The Principle Concepts of Libertarian Economics - Feedback Requested

[Jamesiv1]

Here's your 'libertarian economics' quote (and more to follow):

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. -- Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness

nice.

+rep

[Xerographica]

The Dept. of Education might go without future funds, but it is NOT an entity in itself, and it still has past funding that was already consumed. You aren't cutting off yesterday's funding; you're simultaneously cutting off tomorrow's funding while refusing to pay make good on yesterday's deficit spending.

Who's cutting off anything? I'm allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves what they are...or are not...willing to pay for. If you can know what 150 million taxpayers would be willing to pay for then let me give you all my money to invest. Obviously we'd have to pay off the debt we've already incurred...but that should go without saying. But the important part is to make sure that any debt incurred is the sole responsibility of the government organization that incurred the debt...rather than the responsibility of taxpayers as a group.

There is no such thing as "bankrupting" the Dept. of Education alone. The entity that funds the Dept. of Education is the Treasury, and if it was funded on "the good faith and credit of the United States", the only entity that ultimately goes bankrupt is the United States.

Obviously I know that there is currently no such thing as "bankrupting" the Dept. of Education alone...but obviously there should be. And there would be in a pragmatarian system. The foolish spending decisions of government organizations should not be able to bankrupt the United States...they should only bankrupt those individual government organizations...and that's exactly what would happen in a pragmatarian system.

So, let them continue with deficit spending through continued currency debasement, and you will be sure to "make some noise" when the debt they incur makes you "uncomfortable"? That's your solution? The "cure for deficit spending"?

If you mortgage your home on a failed business idea...then why should I be on the hook to pay off your debt? Why should it be any different with a for-profit organization or a non-profit organization or a public organization? Banks are always going to be around...and people are always going to make investment mistakes. That's a fact of life. All we're doing is decentralizing the debt burden to each and every government organization that wants more money.

If the Dept of Education wants more money are they going to hold a bake sale or mortgage their schools for bank loans? Who knows? Who cares? The only thing that's important is that the Dept of Education be solely responsible for any debt it takes on...and that would be a given in a pragmatarian system.

You left the counterfeiting presses intact, the monopoly on currency issuance intact, the out-of-thin-air credit card is still in the hands of the state, but somehow direct allocation choice by taxpayers is going to "cure" all that, because we'll "make some noise" and "heads will roll".

If allowing taxpayers to determine the fate of the counterfeiting presses would leave the counterfeiting presses intact...then maybe the taxpayers know something that you don't. And that's how and why markets work.

Public "goods" is not a market, because the state is not a firm -- nor should it behave as (or on behalf of) ANY firm(s). Like I said before, if I'm paying a billion in taxes, you can bet your sweet ass that I am going to lobby so that I can allocate funds ONLY to The Department of Best Serves My Special Financial Interests--which makes the state a Corporate Fascist state to that extent. Now I, as a Chinese Citizen/Corporate Taxpayer in the United States, have a department--and real people working for that department--that depends on me for funding, and which has political power as an agency or department of the government. That department had better continue to serve my interests, or I will lobby for the creation of another department that will best serve my needs, my wants, my interests.

Obviously the state is not a firm...it is a sector with numerous firms. These firms either serve your interests or they do not. Should taxpayers have to pay taxes to firms that do not serve their interests? Either we benefit from individuals pursuing their interests or not. You're either on board with the market concept or not.

And what about the presumption that taxes even need to be paid or allocated anywhere, and what is it now that justifies the aggregate amount required prior to allocation? Funding is NEVER guaranteed to anyone, even in general, in a truly free market. People really can choose NOT TO SPEND on anything at all. If you are talking about truly free market principles, where is the option to PAY NOTHING AT ALL. If the state is truly a "free market" participant, like a mall, where I can freely choose to shop wherever I wish, then it also cannot require that I do any shopping at all.

In a free market, I can withhold funding from everyone until someone finally gets a clue and begins creating something that I would actually have a demand for (given quantity at a given price). What if I am withholding funding entirely until some creative entity within the state finally gets a $#@!ing clue and starts to provide something that I actually value? You've essentially guaranteed funding to the state, with the only question of who are the winners in the state, based on where that juicy guaranteed pool of funding is being allocated, and by whom. That is not anything like a free market.

Taxpayers wouldn't have a choice whether they participated in the public goods market...but they would have a choice which public goods they spent their taxes on. Just like consumers don't have a choice whether they participate in the food market...but they have a choice which foods they spend their money on. You can say..."people can choose not to eat"...and I can say..."well...yeah...taxpayers can choose not to make money". Would we, as a society, benefit from creating a market for public goods? How could we not? Look at the prices and wide variety of foods that we have available. Look at the prices and variety of foods that were available in socialist countries. The only difference was a market. And I really shouldn't have to explain this to a libertarian. I should be out there explaining this to liberals...except...as I pointed out in this thread...Sound Money vs Tax Choice...even some liberals get it.

[Xerographica]

'From decentralization we get initiative, repsonsibility, development of personnel, decisions close to the facts, initiative--in short, all the qualities necessary for an organization to adapt to new conditions.'--Alfred P. Sloan

That's my contribution on decentralization, a principal libertarian principle. And it comes from Alfred P. Sloan, who more than founder William Durant or anyone else (imo) put together a General Motors capable of becoming the biggest U.S. automaker. That is significant, because GM became number one by giving its divisions more autonomy. While, for example, Chrysler and DeSoto were nearly indistinguishable and likely to appeal to the exact same consumer, Buick and Oldsmobile were (during the Sloan years) different enough to appeal to very different consumers. The significance of that cannot be underestimated in GM's success.

Eh, well, this is good but kinda more within a firm...and I don't think people generally have an issue with how an organization is structured. For example...I don't have an issue with cooperatives...and neither do liberals. The issue that I'm trying to address is that we allow half of our nation's revenue to be spent in the public sector. We allow socialism to spend half of our nation's revenue. Why is that a problem? Why is it desirable for the market to determine how this revenue is spent? I'm looking for passages that help explain why the market is more effective at distributing resources than government planners are.

As for the problem of threadjacks, may I suggest that you ask the mods to remove any post that neither directly addresses the quotes in the OP nor suggests any new ones? That could encourage people to take their extraneous arguments elsewhere.

Oh no...the thought of mod interference gives me the heebie jeebies. It's a pretty big pet peeve of mine. I prefer it when a thread with multiple topics spin off new threads...so you're welcome to take any of this and run with it in a new thread.

[acptulsa]

Eh, well, this is good but kinda more within a firm...and I don't think people generally have an issue with how an organization is structured.

Well, that is what he was talking about, to be sure. But the U.S. of A. is just one big organization, though one could debate how organized it is. In any case, decentralization increases anything's ability to adapt to changing conditions.

I'm looking for passages that help explain why the market is more effective at distributing resources than government planners are.

Admittedly he doesn't get into why. But when one of America's most respected and demonstrably successful industrialists says that central planning retards the ability to adapt to changes, I'd say that deserves a little space. Especially since it isn't a terribly long quote, so it doesn't take up a lot of space.

So, you don't think I have the best use of your resources at heart..?

[Xerographica]

Here's your 'libertarian economics' quote (and more to follow):

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. -- Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness

The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws. - Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

C'mon Ayn Rand...seriously? We can ignore economics when it comes to funding for the police, courts and the military but we have to pay attention to economics when it comes to everything else? Anytime you want to separate spending from economics you're dealing with socialism. Separating the state from economics is socialism. That's the opposite of what we need to do. We need to apply economics to the state. We need to allow taxpayers to use their own taxes to indicate whether they want more funding for the police, the courts, the military or any other good in the public sector. We need the market, not Ayn Rand, to determine what the proper scope of government should be. Because if we say that we don't need economics to determine the proper scope of government...then we're saying that socialism is a viable concept. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[acptulsa]

Anytime you want to separate spending from economics you're dealing with socialism.

Well, that's not really the definition.

You're talking about introducing market principles to government. Rand was talking about divorcing government from the market. That's kind of apples and oranges. She wasn't talking about how to improve government, just about what the government has no business interfering in. And that is a principal libertarian principle, and related to economics.

How narrowly are you defining 'libertarian economics'? Because I took it to extend beyond governmental economics.

[awake]

"We need to allow taxpayers to use their own taxes to indicate whether they want more funding for the police, the courts, the military or any other good in the public sector. We need the market, not Ayn Rand, to determine what the proper scope of government should be"

If you let taxpayers spend their taxes freely they simply buy goods from an open market. The public sector, not having any power to threaten and confiscate, would try to compete on the market for this money. The "public sector" would cease to exist.

The terms "taxpayer" and "public sector" vanish as meaningless descriptors if you allow people to keep all of their money to spend as they wish.

[Xerographica]

Well, that is what he was talking about, to be sure. But the U.S. of A. is just one big organization, though one could debate how organized it is. In any case, decentralization increases anything's ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Admittedly he doesn't get into why. But when one of America's most respected and demonstrably successful industrialists says that central planning retards the ability to adapt to changes, I'd say that deserves a little space. Especially since it isn't a terribly long quote, so it doesn't take up a lot of space.

So, you don't think I have the best use of your resources at heart..?

Is it a better better passage than this one that I have under fallibilism?...

It follows, then, that a less centralized society has the advantage of a greater diversification of its performance across a larger number of preceptors. This is because diversification here dilutes the impact of the ability, or the lack thereof, of each preceptor on the aggregate societal performance. - Raaj K. Sah

Is it a better passage than this one that I have under heterogeneous activity?...

So far as this is the case, it is evident that government, by excluding or even by superseding individual agency, either substitutes a less qualified instrumentality for one better qualified, or at any rate substitutes its own mode of accomplishing the work, for all the variety of modes which would be tried by a number of equally qualified persons aiming at the same end; a competition by many degrees more propitious to the progress of improvement than any uniformity of system. - J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy

I do like Sloan's quote...and agree with the concept...but I just wish it wasn't written with a firm in mind. It's nice and short though (more efficient)...but is it more effective than this passage?...

The public collectively is abundantly ready to impose, not only its generally narrow views of its interests, but its abstract opinions, and even its tastes, as laws binding upon individuals. And the present civilization tends so strongly to make the power of persons acting in masses the only substantial power in society, that there never was more necessity for surrounding individual independence of thought, speech, and conduct, with the most powerful defences, in order to maintain that originality of mind and individuality of character, which are the only source of any real progress, and of most of the qualities which make the human race much superior to any herd of animals. - J.S. Mill

...which can be compared to this...

How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? - Keynes

...and then back on to this...

As well might it be said, that of two trees, sprung from the same stock one cannot be taller than another but from greater vigor in the original seedling. Is nothing to be attributed to soil, nothing to climate, nothing to difference of exposure - has no storm swept over the one and not the other, no lightning scathed it, no beast browsed on it, no insects preyed on it, no passing stranger stripped off its leaves or its bark? If the trees grew near together, may not the one which, by whatever accident, grew up first, have retarded the other's development by its shade? Human beings are subject to an infinitely greater variety of accidents and external influences than trees, and have infinitely more operation in impairing the growth of one another; since those who begin by being strongest, have almost always hitherto used their strength to keep the others weak. - J.S. Mill

[Steven Douglas]

But the important part is to make sure that any debt incurred is the sole responsibility of the government organization that incurred the debt...rather than the responsibility of taxpayers as a group.

That sentence of yours has a couple of major flaws, one that is fatal. Reread it and see if you can guess what it is. HINT: How do you think government organizations "incur" debt?

Secondly, you didn't say how you would reconcile current payments with long term debts. You seem to be implying that it's all short term debt, with "heads that will roll" (because of taking on too much debt) would even around when the Piper comes calling.

Obviously I know that there is currently no such thing as "bankrupting" the Dept. of Education alone...but obviously there should be. And there would be in a pragmatarian system. The foolish spending decisions of government organizations should not be able to bankrupt the United States...they should only bankrupt those individual government organizations...and that's exactly what would happen in a pragmatarian system.

YOU DIDN'T SAY HOW. You only firmly asserted, and with great conviction, that it wouldn't. Or shouldn't. You never did address any of the actual mechanics involved, even qualitatively.

If allowing taxpayers to determine the fate of the counterfeiting presses would leave the counterfeiting presses intact...then maybe the taxpayers know something that you don't. And that's how and why markets work.

Wow. Just wow. I'm thinking now that not only do you not understand how and why markets work (or not), but that you haven't the slightest clue about the actual mechanics of a counterfeiting press in terms of the individual liberty it destroys.

Regardless who knows or understands anything at all about counterfeiting presses...the decision to leave one intact, with all the legal tender laws that protect it artificially, REMOVES VOTES. It taxes 100% of all currency holders, present and future. There is absolutely nothing "free market" or individual choice about that.

Obviously the state is not a firm...it is a sector with numerous firms.

No. It isn't that either. Neither the state nor any of its departments or producers of goods or services channels are firms. Nor should they be. EVER. Firms are profit-maximizing entities that produce specific goods for specific demands. ALWAYS. The state and all of its departments and agencies (OSTENSIBLY) serve the common good (everyone), and ONLY THE COMMON GOOD, and NOT FOR PROFIT, or as a profit-maximizing entity. They are NOT THERE FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS...EVER. The free market is both distorted and corrupted to the extent that they are.

[awake]

Were all those possessions worth all those years of your life? What happens if taxpayers can choose which government organizations they give their taxes to? Are all those public goods going to be worth all the years of their lives? Why wouldn't we want each and every taxpayer to ask themselves this question?

Here's how the average person thinks of it...from J.S. Mill..."It is, of course, not desirable that anything should be done by funds derived from compulsory taxation, which is already sufficiently well done by individual liberality."

What is sufficiently well done by individual liberty? Let's find out. If we allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes...then it's doubtful that they will pay the government to do anything that the private sector does sufficiently well. This is because everybody wants the most goods for the least amount of life. Which is exactly why we really need to apply this concept to the public sector.

"If we allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes"...Ok, let people keep all their money, and let them freely purchase goods and services (this includes defense and security).

Zero taxes of any kind and freely selected money= no government. You would have market governance.

[Xerographica]

Well, that's not really the definition.

You're talking about introducing market principles to government. Rand was talking about divorcing government from the market. That's kind of apples and oranges. She wasn't talking about how to improve government, just about what the government has no business interfering in. And that is a principal libertarian principle, and related to economics.

How narrowly are you defining 'libertarian economics'? Because I took it to extend beyond governmental economics.

Rand said...here are my morals...my natural rights...which government should protect. But how's that any different from a liberal? The liberal says...here are my morals...my social justice...which government should protect. It's the same exact thing...just with a different set of morals. And it's absolutely no different with natural rights anarcho-capitalists...here are my morals...my NAP...which government should not violate. This isn't economics...this is moral philosophy or religion. Carefully read over my second post in this thread.

Once we tackle this problem from a purely economic standpoint...then where do we go? We're left with the market. What should the scope of government be? We can easily figure that out simply by applying market principles to the public sector. Can we predict the outcome? We can try...but the important thing is understanding the process and why we benefit from it. If somebody truly understands the value of the market process in the private sector...then they would certainly see the value of the market process in the public sector.

So in essence, it should really be as simple as this...

Question: Why give taxpayers the freedom to directly allocate their taxes?
Answer: Heterogeneous activity.
Question: Why not just get rid of the government?
Answer: Because pushing Rothbard's button would be the epitome of homogeneous activity.

[acptulsa]

Is it a better better passage than this one that I have under fallibilism?...

Is it a better passage than this one that I have under heterogeneous activity?...

I do like Sloan's quote...and agree with the concept...but I just wish it wasn't written with a firm in mind. It's nice and short though (more efficient)...but is it more effective than this passage?...

...which can be compared to this...

...and then back on to this...

To my mind, the first Mill quote is the only one that really tries to say the same thing, though the second tries to wind up in the same neighborhood. The others aren't even in the ballpark; they're saying different things. And though adaptability and progress are certainly closely related, some would say they aren't exactly the same thing.

I think Sloan would complement that first one (and perhaps clarify, Mill's prose is a bit thick).

[Steven Douglas]

We can easily figure that out simply by non-selectively applying free market principles to the public sector.

Parts in bold added, very important.

If history has proved anything, it is that a state-crippled market can function, and even grow, without being a truly free market. That is no thanks to the state, because market forces exist independently of the state. Statists would have everyone believe that the state can actually improve a free market--by participating in a way that makes the market less than free.

First you design your system. Then, before you pat yourself on the back for how 'free market-ish' it appears to you (think lipstick on a pig), understand that it will be flawed only to the extent that you were selective in your application of free market principles. If the state exercises power or authority that is not equally available to any other market participant, the state is fascist and there is no free market to that extent.

Let me give you a Lipstick On A Pig example:

The Yakuza from Japan are notorious for tourism racketeering. A company takes Japanese tourists on guided tours abroad, but controls a narrow list of isolated pre-determined destinations with tourist shops (usually Japanese-owned), which pay commissions to the tourist company, all designed to pressure tourists into buying over-priced souvenirs and other bull$#@!. Is that a "market"? Well, sure in the $#@! is. Everything in the Godfather was a "market". Is it a "free market". Of course not. The "Market Principles" lipstick that could be applied to that pig: the fact that nobody is actually being forced to buy anything. Furthermore, there is a plethora of bull$#@! souvenir choices offered along the way, right? That's freedom of 'choice', isn't it?

Market principles violated by exclusion: Other destinations with other, more competitive choices are deliberately evaded, not made available, as a cartel with a de facto oligopoly on available tourist dollars is established. In other words, it's not what market principles are in place that makes something a free market. Otherwise we could point to prisons, with all their internal racketeering, which really do exploit "market principles", and imply that they are somehow "free markets", because some market principles are being exercised, and some choices do in fact exist.

Before you ask others what free market principles to 'include', ask them (or yourself) instead what free market principles were excluded in the process, making it less than free or theoretically perfectly competitive market, and therefore distorted. Only a focus on the principle exclusions will lead you to an understanding of PRECISELY how and where it will fail to serve a truly free market.

[Henry Rogue]

It's the question, the damn question. If that's wrong the answer will likely be wrong. We have to get people to think about the right question(s) first.

The main reason I came to Ron Paul Forums was to support Ron Paul and connect with others who support him. A big reason I'm still here is to learn. So what are the right questions?

[Xerographica]

YOU DIDN'T SAY HOW. You only firmly asserted, and with great conviction, that it wouldn't. Or shouldn't. You never did address any of the actual mechanics involved, even qualitatively.

Why should I have to address the actual mechanics when all you have to do is look at the non-profit sector? In a pragmatarian system...at anytime throughout the year I'd go to the EPA website and submit a tax payment. And I'd sign up for their monthly newsletter. What happens if they want more money? They would do what non-profits do and ask their supporters for more money. And how would I respond? My first question would be to ask for what. Why do they want more money? Maybe they want to buy 10 million acres of pristine rain forest. If I valued their plan of action then I'd give them more money...so what happens if they only raise enough money to buy 5 million acres? Do they not buy any acres? No...they just buy 5 million acres. Do they borrow money to purchase the other 5 million acres? Maybe? Perhaps? If so then I, and other supporters, would have to pay off the debt. If we didn't pay off the debt then the EPA would go bankrupt. But how many non-profit organizations do we hear of that go bankrupt because they took on too much debt? For most non-profits...if they can't raise enough money to do something...then they just don't do it. And that's exactly how it should work in the public sector.

Wow. Just wow. I'm thinking now that not only do you not understand how and why markets work (or not), but that you haven't the slightest clue about the actual mechanics of a counterfeiting press in terms of the individual liberty it destroys.

Regardless who knows or understands anything at all about counterfeiting presses...the decision to leave one intact, with all the legal tender laws that protect it artificially, REMOVES VOTES. It taxes 100% of all currency holders, present and future. There is absolutely nothing "free market" or individual choice about that.

You're trying to sell me on the dangers of a counterfeit press and I'm trying to sell you on the value of a market in the public sector. Seriously? First we create a market in the public sector and THEN you go right on ahead selling the dangers of counterfeiting presses along with everybody else selling the dangers of a gazillion other problems our society is confronted with. That's how and why market works. Without taxpayers having the freedom to buy what you're selling then you're simply going to run into the problem of rational ignorance. Once you give taxpayers a choice how they spend their money...then they'll care enough to perhaps listen to what you have to say. But right now the money is out of their hands...so why should they care?

No. It isn't that either. Neither the state nor any of its departments or producers of goods or services channels are firms. Nor should they be. EVER. Firms are profit-maximizing entities that produce specific goods for specific demands. ALWAYS. The state and all of its departments and agencies (OSTENSIBLY) serve the common good (everyone), and ONLY THE COMMON GOOD, and NOT FOR PROFIT, or as a profit-maximizing entity. They are NOT THERE FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS...EVER. The free market is both distorted and corrupted to the extent that they are.

Again, you're completely neglecting the non-profit sector. All organizations...whether for-profit, non-profit or public...want to maximize their revenue. The difference is....for-profits and non-profits have a strong incentive to minimize their costs. Public organizations do not have a strong incentive to minimize costs. But in a pragmatarian system they would. Taxpayers wouldn't want their taxes spent on overhead costs. Why? Because everybody wants the most bang for their buck.

What would be a special interest in the public sector? Something that's not a general interest? What's a general interest? Something that you determine or something that is determined by our aggregate spending decisions? Would we have to worry about farm subsidies in a pragmatarian system? Why? Nobody would force you to give your taxes to the Dept of Agriculture. If farmers were the only people giving their taxes to the Dept of Agriculture...then perhaps we would need to ask ourselves whether farm subsidies should truly be a public good. And that discussion is a positive externality of pragmatarianism. How many people have to give their taxes to something for it to be a public good? Who knows? But it's exactly the kind of debate that we need to be having. But we can't have these debates when you guys are devoting all your energy to sound money and everybody else is debating whether we should have a liberal or a conservative in the White House.

[Henry Rogue]

What does the Abbreviation NAP stand for?

[Xerographica]

Let me give you a Lipstick On A Pig example:

You don't have a choice whether you purchase food or not...but does that limit the value of having a market where consumers can choose which foods they purchase? In a pragmatarian system taxpayers would not have a choice whether or not they spent their money on public goods...but does that limit the value of having a market where taxpayers can choose which public goods they spend their taxes on?

So many of you on here are trying to sell the concept of sound money. Except the buyers don't have any money...all their taxes are spent by 538 congresspeople. Are you really going to sell your concept of sound money to 538 congresspeople? Better grab a snickers...it's a long line.

What I'm advocating is that taxpayers be given the freedom to buy what you're trying to sell to them. And YOU ARE NOT BUYING IT! LOL Too funny in a sad way.

[Xerographica]

What does the Abbreviation NAP stand for?

Non Aggression Principle

[acptulsa]

Once we tackle this problem from a purely economic standpoint...then where do we go? We're left with the market. What should the scope of government be? We can easily figure that out simply by applying market principles to the public sector. Can we predict the outcome? We can try...but the important thing is understanding the process and why we benefit from it. If somebody truly understands the value of the market process in the private sector...then they would certainly see the value of the market process in the public sector.

Oh, well. If that's the gist of the conversation, I stand by Alfred P. Sloan more staunchly than ever. The easiest and surest way to apply market principles to government is to obey the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Reduce the federal government to an absolute minimum, and let the states compete with each other--on what amounts to a free market. A free market for industry, talent, residents, and everything else.

[Xerographica]

Oh, well. If that's the gist of the conversation, I stand by Alfred P. Sloan more staunchly than ever. The easiest and surest way to apply market principles to government is to obey the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Reduce the federal government to an absolute minimum, and let the states compete with each other--on what amounts to a free market. A free market for industry, talent, residents, and everything else.

Reduce the federal government to an absolute minimum? Education, public healthcare and environmental protection? How do you propose we decide which departments to throw overboard?

[acptulsa]

Reduce the federal government to an absolute minimum? Education, public healthcare and environmental protection? How do you propose we decide which departments to throw overboard?

I'd personally start with the five Ron Paul wanted to throw overboard, and go from there until little is left besides Defense.

[Xerographica]

I'd personally start with the five Ron Paul wanted to throw overboard, and go from there until little is left besides Defense.

And Ron Paul knows which ones to throw overboard because...?

[awake]

You throw all of them overboard into sea of free exchange. Some would learn to swim, others would sink like a stone.

[acptulsa]

And Ron Paul knows which ones to throw overboard because...?

You've been a member here for just shy of two years and you don't know how deep his research has been? You've been a member here for two years and you don't know how well his views on this stand up to scrutiny? You've been here two years and you don't know his twenty-four years of insider information and principled research means we don't have to reinvent the wheel?

You like No Child Left Behind..?!

[Henry Rogue]

Non Aggression Principle

Thanks. I figured it was something I should know.

[Xerographica]

You've been a member here for just shy of two years and you don't know how deep his research has been? You've been a member here for two years and you don't know how well his views on this stand up to scrutiny? You've been here two years and you don't know his twenty-four years of insider information and principled research means we don't have to reinvent the wheel?

What do you think socialism is? It's a small group of government planners doing a whole hell of a lot of research. We absolutely screw ourselves if we imagine socialist leaders to be stupid slouches that didn't do their research. They suffer from CONCEIT for the very reason that they did do so much research.

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. - Hayek

If you think that Ron Paul's ideas have absolutely no problem standing up to scrutiny...then you should have absolutely no problem with him selling his ideas in a public goods free-market. Anybody who thinks that their ideas are so good that they don't need to be subjected to the free-market vetting process is a socialist.

You like No Child Left Behind..?!

A market isn't just about what I do or don't like. If a market was solely about what I do or don't like then imagine how few products would be available. A market works because we all have the freedom to use our dollars to indicate what we like. Applying the free-market to the public sector is how we should determine the proper scope of government. Nobody's ideas are so good that they can bypass the vetting process...mine included.

[ClydeCoulter]

The main reason I came to Ron Paul Forums was to support Ron Paul and connect with others who support him. A big reason I'm still here is to learn. So what are the right questions?

That depends on the topic being discussed.

Here, we are looking at certain topics, in which the disagreement, to me, seems to beg the proper question(s).

My comment was to ask for the questions to be searched out between those that disagree.

Stephen's comments on 'Sound Money' is met with opposition because the question/solution being raised leaves it out. So, perhaps, since 'Sound Money' is so important to any economic question, the question/solution may need to reconsider whether it is viewed from a perspective that really allows for it's inclusion or does not prevent it's exclusion.

I find that many disagreements arise when the question being asked (wanting for a solution) is not rooted in a well known perspective (among the participants).

Some questions are presented in such a way as to prevent and/or hide answers that are not desired (see the media and politicians for a multitude of examples).

[acptulsa]

What do you think socialism is? It's a small group of government planners doing a whole hell of a lot of research. We absolutely screw ourselves if we imagine socialist leaders to be stupid slouches that didn't do their research. They suffer from CONCEIT for the very reason that they did do so much research.

Ron Paul is a socialist because he picked out the five cabinet level bureaus that he would cut first?

If you think that Ron Paul's ideas have absolutely no problem standing up to scrutiny...then you should have absolutely no problem with him selling his ideas in a public goods free-market. Anybody who thinks that their ideas are so good that they don't need to be subjected to the free-market vetting process is a socialist.

You think I'm saying his ideas won't stand up to the free market on the very forum where his ideas have been getting vetted for over six years?

A market isn't just about what I do or don't like. If a market was solely about what I do or don't like then imagine how few products would be available. A market works because we all have the freedom to use our dollars to indicate what we like. Applying the free-market to the public sector is how we should determine the proper scope of government. Nobody's ideas are so good that they can bypass the vetting process...mine included.

Friend, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were respected and obeyed through the entire period where the U.S. of A. grew from a few isolated colonies to the richest and most powerful nation on the face of the earth, and got ignored in favor of rampant federalism only during the period when the nation got riddled with crippling debt.

The notion of decentralization of the government, my friend, is not Ron Paul's. It's something Jefferson espoused. And it has been vetted. Jefferson said that, if this nation were to come under the rule of a powerful central government, it would be '...the most corrupt government on the face of the earth.' And events have proven Jefferson prophetic.

Now, if you don't mind, I wish you would stop insulting Ron Paul and learn about what you're trying to talk about. What, exactly, besides the fact that Ron Paul espouses the postion, Jefferson espoused the position, you seem to have a problem with Jefferson, and you obviously have a problem with Ron Paul, is the problem with minimizing the fedgov and letting the states take over most of the junk it does?

Letting the states compete gives us ample opportunity to vet plenty of ideas, gives us a control group so we can get meaningful data out of these experiments, and doesn't subject the whole nation to the indignities of enduring the experiments that don't stand up to the vetting. Tell me what isn't free market about that.

[Xerographica]

Ron Paul is a socialist because he picked out the five cabinet level bureaus that he would cut first?

Pretty much. Who is Ron Paul...or Obama or Romney to decide which departments should be removed or added? Voters voted for them therefore it means that they have enough information to make these decisions for the entire country?

You think I'm saying his ideas won't stand up to the free market on the very forum where his ideas have been getting vetted for over six years?

You're saying that we don't need to allow the market to determine the proper scope of government...we should just take Ron Paul's word/research for it.

It must be remembered, besides, that even if a government were superior in intelligence and knowledge to any single individual in the nation, it must be inferior to all the individuals of the nation taken together. It can neither possess in itself, nor enlist in its service, more than a portion of the acquirements and capacities which the country contains, applicable to any given purpose. - J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy

Friend, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were respected and obeyed through the entire period where the U.S. of A. grew from a few isolated colonies to the richest and most powerful nation on the face of the earth, and got ignored in favor of rampant federalism only during the period when the nation got riddled with crippling debt.

The notion of decentralization of the government, my friend, is not Ron Paul's. It's something Jefferson espoused. And it has been vetted. Jefferson said that, if this nation were to come under the rule of a powerful central government, it would be '...the most corrupt government on the face of the earth.' And events have proven Jefferson prophetic.

Now, if you don't mind, I wish you would stop insulting Ron Paul and learn about what you're trying to talk about. What, exactly, besides the fact that Ron Paul espouses the postion, Jefferson espoused the position, you seem to have a problem with Jefferson, and you obviously have a problem with Ron Paul, is the problem with minimizing the fedgov and letting the states take over most of the junk it does?

Letting the states compete gives us ample opportunity to vet plenty of ideas, gives us a control group so we can get meaningful data out of these experiments, and doesn't subject the whole nation to the indignities of enduring the experiments that don't stand up to the vetting. Tell me what isn't free market about that.

So the founders of our country...aka a small group of government planners...actually knew the proper scope of government? If that's possible then socialism is a completely viable concept.

Pragmatarianism is a simple experiment to test our theories on the proper scope of government. If Ron Paul's ideas are so great...then taxpayers would allocate their taxes accordingly and prosperity would shortly follow. Why would you want to skip over this process? Why would you want to bypass this market process? Taxpayers, as a group, have far more information than Ron Paul or any other government planner. Why would you want to toss out an entire country's worth of information? A small group of people thinking they have more information than an entire country is the very definition of socialism.

Do you value this process of me trying to persuade you of the value of pragmatarianism? Yet, Ron Paul shouldn't have to persuade taxpayers to withhold their taxes from 5 cabinet departments? He should just get rid of those cabinet departments? No thanks...you'll never be able to sell me on one individual replacing the market. If that individual is truly that great then they won't need to bypass the market.

[acptulsa]

So the founders of our country...aka a small group of government planners...actually knew the proper scope of government? If that's possible then socialism is a completely viable concept.

If a small group of government planners who did not set up a socialist government actually knew the proper scope of government, then socialism would be a completely viable concept. I see. I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for that.

Pragmatarianism is a simple experiment to test our theories on the proper scope of government. If Ron Paul's ideas are so great...then taxpayers would allocate their taxes accordingly and prosperity would shortly follow. Why would you want to skip over this process? Why would you want to bypass this market process? Taxpayers, as a group, have far more information than Ron Paul or any other government planner. Why would you want to toss out an entire country's worth of information? A small group of people thinking they have more information than an entire country is the very definition of socialism.

Taxpayers as a group have more information than one person, so we should trust them all to make the right decisions even though only a percentage of them (and not a big percentage) possess that information and none of them possesses all of that information alone. Furthermore, a small group of people with the information running things is called a republic, a construct which may or may not be socialist.

Do you value this process of me trying to persuade you of the value of pragmatarianism? Yet, Ron Paul shouldn't have to persuade taxpayers to withhold their taxes from 5 cabinet departments? He should just get rid of those cabinet departments? No thanks...you'll never be able to sell me on one individual replacing the market. If that individual is truly that great then they won't need to bypass the market.

Once again, you are purposely, dogmatically, and perniciously ignoring the fact that I presented a far, far more viable way to place government services on the free market--by cutting the fedgov and letting states provide them--and compete with each other to provide the best package. Furthermore, you haven't explained how it's to anyone's advantage to have everyone earmark their taxes to, say, the Department of the Interior, thereby not only starving out all other departments but providing Interior with more money than it could possibly find useful ways to spend. You quote John Stewart Mill all day, saying that the nation is full of experts, but you not only fail to explain how the experts among us will disseminate their great wisdom among the rest, you give no indication at all how people will coordinate their efforts to ensure no department is left behind. And you certainly don't explain how a populace that can't even be coerced into properly researching their political candidates can be coerced into doing all of this work.

If you can't address these two issues, don't bother quoting my posts any more. Repeating yourself ad infinitum does not a conversation make.