Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 81 of 81

Thread: The Principle Concepts of Libertarian Economics - Feedback Requested

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    Yeah, definitely don't take my word for that...because that was not even close to what I said. I said if government planners can know the proper scope of government then socialism is a viable concept. If somebody can know enough to know that the government should only do A, B and C...then another person can know enough to know that the government should do A through Z. If I want to start my own business...do you think I can know enough to be certain that it will be a success? Absolutely not...because I'm not the one who ultimately decides whether my business is a success or not...consumers are. You're saying that government planners can know that the government organizations can be successful at doing A, B and C. If they have enough skills to know better than all consumers...then they have enough skills to know that the government should do A through Z.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    You're going to tell me that the markets work for food, clothing, housing, education, environmental protection, healthcare...but we can't trust the public with defense and whatever else Ron Paul wants the government to do? Explain to me the mechanics. Break down how some goods are exceptional. Make a free-rider argument that doesn't also apply to all the cabinet depts that Ron Paul would throw overboard.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Furthermore, a small group of people with the information running things is called a republic, a construct which may or may not be socialist.
    Either we allow consumers to guide what is produced...or we rely on superior beings to determine what should be produced and in what quantities. When we're guided by consumers it's called a market and when we're not guided by consumers then it's called socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    How is it more viable to allow Ron Paul to decide where to cut? Because he's done his research? Anybody who's done enough research would know that we can't make cutting decisions for other people...we can only make them for ourselves. That's how markets work.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    Why do you want to kick any government organizations over to the market if you have no idea how markets work? How much research could Ron Paul truly have done if his supporters have no idea how markets work? Does the "problem" you are describing happen in the private sector? Do consumers all of a sudden decide to only purchase asparagus? Do we suddenly all decide to purchase underwear and absolutely no other article of clothing?

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    How will experts disseminate their information? They'll write a book, start a blog, start a pod cast, write an article...send smoke signals...they'll call you on the phone...send you text messages...knock on your door...buy commercials. It's not HOW they will disseminate their information but WHY they will disseminate their information. Why am I disseminating my information to you? Because I'll benefit when you purchase my product. Everybody is trying to sell you something and everybody requires some information to purchase anything.

    Coordinate their efforts? When was the last time you called me on the phone to make sure that I had purchased asparagus? What are we...elementary school girls calling each other to coordinate our outfits?

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    I already mentioned rational ignorance to somebody. The cost of researching does not reflect the potential gain. How many different possible topics can you research? You're not going to research every single topic which might impact your life. You're going to prioritize what you research and what you research will depend on how much within your immediate influence is at stake. If I'm going to spend $1 for a pack of gum then I'm hardly going to spend hours researching which gum will truly give me the most bang for my buck. However, if I'm going to spend $1000 on a new laptop...then I'll put a lot more research into trying to pick the best laptop. Give taxpayers the opportunity to spend their hard earned taxes in the public sector...and they will be motivated to do as much research as it takes for them to feel sufficiently confident that they will get the most bang for their buck.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    Oh, I addressed them in several different ways. I just made the mistake of assuming that you had a decent grasp of basic economics. Taxpayers are all going to give their taxes to the Dept of Interior? Really? There's absolutely no diminishing returns?

    I added your response to my list of people who don't understand how the invisible hand works...Unglamorous but Important Things. I blame Ron Paul.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    How is it more viable to allow Ron Paul to decide where to cut? Because he's done his research?
    On the Constitution he has certainly done his research. He isn't skipping over the law to get to anyone's idiotic economic arguments that are somehow supposed to trump law. Ron Paul knows all about the Enumerated Powers of the Federal government, and all the many layers of corruption that have occurred in the history of our Constitution since its establishment. Ron Paul is not deciding what to cut in terms people's wants or needs, nor does ANY economic argument have ANYTHING to do with it. As a statesman, and not any of the blithering economists or Constitutional Scofflaws who think they know better, Ron Paul is deciding what to cut based on the Constitutional role of the Federal Government. If you wanted to add or subtract anything via an actual Constitutional Amendment, he would account for that in his "research" as well.

    Why do you want to kick any government organizations over to the market if you have no idea how markets work?
    Your assumption about who has or does not have any idea about how markets work is rejected.

    Ron Paul wants to "kick" FEDERAL government organizations, NOT TO THE MARKET, but to the competing States, or to the People, keeping only that which is enumerated in the Constitution.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    I just made the mistake of assuming that you had a decent grasp of basic economics.
    I remember another poster who made that charge a lot. He would say things like, "That's because you don't know any economics."
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 10-27-2012 at 12:41 AM.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Ron Paul wants to "kick" FEDERAL government organizations, NOT TO THE MARKET, but to the competing States, or to the People, keeping only that which is enumerated in the Constitution.
    Far be it from me to disparage our founding fathers...but as great as they were...they were still just a small group of government planners. If they could truly have known the proper scope of government then socialism is a viable concept.

    If we truly want to discern what the government is "good" at doing...then we should simply allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. If the government does anything less effectively/efficiently than the private sector...then it's doubtful that taxpayers will choose to fund those redundant government organizations.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Yeah, definitely don't take my word for that...because that was not even close to what I said. I said if government planners can know the proper scope of government then socialism is a viable concept. If somebody can know enough to know that the government should only do A, B and C...then another person can know enough to know that the government should do A through Z.
    'I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.' --Thomas Jefferson

    Well. Now we know a government planner can hit on the proper scope of government without it being socialism. Just because others disagree doesn't make their opinions legitimate--or correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    If I want to start my own business...do you think I can know enough to be certain that it will be a success? Absolutely not...because I'm not the one who ultimately decides whether my business is a success or not...consumers are. You're saying that government planners can know that the government organizations can be successful at doing A, B and C. If they have enough skills to know better than all consumers...then they have enough skills to know that the government should do A through Z.
    They don't know they'll be successful at doing A, B and C. They're just a monopoly, so they don't have to care. Your problem is that you think if, say, Defense and the FBI and CIA fail us miserably, as they did on 9/11/01, people will decide, well, they aren't worth the money, so we'll cut them off. The problem is, people won't decide they can do without these services, and it isn't like there's any direct competition for them. We don't have two FBIs to compete with each other, and if we did they'd not only be tripping over each other conducting dual investigations, but when one had its budget cut and the other got an increase they'd just swap the same people between them. There sometimes is a reason government is put in charge of one thing or another--people think it works best as a monopoly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    You're going to tell me that the markets work for food, clothing, housing, education, environmental protection, healthcare...but we can't trust the public with defense and whatever else Ron Paul wants the government to do? Explain to me the mechanics. Break down how some goods are exceptional. Make a free-rider argument that doesn't also apply to all the cabinet depts that Ron Paul would throw overboard.
    Just mentioned one. Having three competing sewer companies digging up the city to lay and maintain three complete, parallel systems would be another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Either we allow consumers to guide what is produced...or we rely on superior beings to determine what should be produced and in what quantities. When we're guided by consumers it's called a market and when we're not guided by consumers then it's called socialism.
    Tell it to the CEO and all the myriad vice presidents, designers and engineers of the company that built your car. Or did you design your own car and contract with someone to build it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    How is it more viable to allow Ron Paul to decide where to cut? Because he's done his research? Anybody who's done enough research would know that we can't make cutting decisions for other people...we can only make them for ourselves. That's how markets work.
    Once again, Ron Paul will tell you himself he doesn't decide what to cut. He would just cut it all except for those things that must be federal, and which the Constitution calls for, like the Navy. Then, as I mentioned, the states can decide what services to provide and what services to leave to the private sector (a real market)

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Why do you want to kick any government organizations over to the market if you have no idea how markets work? How much research could Ron Paul truly have done if his supporters have no idea how markets work? Does the "problem" you are describing happen in the private sector? Do consumers all of a sudden decide to only purchase asparagus? Do we suddenly all decide to purchase underwear and absolutely no other article of clothing?
    Look, Einstein. When you go to the market, you're charged per pound for your asparagus, and for your broccoli. When you go to the department store, you're charged per package of underwear as you buy it. But when you get your tax form, will it be filled out that way? Will you be billed for 365 days of security? Will they be keeping track of how many days you spend at national parks or national monuments? Will they measure how much paper you use from national forest wood? Will they bill you if the FBI investigates a crime that affected you? How will they handle food stamps? If you have to pay for your own food stamps at tax time, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?

    I thought you said this was all voluntary. Paying for your asparagus before you leave the market is not voluntary, bud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    How will experts disseminate their information? They'll write a book, start a blog, start a pod cast, write an article...send smoke signals...they'll call you on the phone...send you text messages...knock on your door...buy commercials. It's not HOW they will disseminate their information but WHY they will disseminate their information. Why am I disseminating my information to you? Because I'll benefit when you purchase my product. Everybody is trying to sell you something and everybody requires some information to purchase anything.
    And everyone who tries to disseminate information competes on the free market for your time and attention. And as I noted, few people spare the time and attention for government if they can help it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Coordinate their efforts? When was the last time you called me on the phone to make sure that I had purchased asparagus? What are we...elementary school girls calling each other to coordinate our outfits?
    So if we double the FBI's budget in one year, how will they double the number of crimes that cross state lines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    I already mentioned rational ignorance to somebody. The cost of researching does not reflect the potential gain. How many different possible topics can you research? You're not going to research every single topic which might impact your life. You're going to prioritize what you research and what you research will depend on how much within your immediate influence is at stake. If I'm going to spend $1 for a pack of gum then I'm hardly going to spend hours researching which gum will truly give me the most bang for my buck. However, if I'm going to spend $1000 on a new laptop...then I'll put a lot more research into trying to pick the best laptop. Give taxpayers the opportunity to spend their hard earned taxes in the public sector...and they will be motivated to do as much research as it takes for them to feel sufficiently confident that they will get the most bang for their buck.
    What has research got to do with it? There's still only one FBI. You can decide if the Dept. of Justice needs the ability to chase criminals that cross state lines or not. But you can't give your money to the other FBI, because there isn't one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Oh, I addressed them in several different ways. I just made the mistake of assuming that you had a decent grasp of basic economics. Taxpayers are all going to give their taxes to the Dept of Interior? Really? There's absolutely no diminishing returns?

    I added your response to my list of people who don't understand how the invisible hand works...Unglamorous but Important Things. I blame Ron Paul.
    Yes, there will be a lot of diminishing returns under this lunacy. And it isn't Ron Paul's fault, either.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 10-27-2012 at 09:01 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Far be it from me to disparage our founding fathers...but as great as they were...they were still just a small group of government planners. If they could truly have known the proper scope of government then socialism is a viable concept.

    If we truly want to discern what the government is "good" at doing...then we should simply allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. If the government does anything less effectively/efficiently than the private sector...then it's doubtful that taxpayers will choose to fund those redundant government organizations.
    The proper scope of government is simple and known.

    Legitimate governments protect liberty,
    "The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals." - John Locke

    "One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises
    Illegitimate government do not protect liberty,
    "An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects." - John Locke

    "Despotic power, by contrast, implies the right to take the life, liberty, health and at least some of the property of any person subject to such a power." - John Locke
    Socialism claims despotic power.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Far be it from me to disparage our founding fathers...but as great as they were...they were still just a small group of government planners. If they could truly have known the proper scope of government then socialism is a viable concept.

    If we truly want to discern what the government is "good" at doing...then we should simply allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. If the government does anything less effectively/efficiently than the private sector...then it's doubtful that taxpayers will choose to fund those redundant government organizations.
    If you want to equivocate, a brutal totalitarian dictatorship can be considered "a viable concept". It all depends on your definition of viable, and from whose perspective you are speaking. Viable just means successful, or feasible. It says nothing about the metric used to make that determination.

    Also, the Founding Fathers KNEW that they were just a small group of government planners, long before the Constitution was drafted. Have you read the Declaration of Independence, written eleven years prior, lately:

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    It really doesn't matter what you, they, or anyone else thinks or imagines to be the proper scope of government or a "viable concept". Mechanisms were put in place so that the Constitution (The Law of The Land) could be altered or abolished. Just not easily. The intent was never for bunch of Imagineers to roll up their sleeves and wax poop-stupidly willy-nilly with a bunch of "Say, I've got a nifty idea!" social engineering experiments. That was pretty much the idea behind the many sovereign, and competing, states. And how inconvenient that Constitutional alteration mechanism has been for the "govern by expediency" morons who cannot claim to believe in the Rule of Law Not Men when they cannot accomplish anything without skirting the law.

    The Constitution, the law of the land, was corrupted, skirted, trumped by expediency. Whether or not you PERSONALLY feel a socialist government is viable or not, if we wanted a $#@!ing socialist government, the Constitution does indeed provide even for that. And if you can't change it by the 2/3rds majority and state ratification mechanisms provided, but could manage to institute one anyway, by other means that run contrary to the Constitution, then neither can you claim that it is by "the consent of the governed", regardless how "viable" you consider it to be, using some other metric.



    You accept the cracked foundation that you don't even seem to give a $#@! about, but are trying to build on. Why not? It's expedient, after all. Looks 'viable' enough to you. You want to add a clever little addition to what is already a shaky house of cards that really does need to fall. I don't. I want my Constitution back, and I want all enemies of it, every creepy crawly thing that subverts it, foreign and domestic, put the $#@! in their places once and for all.

    Until the Rule of Law is returned to, I am not governed by my consent, and I don't give $#@! how cleverly someone wants to allocate taxes that should never have been levied--visibly or invisibly--in the first place.

    You want slaves to have a little more power, along with a guarantee that government will never lose any. I want all slaves, myself included, FREE.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 10-27-2012 at 01:15 PM.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Well. Now we know a government planner can hit on the proper scope of government without it being socialism. Just because others disagree doesn't make their opinions legitimate--or correct.
    One government planner determining the scope of government has nothing proper or legitimate about it. Everybody having the freedom to disagree with their taxes IS exactly what would make the scope of government proper or legitimate.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    They don't know they'll be successful at doing A, B and C. They're just a monopoly, so they don't have to care. Your problem is that you think if, say, Defense and the FBI and CIA fail us miserably, as they did on 9/11/01, people will decide, well, they aren't worth the money, so we'll cut them off. The problem is, people won't decide they can do without these services, and it isn't like there's any direct competition for them. We don't have two FBIs to compete with each other, and if we did they'd not only be tripping over each other conducting dual investigations, but when one had its budget cut and the other got an increase they'd just swap the same people between them. There sometimes is a reason government is put in charge of one thing or another--people think it works best as a monopoly.
    What people think, and where they choose to put their own money, has to matter. Without all their unique perspectives...without their spending decisions...there is no "best" use of limited resources. If people think the DoD, FBI and CIA are worth their taxes, then they'll spend their taxes accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Just mentioned one. Having three competing sewer companies digging up the city to lay and maintain three complete, parallel systems would be another.
    So we won't have three competing sewer companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Tell it to the CEO and all the myriad vice presidents, designers and engineers of the company that built your car. Or did you design your own car and contract with someone to build it?
    Obviously I didn't design or build my car...but I did choose to buy it. Without our choices...without our opportunity cost decisions...it's not possible for limited resources to be used to provide a maximum benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Once again, Ron Paul will tell you himself he doesn't decide what to cut. He would just cut it all except for those things that must be federal, and which the Constitution calls for, like the Navy. Then, as I mentioned, the states can decide what services to provide and what services to leave to the private sector (a real market)
    You're using a political document to answer economic questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Look, Einstein. When you go to the market, you're charged per pound for your asparagus, and for your broccoli. When you go to the department store, you're charged per package of underwear as you buy it. But when you get your tax form, will it be filled out that way? Will you be billed for 365 days of security? Will they be keeping track of how many days you spend at national parks or national monuments? Will they measure how much paper you use from national forest wood? Will they bill you if the FBI investigates a crime that affected you? How will they handle food stamps? If you have to pay for your own food stamps at tax time, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
    1. Why do you go to the market? To address a shortage of something you value
    2. What do you do at the market? You consider the opportunity costs...you decide whether what you want is worth what you have to give up

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I thought you said this was all voluntary. Paying for your asparagus before you leave the market is not voluntary, bud.
    Wanting asparagus is the first part, considering the opportunity costs is the second part. Wanting to help the poor is the first part, considering the opportunity cost is the second part. Wanting more police is the first part, considering the opportunity cost is the second part.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    And everyone who tries to disseminate information competes on the free market for your time and attention. And as I noted, few people spare the time and attention for government if they can help it.
    And as I mentioned, we prioritize how we spend our time/effort/energy/money.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    So if we double the FBI's budget in one year, how will they double the number of crimes that cross state lines?
    You're putting the cart before the horse. People would give the FBI more money because the number of crimes doubled. Or people would give the FBI less money because the number of crimes doubled. Does more FBI equal less crime? Yes? No? Do we want each and every taxpayer to ask themselves this question? Hell yes. Do we want each and every taxpayer to have the freedom to allocate their taxes according to their answers? Hell yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    What has research got to do with it? There's still only one FBI. You can decide if the Dept. of Justice needs the ability to chase criminals that cross state lines or not. But you can't give your money to the other FBI, because there isn't one.
    And either taxpayer's opportunity cost decisions determine the amount of funding the FBI receives...or they don't. What's the alternative? Socialism.

  10. #68
    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    It really doesn't matter what you, they, or anyone else thinks or imagines to be the proper scope of government or a "viable concept".
    Errr...which is it? Is it my right to alter/abolish government or does it really not matter what I think?

    The primary problem with your post is that it didn't contain any economics. In case you missed it, this is the economics category. Well...AND the sound money category. Isn't there a more appropriate category to promote your interpretation of the constitution?

    Here's the bottom line. Either a group of government planners can truly know the optimal level of funding for an organization...or they can't. If you believe that they can...then you're a socialist. If you believe that they can't...then you're a pragmatarian.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Errr...which is it? Is it my right to alter/abolish government or does it really not matter what I think?
    False choice, as it is not an either/or proposition. You left out the part in context where I said that mechanisms were put in place so that the Constitution (The Law of The Land) could be altered or abolished. Pay attention to this part, as it is very important: If all you are doing is subverting that process, or building on something that has already subverted that process, then whatever we think in that context will be equally illegitimate.

    The primary problem with your post is that it didn't contain any economics. In case you missed it, this is the economics category. Well...AND the sound money category.
    Whether you are aware of it or not, all the topics in the Economics and Sound Money forum are mostly political. The original problem is yours, in that what you have described and labeled as an 'economics' problem/solution is NOT economics at all. It is purely political. Your rationale may be rooted in some form of economics, and we can discuss that, but economics can only positively describe and predict--not normatively prescribe or dictate solutions, as you have done as your premise.

    What you are proposing, in part, in essence, reads:

    RESOLVED THEREFORE, that the purse strings of government with regard to funding allocations ought to/should be controlled by each and every taxpayer, real or fictitious, foreign or domestic.

    That is not economics. The fact that it deals with funding, and has economic ramifications, and/or uses some principles of economic theory as its rationale won't make it any more economics, or any less political.

    Your rationale, or argument in favor, is laid out in your "bottom line":

    Here's the bottom line. Either a group of government planners can truly know the optimal level of funding for an organization...or they can't. If you believe that they can...then you're a socialist. If you believe that they can't...then you're a pragmatarian.
    You started out with an economics-ISH assertion, followed by conclusions that are nothing but political, laden with unqualified assumptions, and as logically fallacious as they are naively simplistic.

    I assume (and correct me if I am wrong) that by 'optimal' you mean it terms of "strongly Pareto optimal allocation" (i.e., no other allocation would be both (a) as good for everyone and (b) strictly preferred by some).

    However, you completely and artificially distorted (DESTROYED even) the entire concept of Pareto optimal allocation by REQUIRING that an allocation preference be made by everyone. The option NOT TO ALLOCATE (which is another kind of allocation) is not there. You are holding a gun to someone's head as you play a warped, and decidedly statist, version of a "Would you rather" game (e.g., would you rather stub your toe and cough up blood with every step you take, or have biting spiders living in your eyeballs and intestines?). If "NEITHER" or "NONE OF THE ABOVE" is not an option, YOU CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO THINK IN TERMS OF PARETO OPTIMAL ALLOCATION.

    That is like asking, 'What is the optimal level of current and voltage (power) for an electronic circuit?'. You might as well ask, "What is the difference between a duck?", but let's roll with it anyway, so that its economics flaws and contradictions can be revealed. Continuing with the electronic circuits analogue:

    All of your 'circuits' (separate government organizations) are located in a single 'public sector' mainframe. Power is being shifted and re-channeled INTERNALLY ONLY, with NOTHING in place to determine what "optimal" is for the entire system. Your first flaw is the assumption that the sum of the power requirements of all the circuits will remain constant. The aggregate power requirement is left entirely in the hands of Congress, with a bull$#@! meaningless assurance on your part that if one or more circuits gets nothing at all, and goes without power, Congress would somehow naturally see this, and see the wisdom of decreasing the rate of consumption requirements overall (the tax rate), based on the decreased 'scope' of the mainframe.

    What you fail to see, and this is strictly economics, is that by shifting more power into one (because your proposal requires this when it forces a choice, and does nothing to allow for reduction in overall power by individual taxpayers), the argument can then be made that the increased revenue streams that were diverted to all of the lessers of all the evils choices is somehow evidence that an "optimal amount" for each has been determined. Bull$#@! in the absolute. That argument is entirely fallacious, because they too might have suffered serious reductions in power had you provided for a way to re-channel and divert power resources OUTSIDE of that system.

    We know that a choice was made for something. What we do not know is whether or to what extent the choice for NOTHING would have been made. And that information is critical to know the optimal level of funding for ANYTHING.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 10-28-2012 at 03:08 PM.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...lation_problem

    That's the reason why economies of scale can only exist up to a certain size of a firm. The argument that without "regulation" monopolies are going to dominate us is asinine exactly because of the economic calculation problem. At some size getting even bigger becomes negative for any organization. The only institution that can pull off that disadvantage is the one that funds itself by coercing against it's "costumers", the government. And even the government can't go to far with it, because full blown socialism is doomed to fail exactly because of the reasons laid out by those economists.

    While Mises focused on the inability of calculation, Hayek tried to explain the problem as a problem of the flow and distribution of information. The bigger your organization becomes and the more of a market it covers, the bigger the disadvantage of huge overhead, less creativity and arbitrarity in the pricing system is getting, and the lesser the advantage of better organization and production processes. This is especially true for entities that are not part of the free market, like governments.

  13. #71
    @Xerographica

    If I go into your house with a gun in my hand and force you to give me all your money, but, being the good person that I am, allowing you to chose whether I would spend that money on an extremely poor school I force your kids to attend, or on a brutal police force, that treats you like $#@! (and, how practical, continues this type of theft for me in the future), or on welfare programs, that do nothing but to make the poor even poorer, would you seriously consider that a function of the free market? That's just insane.

    If you are assuming that by this technique the least bad branch of government is going to be relatively better funded than the worst branch, than this might actually be true (assuming for the sake of the argument that all taxpayers have similar preferences on what's good and what's bad). But this doesn't explain why having taxation in the first place would be better than having no taxation at all.

    Also, with no government at all, or if you are a minarchist, with just as much government needed to guarantee for a functioning market place, why couldn't people freely fund organizations their products they like even better than under your desired system? What does the concept of taking some of their money coercively add? Also, how would you decide how much one must pay and what the available options are at all?

    And in regards to the "sound money" discussion, I guess you don't get the point of it. If there's still a central bank and legal tender laws, etc., what stops any branch of government that loses funds under your system (because tax payers aren't satisfied any longer) from simply issuing bonds, knowing they get bought up by their friends at the central bank at the cost of all the "money users" (inflation)?
    Last edited by Danan; 10-28-2012 at 07:08 PM.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    We know that a choice was made for something. What we do not know is whether or to what extent the choice for NOTHING would have been made. And that information is critical to know the optimal level of funding for ANYTHING.
    Quote Originally Posted by Danan View Post
    If you are assuming that by this technique the least bad branch of government is going to be relatively better funded than the worst branch, than this might actually be true (assuming for the sake of the argument that all taxpayers have similar preferences on what's good and what's bad). But this doesn't explain why having taxation in the first place would be better than having no taxation at all.
    If we got rid of taxes then the distribution of resources would be pareto optimal. Assuming, of course, that a central government is NOT the only thing that stands between us and tribalism. I am not willing to make that assumption.

    The thing is...there's absolutely no need to take that leap of faith. If getting rid of taxes is pareto optimal...then why wouldn't applying the invisible hand to the public sector lead to the pareto optimal allocation? Why would the invisible hand in the public sector lead us away from a pareto optimal solution?

    To review, if any government organization does not receive any taxes...the scope of government would narrow and the tax rate would decrease accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Danan View Post
    (assuming for the sake of the argument that all taxpayers have similar preferences on what's good and what's bad)
    It doesn't have to be "bad"...in most cases the government organization would simply just be made redundant. Or the reverse would happen and a government organization would make one or more private organizations redundant. I don't care which happens...as long as it's the outcome of taxpayers deciding how to spend their own money.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    If getting rid of taxes is pareto optimal...then why wouldn't applying the invisible hand to the public sector lead to the pareto optimal allocation?
    Let's ignore for the moment that simply getting rid of taxes makes everything pareto optimal (there's much more to it than that). The invisible hand is nothing more than the idea that markets automatically channel self-interests toward socially desirable ends. That isn't something you "apply". It is an automatic theoretical result of self-interested transactions in a free and perfectly competitive market. What you are describing sounds like you are claiming that the so-called invisible hand applies equally to government, in a public sector 'market' that is neither free nor perfectly competitive (e.g., monopolies, oligopolies, legal tender laws, debasement of the currency, etc.,), and will tend to produce ends that are also "socially desirable". I might agree, but only provided we could identify which special "societies" found it to be "desirable". Anytime you artificially choose winners and losers there will be a contingent that finds it HIGHLY desirable. That doesn't mean it is socially desirable on the whole, or to everyone.

    Why would the invisible hand in the public sector lead us away from a pareto optimal solution?
    Firstly, I don't buy that the invisible hand really is at work in the public sector under the regime you are prescribing, and for the reasons I have already stated repeatedly, but which you have not addressed.

    To review, if any government organization does not receive any taxes...the scope of government would narrow and the tax rate would decrease accordingly.
    To review? To review what? What does that mean? Is that code for "To restate the premise as if I had indeed established it as fact..."? Once again, you have made a blanket assertion without the slightest hint of an explanation as to why that assertion would be true. ZERO. NOTHING.

    The "tax rate would decrease accordingly"? HOW? BY WHOM, FOR WHAT REASON, AND BY WHAT MECHANISM? WHO, PRECISELY, WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? You have answered NONE of these questions, except to imply that Congress would somehow find it logical or something. This is completely contrary to your proposal, as you have already stated that taxes paid would only shift from one government entity to another. There is NO mechanism proposed by you that would cause the overall rate to diminish. That part you have ASSUMED, with no explanation.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    The invisible hand is nothing more than the idea that markets automatically channel self-interests toward socially desirable ends. That isn't something you "apply". It is an automatic theoretical result of self-interested transactions in a free and perfectly competitive market.
    Apply? Allow? Enable? Whatever word you want to use...we would benefit by replacing the visible hand with the invisible hand in the public sector. We'd be replacing the decisions of 538 congresspeople with the decisions of 150 million taxpayers. Now, you really want to shrug this off as if it's no big deal. Fine, if it's no big deal then let's just allow 538 congresspeople to decide how the rest of our money is spent in the private sector as well.

    Here's your argument...the invisible hand wouldn't work in the public sector because we only have a few crappy choices. Errr...you've got it backwards. We only have a few crappy choices in the public sector for the very reason that we don't allow the invisible hand to work in the public sector. The only reason we have so many choices in the private sector is because we allow the invisible hand to work in the private sector. The outcome of every socialist experiment has always been extremely limited options. In other words...socialism leads to less freedom.

    Regarding the tax rate...how is it not logical that congress would want to decrease the tax rate as the scope of government narrowed? Would it be logical for congress to increase the tax rate as the scope of government narrowed? Again, taxpayers would be responsible for funding congress. If you aren't happy with how congress is doing its job...then you wouldn't give them your taxes. If enough people did the same thing then congresspeople would be out of a job. Who wants to be out of a job?

    If taxpayers want to spend more money in the public sector then they'll have no problem with congress raising the tax rate. If, on the other hand, they want to spend more money in the private sector then they will have a big problem with congress raising the tax rate. If taxpayers have a big problem with any government organization then they'll have the freedom to withhold their taxes from that organization. Take that freedom away and it's not the invisible hand and it's not pragmatarianism.

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Here's your argument...the invisible hand wouldn't work in the public sector because we only have a few crappy choices.
    That is the best straw man argument you could erect on my behalf?

    The invisible hand wouldn't apply, not because we would only have a few crappy choices, but rather because we would be forced to make at least one choice. All these pages and you haven't gotten that yet?

    The rest of your response shows continued ignorance of what has been repeatedly addressed, as well as ignorance of how government actually works, so I'm off this carousel.


    For the record, I am very Jeffersonian when it comes to taxes. There should be no direct taxation on Citizens in the first place, and we should have reached this point long ago. And since We The Individuals are the only ones with political power, I am in favor of voting Citizens having direct control over the allocation purse strings...for taxes that are collected, but which none of them paid. In other words, stop calling Citizens taxpayers as if they were synonymous. They are not.

    The LOWLY TAXPAYER-NOT-A-CITIZEN is not our customer. The public sector IS NOT A FIRM, and those who do pay taxes (privileged entities, fictitious persons, foreigners, etc.,) would not be "purchasing" anything from the public sector beyond the privilege of existing and competing amongst us. So those foreigners and fictitious persons that do pay a tax, but don't like that this money is going to military, or to strengthen tax enforcement against them - can kiss our individual and collective asses. They are NOT buying our services. They are renting highly conditional privileges only, and as such are our servants. What we do with those fees is our concern only, and the invisible hand would exist on the Citizen demand side only. It wouldn't matter to me if they all voted to have to RENT payments from privileged entities go to the military, welfare, education, or even paid out as direct dividends to the Citizenry. That is because the Citizens, ideally, are the OWNER BENEFICIARIES, NOT THE PAYERS.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 10-29-2012 at 11:49 AM.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    The rest of your response shows continued ignorance of what has been repeatedly addressed, as well as ignorance of how government actually works, so I'm off this carousel.
    He came up with what he thought was a nifty idea, but he didn't think it through far enough. We have ideas that will do what he wants to achieve, and they actually will work; so selling the notion to us isn't panning out too well for him.

    Let him get over his denial, realize the facts, and nurse his heartbreak. He doesn't need our help for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    He came up with what he thought was a nifty idea, but he didn't think it through far enough. We have ideas that will do what he wants to achieve, and they actually will work; so selling the notion to us isn't panning out too well for him.

    Let him get over his denial, realize the facts, and nurse his heartbreak. He doesn't need our help for that.
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again."


    The spirit of the general idea is fine, I think. Several years ago I thought this through on a general level, albeit from a very different perspective. At a casual glance, the overall concept seems to have some merit...if you are the one paying the taxes, why shouldn't you have more of a say in how -- and even if -- they are paid, let alone allocated.

    There is certainly a 'tyranny of the majority' aspect to this that has never been fully addressed, politically or economically. Democracies can and often do evolve into socialistic kleptocracies -- in fully parasitic economies. Alexander Tytler spoke the truth when he wrote that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

    In its most simplistic form, if you are against either the welfare or the warfare state, why should you be forced, in a winner-controls-all political arena, to give monetary support to something that you as an individual find utterly worthless, offensive, or conscientiously objectionable? That, however, is a strictly political argument that requires no economics argument, with efficiency and 'optimal' funding levels for any government agency being an incidental effect, comparable to the invisible hand only when there is the option to withhold funding altogether.

    The invisible hand works with revenue-maximizing non-profit organizations only to the extent that they are no parasites with guaranteed public sector funding. The fact that everyone can refuse to support ANY organization in the free market is what makes the invisible hand work. With all firms, for-profit and non-profit organizations alike, NOBODY is guaranteed any funding at all. We cannot pretend that an invisible hand is at work, but only after The Very Visible Hand has forced, at gunpoint, an extraction of wealth, the only question being how a collectivized "pie", one that is guaranteed to exist, will get divvied up by competing organizations.

    Any attempt to guarantee funding to anything or anyone at all, public or private, is corruption at the foundation.

    I also have a problem with the convenient blindness on the part of economists and economic schools of thought, to politics, and especially when market participants are conflated as if they were all the same, when they are anything but--politically or economically.

    Xero talks about public sector competition for revenues, but fails to realize that most tax revenues are not "trades", or market transactions, in the usual sense. The public sector is also not a marketplace in the usual sense, any more than its organizations are 'firms' in the usual sense. That is ONLY because there are artificial economic advantages that completely defy, and can run counter to, the dynamics of natural market economics. The public sector and its organizations (including its favored or protected private arms) are not just market participants. They are also rule makers. They really can steal. They really can and do establish monopolies and oligopolies. They can erect barriers to entry for virtually anything, as they can AND ROUTINELY DO tax and regulate competing interests completely out of existence. Thus, there is no ceteris paribus involved, as NOTHING, not even itself, is equal or held constant.

    Xero also fails to realize the import of the reality that just as not all market participants are real and natural Citizens with unalienable rights, likewise not all 'taxpayers' exist and behave as such, and not all are created equal. That strikes at the heart of where the entire paradigm falls apart. Only Citizens can be said to 'own' their government. And not one of those real, natural individuals, to the extent that they exist and behave as a matter of unalienable right, and not privilege, should have ever been a source of government revenue to begin with, or insulted with the lowly label of "taxpayer".

    "...there is reasonable ground of confidence that we may now safely dispense with all the internal taxes." - Thomas Jefferson

    I believe that the public really can allocate funding more JUDICIOUSLY than can Congress. But there is another thing that Xero fails to realize, and it's a WHOPPER.

    We'd be replacing the decisions of 538 congresspeople with the decisions of 150 million taxpayers.
    Setting aside the conflation of VOTER as being synonymous with TAXPAYER (there are literally BILLIONS of 'taxpayers' to the US on the Earth):

    The reality is that 538 congresspeople are not making the decisions in the first place. Only the simple majority of them are, in all cases. The rest are NOT REPRESENTED AT ALL, in our winner-take-all allocation insanity regime. That's where the allocation purse-strings of Congress got $#@!ed up in the first place, with an invisible hand that could have existed even at that level -- HAD EACH CONGRESSIONAL ALLOCATION VOTE ACTUALLY COUNTED. That is the only thing that would make both political and economic sense, and would allow Congress to get many different things done.

    In other words, anyone can pass a proposal for funding, but that doesn't mean that it's funded yet. That's a different vote, and never winner-take-all. Thus, it wouldn't matter (IN A GIVEN YEAR) that 51% of Congress supported one thing but opposed another, while 49% held the opposite view. You would always have a horse in the race. 51% is only 51% of the funding allocation, even as 49% is allocated DIFFERENTLY. THAT would be the invisible hand finally at work, even in Congress. As it is now, there is no taxation with representation for ANY MINORITY -- and we are economically and politically polarized and MANIC as a result.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    The invisible hand wouldn't apply, not because we would only have a few crappy choices, but rather because we would be forced to make at least one choice. All these pages and you haven't gotten that yet?
    If people are hungry then they'll be forced to make at least one choice. If people are sick then they'll be forced to make at least one choice. If taxpayers want public goods then they'll be forced to make at least one choice. Even a few liberals superficially grasp this concept...Forced to Choose: Capitalism as Existentialism. Unfortunately, they don't grasp the value of choices.

    What happens if we give taxpayers the freedom to spend their taxes in the public sector? They'll be exchanging their own taxes for public goods. Will this trade be profitable? If it is...then taxpayers won't want taxes to be optional. If it's not profitable then taxpayers will feel like they are being ripped off. That's when you could get them to lobby for taxes to be optional.

    See...I think deep down you believe that taxpayers are truly getting their taxes' worth of public goods. This would explain your reluctance to allow them to do their own shopping in the public sector. Personally...I'm absolutely certain that they are not getting their taxes' worth of public goods. So why do you believe that they are getting their money's worth in the public sector?

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    He came up with what he thought was a nifty idea, but he didn't think it through far enough. We have ideas that will do what he wants to achieve, and they actually will work; so selling the notion to us isn't panning out too well for him.

    Let him get over his denial, realize the facts, and nurse his heartbreak. He doesn't need our help for that.
    Let's consider your logic: government planners can know the optimal level of funding for defense, the courts and the police...but they can't know the optimal level of funding for education, environmental protection, and public healthcare.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    If people are hungry then they'll be forced to make at least one choice. If people are sick then they'll be forced to make at least one choice.
    Xero, if you decide to hold your breath, you'll be forced to make at least one choice. That is not a profound concept. Not in the slightest. It is so obvious, in fact, that you would have to have a pathetically low IQ to consider that profound. If you hold your breath because I am forcing your head underwater, you'll also be forced to make at least one choice. That is also not a profound concept, even though the 'forced to choose' elements are not comparable to one another.

    If taxpayers want public goods then they'll be forced to make at least one choice. Even a few liberals superficially grasp this concept...Forced to Choose: Capitalism as Existentialism. Unfortunately, they don't grasp the value of choices.
    Unfortunately, contrary to your assertion, neither do you. You believe in artificially taking away the option/choice NOT to choose--TO ABSTAIN FROM CHOOSING--and you honestly believe that an ARTIFICIALLY FORCED CHOICE is somehow comparable to natural forces (like hunger, pain, etc.,) that exist already.

    Now for a concept that you might actually find so profound that you may not grasp it:

    Those particular taxpayers you mentioned, that "want public goods", so much that they are willing to pay for them, ARE NOT FORCED to choose, by definition (in that they actually WANTED, and were WILLING to pay). But those taxpayers are THE ONLY willing participants. All the rest, who you did not mention, including those WHO DO NOT WANT those public goods, AND ARE UNWILLING to pay for any of them, are actually FORCED (artificially, not naturally) to make a choice.

    Will this trade be profitable? If it is...then taxpayers won't want taxes to be optional.
    Oh, well, of course the free market works exactly like that, doesn't it? I thought that the 1st Gen iPad I bought was such a great deal that naturally I didn't want that purchase OR my next to be optional. So of course I told the Apple store that I was so happy with my purchase that if I didn't stand in line for the new model when it came out they could just levy my bank account, and send armed Apple employees over to shake me down. No head-scratcher there, because who in their right-thinking mind would ever want any transaction to be optional?!

    Are you for real?

    If it's not profitable then taxpayers will feel like they are being ripped off. That's when you could get them to lobby for taxes to be optional.
    That's where your version of the invisible hand gets absolutely downright creepy. Let's say that Charles Schwab STEALS money from my bank account and invests for it for me, for a fee. But they try to make the investment profitable, and will return profits to me if it is. If it's not profitable, am I going to feel like I'm being ripped off? NO. I was already $#@!ing ripped off!! Someone has already stolen my money and is out there taking no-risk chances with it. It does not matter if it is profitable or not, AS THE CHOICE WAS NOT MINE. That is money that I MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT have chosen to invest WITH ANYONE, let alone with Charles Schwab. I might have wanted to keep it safe; I might have wanted to blow it on a whole bunch of things that are nobody's business save me and those in the economy and my family that I CHOOSE TO BLESS.

    See...I think deep down you believe that taxpayers are truly getting their taxes' worth of public goods.
    See...I think deep down and on the surface you are off your rocker and don't know who you are talking to, what I think, or what you are even talking about, with your notion of "getting their taxes' worth".

    If I had the magic wand, all internal taxes on individual Citizens (including all invisible inflationary taxes) would disappear overnight, and the US credit cards would be cut into a trillion little pieces. INSTANTLY. Government AND BANK DEBTS would not be defaulted on, but because most are odius, they would be paid off in hyperinflated currency, caused by Thiers Law as hard currencies began VERY QUICKLY to circulate.

    Meanwhile, the unproductive HALF of the nation would go into a severe but very temporary depression, while the productive HALF would be the fastest to make hay, even in the throes of fiat currency withdrawals, now that the Public Sector Monkeys are completely off their backs and the Sound Money Sun was finally shining. The productive half would, in turn, provide private employment opportunities for the formerly unproductive half that was wondering who moved all their guaranteed Manna From SocialistFascist Parasite Heaven, and caused them to temporarily scratch $#@! with the chickens.

    Does that sound to you like someone who believes, even deep down inside, that so-called taxpayers are "getting their taxes' worth" in the public sector?

    HINT: Just so that you can orient your mind, you are not talking to a collectivist or statist from the left or the right.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 10-29-2012 at 10:11 PM.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Those particular taxpayers you mentioned, that "want public goods", so much that they are willing to pay for them, ARE NOT FORCED to choose, by definition (in that they actually WANTED, and were WILLING to pay). But those taxpayers are THE ONLY willing participants. All the rest, who you did not mention, including those WHO DO NOT WANT those public goods, AND ARE UNWILLING to pay for any of them, are actually FORCED (artificially, not naturally) to make a choice.
    Who cares about taxpayers that are unwilling to pay taxes? Why would anarcho-capitalists be your target audience? Because they sure aren't mine. My target audience are the vast majority of people that perceive taxes to be a necessary evil. I'm definitely not going to waste my time/energy trying to convince them that taxes are unnecessary. Instead, I'm going to spend my time/energy trying to convince them that they can spend their taxes better than congress can. You and I both agree with this basic concept. But rather than join forces to help people understand this basic concept...you want to convince people that taxes are unnecessary.

    Fine, this is heterogeneous activity. But from my perspective, you're wasting your time/energy. If taxes are truly unnecessary...then the blinders will be removed when taxpayers are given the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. Political Christian - blog post feedback requested
    By amyre in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-17-2011, 01:16 PM
  2. Feedback requested on how to improve a Ron Paul blog
    By KramerDSP in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-23-2009, 03:52 PM
  3. New Third Party Idea - Feedback Requested
    By phoenix1861 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-25-2008, 03:02 AM
  4. Your Feedback is Requested
    By skolwulf in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 06:00 PM
  5. Interesting new political site, feedback requested
    By FreedomFighter2008 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 11:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •