Hazlitt - Public works mean taxes

[Xerographica]

Probably shouldn't lump liberals under the libertarian umbrella either since they're commu-fascist socialist, unless you mean Classical Liberalism.

It's a continuum. Liberals and libertarians both believe that the government should supply at least three public goods...defense, the courts and police...



Our objective should be to help people understand why it's impossible for congress (government planners) to know the optimal level of funding that any organization should receive.

Why is it impossible? Because if it were possible...then we wouldn't need markets. Markets work because all our spending decisions determine exactly how much funding an organization should receive. Therefore, the problem with the public sector is that taxpayers are not the ones making the spending decisions...a small group of government planners are making the spending decisions for them.

So rather than trying to argue over whether something should...or shouldn't be...a public good...we should simply argue that taxpayers be given the option to directly allocate their taxes. This will force the opposition to come up with new counter arguments.

We've been attacking liberals from the same exact direction for the past 300 years...so they've built up their fortifications accordingly. It's time we attack from a completely new direction. What arguments will they make to defend congress? Will they argue that congress is so superior? Will they argue that taxpayers are too stupid?

[Xerographica]

what an interesting, and completely ridiculous phrase given the context in which you use it.

Actually, the term "tax choice" wasn't my idea...I came up with "pragmatarianism".

choice implies the ability to make ones own decision. you are not promoting a true 'choice', as your options are very fixed and very limited. choice would imply i could pay the taxes, not pay the taxes, pay only a portion, pay the full amount with reservations, or any other number of things of my own volition.

Errr...and you're exceptional because...you want more choices? Who doesn't want more choices? Markets work because we have the freedom to reward the organizations that offer new and better options.

Right now we have a command economy in the public sector. Yet, here you are making the argument that we would have a small selection of crappy options to choose from. Errr...yeah...that's because we have a command economy in the public sector...which is why I'm arguing that we should create a market in the public sector.

what you're really promoting is some sort of 'tax preference' in which YOU decided my options ahead of time, and I am forced to agree with one of them.

I'm advocating that we create a market in the public sector. If you don't believe that doing so will have extremely beneficial consequences...then clearly you don't understand how markets work. That's a fundamental problem which pragmatarianism helps to expose.

[Steven Douglas]

If Mr. Baker is not happy with the return on his tax investment...

There you go again. Earth to Xero: Tax revenues are not investments in the usual sense of the word, the State is not a for-profit firm, and not all taxpayers are created equal.

If taxpayers are allowed forced to shop for themselves in the public sector...and they all feel like they are getting ripped off...then what happens?

Fixed it for you again. Change that so that it really is a case of being "allowed" (READ=OPTIONAL), and the rest of your question can be answered simply, using free market principles. If any one taxpayer (it most certainly does not have to be "all of them") feels like they are not getting any bang for their tax buck, they'll take their "shopping" business elsewhere. That is because no sector in any truly free market, public or private, would enjoy any legislated funding guarantees in the aggregate.

[Steven Douglas]

...it's impossible for congress (government planners) to know the optimal level of funding that any organization or organizations in the aggregate, should receive.

Fixed it for you again, as you seemed to have left out the most important part.

[Steven Douglas]

Markets work because we have the freedom to reward the organizations that offer new and better options...

...and to withhold any rewards at all in the aggregate. If the entire market is a stinking pile of rotten value-sucking bullshit, that's OK. The free market works because we can exercise another very important market principle called Private Capital Formation (including the all-important SAVINGS); a process whereby we may actually become one of those organizations that offers new and better options to the market.

[Xerographica]

There you go again. Earth to Xero: Tax revenues are not investments in the usual sense of the word, the State is not a for-profit firm, and not all taxpayers are created equal.

Are organizations in the non-profit sector for-profit firms? Obviously not. And obviously not all taxpayers are created equal. No two people use society's limited resources in exactly the same way.

Fixed it for you again. Change that so that it really is a case of being "allowed" (READ=OPTIONAL), and the rest of your question can be answered simply, using free market principles. If any one taxpayer (it most certainly does not have to be "all of them") feels like they are not getting any bang for their tax buck, they'll take their "shopping" business elsewhere. That is because no sector in any truly free market, public or private, would enjoy any legislated funding guarantees in the aggregate.

If taxpayers don't have to pay taxes then that is the same thing as anarcho-capitalism. I want people to have a new and better option...pragmatarianism.

...and to withhold any rewards at all in the aggregate. If the entire market is a stinking pile of rotten value-sucking bullshit, that's OK. The free market works because we can exercise another very important market principle called Private Capital Formation (including the all-important SAVINGS); a process whereby we may actually become one of those organizations that offers new and better options to the market.

You argue that not all taxpayers are equal...yet now you want to argue that all government organizations are equally shitty. All organizations...be they for-profit or non-profit...are simply a collection of people working together to solve agreed upon problems. If people aren't all equal...then how is it possible for organizations to all be equal?

For this is the salient point: private organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit, perform or lose their customers or their donors. When a private entity fails to deliver on its promise, or actually causes harm, it is held liable for the failure and pays the damages. When government fails, it gets a bigger budget and even more power.- Mary L. G. Theroux

If a government organization fails...will taxpayers give it more taxes? Obviously not. And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. – Milton Friedman

Will a market in the public sector weed out failures? Of course...because that's what markets do. Nobody would choose to pay for failure...you know why? Because everybody wants to pay for results. And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

[Henry Rogue]

LL Something is amiss if you can't fully include Conservatism into your circle jerk. While the republican form of conservatism may hold some free economic similarities to Libertarianism. The republican form of conservatism's social mandate mates with progressivism. They may have different agendas, but their solutions are the same. People calling themselves liberal, idea of Freedom of Choice is the choices they choose to allow. I see little difference between liberals, fascist, communist, socialist, and progressives. You included Anarchism, but left out Totalitarianism. Why because nobody calls themself a totalitarianist? Anarchism is as fanciful as Totalitarianism. It can not exist. At the very least An-caps have Principles that follow to a conclusion. By the way where does Pragmatarianism fit in the circle jerk? I don't see it. To paraphrase Dr. Paul at some point Economic Freedom became divorced of Social Freedom. Perhaps in prehistory the value of Dundar's number averaged to 150 people. Perhaps the perfect size of governance. Society expanded from this small number through markets, perhaps free ones and aggression of the controlling type. The elegance of the Free Market evolved from the social interaction of Humanity. Likewise the desire to control and manipulate others derives itself from our inherent inhumanity. Think of it as the good and evil on your shoulders. You think the solution is to inject the market into government. If markets are the answer would they have already done so naturally? A merger of Markets and government already exist, only its government that has injected itself into the market. They are both part of our humanity, but they are not alike, they are opposites. I guess anything can make sense when viewed in a bubble.

[VBRonPaulFan]

I came up with "pragmatarianism".

there is a more common, colloquial term for what you call 'pragmatarianism' - the 'status quo'. you would rather men falter from their principles in the sake of 'doing something' than fighting against the evil of coercion and violence. i have very little faith that your 'pragmatarianism' will take root here.

Yet, here you are making the argument that we would have a small selection of crappy options to choose from. Errr...yeah...that's because we have a command economy in the public sector...which is why I'm arguing that we should create a market in the public sector.

i have made no such argument. i simply stated the ludicrousness of your claim. if I were to make an argument, it would be that there should be no 'public sector' at all, because the only way it can exist in the first place is through coercion and theft, and truly free markets are devoid of such concepts as much as possible. those things should definitely not be 'baked' into the system fundamentally as a matter of 'that's just the way it is'.

I'm advocating that we create a market in the public sector. If you don't believe that doing so will have extremely beneficial consequences...then clearly you don't understand how markets work. That's a fundamental problem which pragmatarianism helps to expose.

no, you're advocating the same thing that politicians and people who fundamentally misunderstand markets have been advocating for years. if we steal just a *little* more wealth from this group or that group, to target this pet project or that pet project, the people will benefit tremendously! i didn't buy it when it was said before - i still don't buy it from you. just because i get to target where my stolen wealth goes does not make your system any better. it is like saying things are so much better under your system because now i get to pick which of the toes on my right foot i will have cut off, versus before when one would be cut off arbitrarily by someone elses decision.

[Xerographica]

LL Something is amiss if you can't fully include Conservatism into your circle jerk. While the republican form of conservatism may hold some free economic similarities to Libertarianism. The republican form of conservatism's social mandate mates with progressivism. They may have different agendas, but their solutions are the same. People calling themselves liberal, idea of Freedom of Choice is the choices they choose to allow. I see little difference between liberals, fascist, communist, socialist, and progressives. You included Anarchism, but left out Totalitarianism. Why because nobody calls themself a totalitarianist? Anarchism is as fanciful as Totalitarianism. It can not exist. At the very least An-caps have Principles that follow to a conclusion. By the way where does Pragmatarianism fit in the circle jerk? I don't see it.

Concepts such as conservatism or liberalism are simply "shortcuts" we use. The technical term is heuristic. But if taxpayers were allowed to directly allocate their taxes...do you think they would be concerned about spending their taxes according to popular stereotypes? For example...if you and I happened to be grocery shopping at the same time...then what are the chances we'd purchase exactly the same items?

That's why pragmatarianism doesn't fit into the circle jerk...it's a completely different paradigm. It doesn't offer an answer regarding what the government should or shouldn't do...it offers a means of finding an answer. We'd shop for ourselves in the public sector and all our spending decisions would reveal the proper scope of government.

To paraphrase Dr. Paul at some point Economic Freedom became divorced of Social Freedom. Perhaps in prehistory the value of Dundar's number averaged to 150 people. Perhaps the perfect size of governance. Society expanded from this small number through markets, perhaps free ones and aggression of the controlling type. The elegance of the Free Market evolved from the social interaction of Humanity. Likewise the desire to control and manipulate others derives itself from our inherent inhumanity. Think of it as the good and evil on your shoulders. You think the solution is to inject the market into government. If markets are the answer would they have already done so naturally?

But modern economic theory is...well...modern. Adam Smith is primarily responsible for introducing the idea of the invisible hand. And the idea of introducing the invisible hand to the government is extremely new. This...here...us...is the market. We decide whether we inject the market into the government. If we decide to do so then it will be accomplished via democratic means. Is that considered naturally?

A merger of Markets and government already exist, only its government that has injected itself into the market. They are both part of our humanity, but they are not alike, they are opposites. I guess anything can make sense when viewed in a bubble.

Pragmatarianism is simply a more effective way of guiding the government. Directly allocating your taxes would be optional. Why would people choose this option? They would do so if they believed that our government was guiding the country in the "wrong" direction.

[staerker]

If a government organization fails...will taxpayers give it more taxes? Obviously not. And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

Will a market in the public sector weed out failures? Of course...because that's what markets do. Nobody would choose to pay for failure...you know why? Because everybody wants to pay for results. And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

Would I be allowed to not pay taxes if I determined that all of the available government organizations have failed?