to why being the only organization in a sector changes anything vs. being one of 2 or 10 organizations in a sector? Or is this just part of your religion again, a religion in which I am probably not interested?

LOL...yes...it's part of my religion. I'm trying to sell you morality...you caught me. Good one.

Berkshire Hathaway is one of many organizations you can choose to give your money to. When it comes to the public sector you give your money to the tax collection agency. You have no say whether your money in the public sector is spent on public education or public healthcare.

That is exactly what you do. That is called "buying a share." And you are right: because that is exactly how it works, there is indeed a huge gaping disparity between what Buffet and the Board decide to spend your money on and what you would decide to direct it towards were you allowed to earmark the money you sent in.

And if you're not happy with the return on your investment you can just invest in another organization. If you're not happy with the return on your investment in the public sector...you have to elect new committee members even though the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the committee members and everything to do with the fact that you can't directly allocate your taxes.

So, now that we've explained yet again that central planning occurs in a free market, let's move on to:

Why do we have to keep going over this when I never once objected to the fact that central planning occurs within firms in a free market?

You say it is not your position, but then everything you go on to type indicates clearly and reconfirms strongly that the above is, in fact, your position. You very obviously believe Berkshire Hathaway's governing board causes no economic inefficiencies nor problems, and that the Omaha School Board does cause such inefficiencies and problems. And you have told us exactly why you believe this is:

Yeah, it's because you can choose to give your money to...or invest your money in...Berkshire Hathaway but you can't choose to give your money to...or invest your money in...the Omaha School Board.

A committee determining resource allocation does cause economic problems, if it's determining which organizations receive which resources.
A committee determining resource allocation does not cause economic problems, if it's determining the use of resources within a single organization.

It give me a lot of confidence in pragmatarianism that this is the best you can do.

A committee (Berkshire Hathaway committee) determining resource allocation does cause economic problems, if it's determining which organizations (Microsoft, Prudential, Time-Warner, etc) receive which resources.

A committee (Berkshire Hathaway committee) determining resource allocation does not cause economic problems, if it's determining the use of resources within a single organization (all the organizations within the Berkshire Hathaway company) .

Is this still your position, and will it continue to be your position for the foreseeable future?

Sure, because I see the public sector as consisting of numerous distinct and separate organizations. You, on the other hand, see the public sector as one giant organization with numerous sub-organizations. So what? Does your interpretation of the public sector somehow damage my argument that taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to? If so...then make your argument already.

I am trying to follow a single line of logical reasoning regarding Pragmatarianism, and trying with great difficulty to get you to follow along. Either your mind is naturally very scattered and you find it almost impossible to focus, or you are deliberately being obtuse and your entire purpose is simply to waste the time of others. If the first is true, I can work with that. I just must continue using the tried-and-true methods of "slow things down" and "let me ask again".

I already followed your single line of logical reasoning long ago. From your perspective...the government is one big organization with numerous sub-organizations. So what? That's your interpretation...you're welcome to it. But however you interpret the structure and organization of the government...it does not impact my argument that taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes. If you think it does impact my argument then...please just demonstrate how it does.

If you truly think there's no problem with the public sector consisting of one giant organization...then why not do the same with the private sector? Let's place every single private sector organization under one giant private organization...Mega Corp. Rather than purchasing products ourselves...we'll give our money to Mega Corp's collection agency and allow the Mega Corp committee to determine which of its sub-organizations receive our money. Let's follow this single line of logical reasoning regarding your argument. Shall we?

Let's say that there are only two organizations in America...Bestmart and Crapmart. Oh wait...I already said that. No no no...let's debate whether there are central planning committees in the private sector. Oh wait...I never disputed that. No no no...let's debate the meaning of "central". Oh wait...I already read that...Micromegas.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Sure

OK. Thank you. Now we can proceed intelligently. You were incorrect when you claimed that that was not your position, and you now realize that "sure," it is your position. I will be holding you to that.

The Prag position:
A committee determining resource allocation among multiple organizations = "Visible hand" = inefficiency
A committee determining resource allocation within a single organization = "Invisible hand" = efficiency

So, the governing committee of Berkshire Hathaway is part of the forces you call the "invisible hand", while the Omaha School Board is part of the forces you call the forces of the "visible hand." This is because, and only because, Berkshire Hathaway is all one organization, while the Omaha School District consists of many different organizations. Now this "because", this reason, may or may not accord with actual reality, but let us just stipulate that it does. What is then the simplest solution which would bring the Omaha School Board under the control of the forces of the "invisible hand" instead of those of the "visible hand"? Could you propose a very simple solution, Xerographica, using only the information given in this post?

 

[Xerographica]

OK. Thank you. Now we can proceed intelligently. You were incorrect when you claimed that that was not your position, and you now realize that "sure," it is your position. I will be holding you to that.

The Prag position:
A committee determining resource allocation among multiple organizations = "Visible hand" = inefficiency
A committee determining resource allocation within a single organization = "Invisible hand" = efficiency

So, the governing committee of Berkshire Hathaway is part of the forces you call the "invisible hand", while the Omaha School Board is part of the forces you call the forces of the "visible hand." This is because, and only because, Berkshire Hathaway is all one organization, while the Omaha School District consists of many different organizations. Now this "because", this reason, may or may not accord with actual reality, but let us just stipulate that it does. What is then the simplest solution which would bring the Omaha School Board under the control of the forces of the "invisible hand" instead of those of the "visible hand"? Could you propose a very simple solution, Xerographica, using only the information given in this post?

How is it at all intelligent to proceed without considering the consumers? In case you missed it...pragmatarianism is all about the consumers. If you proceed without them...then you're no longer talking about pragmatarianism. So yeah SURE...we can go wherever you want...but if we leave the consumers behind...as you seem so insistent on doing...then whatever conclusion you come to will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on pragmatarianism.

Therefore, to answer your question in a very straightforward yet truthful manner, if I'm constrained to only use the information that you provided in your post, which does not accurately reflect my own position, then I cannot propose a very simple solution to your challenge.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Therefore, to answer your question in a very straightforward yet truthful manner, if I'm constrained to only use the information that you provided in your post, which does not accurately reflect my own position, then I cannot propose a very simple solution to your challenge.

Thank you, but no thank you for starting to backtrack on your position which you clearly staked out and owned as your own. Let me quote you:

Sure

So don't start that again.

Since you cannot figure out a simple solution, please allow me to do so and you may critique my humble attempt.

Given #1:
A committee determining resource allocation among multiple organizations = "Visible hand" = inefficiency
A committee determining resource allocation within a single organization = "Invisible hand" = efficiency

Given #2:
The Omaha School Board is a committee determining resource allocation among multiple organizations. That means it uses the "Visible Hand", which means it acts inefficiently.
Berkshire Hathaway is a committee determining resource allocation within a single organization. That means it uses the "Invisible Hand", which means it acts efficiently.

Problem:
With these givens, how is it possible to make the Omaha School Board begin acting efficiently, using the "Invisible Hand" rather than the "Visible Hand"?

My Humble Proposed Answer:
Do a merger. Merge the multiplicity of various organizations for which the Omaha School Board determines resource allocation into one single organization. Then it will be the case that:

The Omaha School Board is a committee determining resource allocation within a single organization. That means it uses the "Invisible Hand", which means it acts efficiently.

Can you find any errors in my logic above?

 

[Xerographica]

The Omaha School Board is a committee determining resource allocation within a single organization. That means it uses the "Invisible Hand", which means it acts efficiently.

Can you find any errors in my logic above?

Yeah, there's nothing about consumers and the opportunity cost concept. Instead you're talking about horizontal integration. Why are you talking about horizontal integration? No no no...don't mind me. Please continue on to your conclusion.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Can you find any errors in my logic above?

Yeah, there's nothing about consumers and the opportunity cost concept.

Are you familiar with the concept of logic, Mr. Xerographica? If not, could you familiarize yourself and then tell me:

Can you find any errors in my logic above?

(a) Yes. (explain) (b) No.

If you choose (a), then would you please explain the logical error I committed? Thank you.

As for why am I talking about what I am talking about? I am talking about exactly what you were and have been talking about. The possibility that you may only want to talk in a very superficial cursory way about these things, lightly skimming the surface and then skipping off to some other stock talking point, that possibility does not change my mind about wanting to have a more substantive discussion using real economic logic, not merely using "economic" slogans and cut-and-pastes as proof-texts.

 

[Xerographica]

Are you familiar with the concept of logic, Mr. Xerographica? If not, could you familiarize yourself and then tell me:

Can you find any errors in my logic above?

(a) Yes. (explain) (b) No.

If you choose (a), then would you please explain the logical error I committed? Thank you.

I told you what the error was and you ignored it. Now you're asking me again what the error is. In the past dozen or so exchanges I've told you that you're ignoring the consumers. You're ignoring their opportunity cost decisions. You're ignoring their partial knowledge. You're ignoring their sacrifices. You're ignoring their choices. You're ignoring their preferences. You're ignoring their priorities. You're ignoring their values. You're ignoring everything that goes into the invisible hand.

Yet...despite ignoring all that you come to the following conclusion...

The Omaha School Board is a committee determining resource allocation within a single organization. That means it uses the "Invisible Hand", which means it acts efficiently.

You can have the most efficient organization in the world...but it doesn't matter one bit if it isn't supplying something that people will sacrifice for. I want to know exactly what it is that government organizations are supplying that taxpayers will sacrifice for.

As for why am I talking about what I am talking about? I am talking about exactly what you were and have been talking about. The possibility that you may only want to talk in a very superficial cursory way about these things, lightly skimming the surface and then skipping off to some other stock talking point, that possibility does not change my mind about wanting to have a more substantive discussion using real economic logic, not merely using "economic" slogans and cut-and-pastes as proof-texts.

This is all wrong. How is wanting to talk about consumers "superficial" or "cursory"? How is wanting to talk about sacrifice "superficial" or "cursory"? Yeah...I keep "skipping off" to talk about how resources are efficiently allocated.

I really don't know what point it is that you're trying to make. If you don't actually have a point then no worries. But don't try and blame me for preventing you from making your point.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I told you what the error was and you ignored it. Now you're asking me again what the error is. In the past dozen or so exchanges I've told you that you're ignoring the consumers. You're ignoring their opportunity cost decisions. You're ignoring their partial knowledge. You're ignoring their sacrifices. You're ignoring their choices. You're ignoring their preferences. You're ignoring their priorities. You're ignoring their values. You're ignoring everything that goes into the invisible hand.

In what way is ignoring XYZ an error in the logic of A then B then C? XYZ can be a perfectly valid topic of conversation, a rich and fruitful field for many many pages of discussion, but perhaps so is ABC. As it happens, I was trying to get a more clear and rigorous view of ABC.

You yourself have said that the one distinction, the one difference between a private committee like Berkshire Hathaway's and a government committee like the Omaha School Board is that one allocates resources among multiple organizations, while one allocates resources within a single organization. If you are correct about this, it means that the efficiency problems of the government committee can be changed by eliminating the one difference it has with the company committee. Eliminate that difference and, well, you've eliminated the difference. Problem solved.

Unless, by chance, you wish to go back and reexamine your position? Perhaps there is something else which distinguishes a company committee from a government committee? Perhaps multiple things? What do you think -- you up for changing your mind?

 

[Xerographica]

Unless, by chance, you wish to go back and reexamine your position? Perhaps there is something else which distinguishes a company committee from a government committee? Perhaps multiple things? What do you think -- you up for changing your mind?

My argument is that taxpayers should be given the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. Am I up to changing my mind about my argument? Sure. Have you provided a reasonable argument against my argument? Nope.

Rather than going on more wild goose chases...let's just hear your argument regarding the consequences of implementing pragmatarianism.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

My argument is that taxpayers should be given the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. Am I up to changing my mind about my argument? Sure.

That's nice, but we already knew that, and that actually is not what my post was about. You could read it above. It's post #88, two posts up, right above your last one.

 

[Xerographica]

That's nice, but we already knew that, and that actually is not what my post was about. You could read it above. It's post #88, two posts up, right above your last one.

Your post wasn't about my argument...so...yeah...I'm glad we both agree on that. What do you think about this guy's argument?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You really are doing it on purpose. You refuse to discuss details and follow things logically. You keep continuously trying to jump up a meta-level ("we just need to have taxpayers have choice, that's all I'm saying, forget all the rest") or sometimes two meta-levels ("you should be helping me promote this RIGHT NOW! instead of wasting time talking about it").

Well yes, if all we're allowed to talk about is that one sentence, "My argument is that taxpayers should be given the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.", well then there's only so much to say about that particular sentence, I suppose. We can only dissect the individual words in that sentence so much.

But if it's permitted to actually discuss the ideas within and surrounding the Pragmatarian worldview, then perhaps there might be something to say. Something other than "you're banned." Ya know?

Given #1:
A committee determining resource allocation among multiple organizations = "Visible hand" = inefficiency
A committee determining resource allocation within a single organization = "Invisible hand" = efficiency

Given #2:
The Omaha School Board is a committee determining resource allocation among multiple organizations. That means it uses the "Visible Hand", which means it acts inefficiently.
Berkshire Hathaway is a committee determining resource allocation within a single organization. That means it uses the "Invisible Hand", which means it acts efficiently.

Problem:
With these givens, how is it possible to make the Omaha School Board begin acting efficiently, using the "Invisible Hand" rather than the "Visible Hand"?

My Humble Proposed Answer:
Do a merger. Merge the multiplicity of various organizations for which the Omaha School Board determines resource allocation into one single organization. Then it will be the case that:

The Omaha School Board is a committee determining resource allocation within a single organization. That means it uses the "Invisible Hand", which means it acts efficiently.

Can you find any errors in my logic above? That question is too hard for you. Or perhaps too easy for you to choose to evade. So I'll break it down:

Is Given #1 true?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Both Yes and No / Inexplicable.

Is Given #2 true?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Both Yes and No / Inexplicable.

Does my humble proposal interact correctly with Givens #1 and #2 such that, if they are true, it would remove the distinction between Berkshire Hathaway and the Omaha School Board?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Quick! Change the subject! Don't you see that your anacho-capitalist dream come true consumer choice so important to consider perspectives matter cost opportunity here's what Adam Smith said why you no helping me promote this RIGHT NOW, time is wasting!

 

[Xerographica]

Well yes, if all we're allowed to talk about is that one sentence, "My argument is that taxpayers should be given the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.", well then there's only so much to say about that particular sentence, I suppose. We can only dissect the individual words in that sentence so much.

How do you help people understand the economic value of freedom?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

How do you help people understand the economic value of freedom?

LOL, now you're just playing! The jig is up, so you decided you would fulfill my words to a T. Good one.

Let's give you one more chance, though, to continue a very logical, very methodical, purely consequentialist line of discussion with someone who has the intelligence, the knowledge, and the economic background to pull it off. That is what you claim to want isn't it? Here goes:

Is Given #1 true?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Both Yes and No / Inexplicable.

Is Given #2 true?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Both Yes and No / Inexplicable.

Does my humble proposal interact correctly with Givens #1 and #2 such that, if they are true, it would remove the distinction between Berkshire Hathaway and the Omaha School Board?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Quick! Change the subject! Don't you see that your anacho-capitalist dream come true consumer choice so important to consider perspectives matter cost opportunity here's what Adam Smith said why you no helping me promote this RIGHT NOW, time is wasting!

 

[noneedtoaggress]

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Don't forget this thread, Xerographica! Your opportunity at last to really get into it, in depth, about the intricacies of Pragmatarian Theory and Practice! Just what you always wanted!

Is Given #1 true?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Both Yes and No / Inexplicable.

Is Given #2 true?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Both Yes and No / Inexplicable.

Does my humble proposal interact correctly with Givens #1 and #2 such that, if they are true, it would remove the distinction between Berkshire Hathaway and the Omaha School Board?

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Default Xerographica answer: Quick! Change the subject! Don't you see that your anacho-capitalist dream come true consumer choice so important to consider perspectives matter cost opportunity here's what Adam Smith said why you no helping me promote this RIGHT NOW, time is wasting!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I find it amusing that you think I have been attacking and arguing against your vaunted Pragmatarianism. I have obviously not been doing either. If I were attacking it... you would know.

At least I like to flatter myself to think that is the case.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Your post wasn't about my argument...so...yeah...I'm glad we both agree on that.

My post was not on your argument in post #89. Of course, it would have been difficult for me to discuss in post 88 an argument made in post 89, unless I have figured out a way to violate the law of causality! My post was about an argument you made in a different, earlier post. An argument you now want to hop and skip and jump away from, as you are so wont. Endless hopping, never diving, never thinking, seems to be behavior unlikely to lead to progress.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Meta-Levels

While we're awaiting your fantastic diagram, I shall explain what I mean by "meta-levels". Let's say the subject of conversation is X. You can continue talking about X specifically, let's call that Level 0. Or, you can step back somehow to a bigger picture -- for example, you can generalize X, universalize X, broaden the topic, etc. We'll call this stepping back "going up a level" in meta-analysis (to meta-level 1). Or, you can focus in on some sub-set of X, "drilling down" a level to Level -1.

Let’s examine Tom’s argument with Alice. Alice did something. Let’s say she burned
his toast. Tom reacted to what Alice did by saying, “Alice, you are an idiot.” The stimulus
(burned toast), and response (“Alice, you are an idiot.”) are at different levels.

If Tom had said something directly about the toast, he would have been dealing at the
same level as the burned toast, e.g. “Alice, the toast is burned.” However, Tom shifted a
level. He shifted up from the level of the toast, and accused her of being an idiot.

Now, Alice can either talk about the toast, (“Yes, the toast is burned,”), or she can talk
about whether or not she is an idiot (“I’m not an idiot.”). The first response would be
moving down a level from Tom’s statement; the second would be at the same level. She
can also move up one more level. If she did that, she would be moving to a “meta level,”
one level higher than the level Tom started with.

Tom’s input was, “Alice, you are an idiot.” She could drop a level and talk about toast,
or stay at the level Tom chose and talk about whether or not she is stupid, or she could
move up a level and process this input as a “statement that is critical.”

If she chooses the higher level, the “meta level,” she might respond by saying
something like, “Let’s not exchange critical statements right now. Do you want some fresh
toast?”

In any situation where emotions are running strong, a shift to the meta level will
smooth out emotions and restore thinking.​

But the last statement is not always true. Sometimes one party's constant shifts in levels will cause frustration in the other party and make communication impossible. Another "up-a-level" meta shift would be for Alice to say "This is just another example of how you always call me names," making a generalization based on Tom's statement now the topic. Then Tom could go even higher and say, "Why do you always have to bring up the past?". Alice could then shift still further up with "Why do you always make generalizations?". Etc.

And that is what you are doing. Our conversation has gone something like this:

• We should agree that the Invisible Hand is awesome and the Visible Hand is junk. (Level 0)
• What is the difference between the Visible Hand and the Invisible Hand? (drills down to Level -1, (going further into details/specifics))
• The Visible Hand is a committee making decisions instead of the consumer. (stays on Level -1)
• But there are committees making decisions in the free marketplace, which is surely the realm of the Invisible Hand. (still nicely on Level -1)
• Allow me to refine my answer: the Visible Hand is a committee making decisions of resource allocation among multiple organizations. (Level -1)
• Very well, then changing such a committee into one making decisions only over one organization would make that committee into an agent of the Invisible Hand, and thus an agent of awesomeness. (Level -1)

And there we remain, awaiting further input from you. Instead we get attempts to completely end that discussion by saying things like:

• How is it at all intelligent to proceed without considering the consumers? In case you missed it...pragmatarianism is all about the consumers. (Perhaps Level 1? A different level, anyway, as presented, though you could with some minimal effort integrate this point into the discussion)
• My argument is that taxpayers should be given the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. Rather than going on more wild goose chases...let's just hear your argument regarding the consequences of implementing pragmatarianism. (Jumps way up to Level 3 or whatever the main "Prag is Awesome" level is.)
• Why don't you want to start a movement? Let's tackle our mutual obstacle together and see if we can overcome it. (Jumps up past "Prag is Awesome" level to the "Why are you wasting time talking about whether Prag is awesome instead of just promoting Prag?" level, Level 4. At this level, you move away from argument about Prag per se and try to say that I should forget about whether you're in error or not; I should support your cause because it will supposedly help to advance my own cause.)
• How do you help people understand the economic value of freedom? (Jumps up even beyond "Help Me Talk About Prag" to the meta-meta "What should you be talking about, then, if not Prag?", Level 5)

Indeed all along the way you have made constant attempts at sidetracking the discussion, and maintaining any kind of continuity in the discussion has been like pulling teeth.

I'm just trying to stay more or less on the toast. You may shift up to discuss endemic problems with the toaster, or you may shift down to discuss the particulars of this burning incident, or of the butter, but you must make the logical connections between what we're talking about and what you shift to. You can't just throw in Prag slogans randomly to try to shut down lines of reasoning. There's no need to shut down lines of reasoning; rather, let us pursue them. To do the other amounts to the dialogue:

"Why Pragmatarianism?"
"Shut Up, That's Why!"

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Why oh why not love
Pragmatarianism
None dare prove it wrong.