Hazlitt - Public works mean taxes

[Xerographica]

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.

If you want to talk about evil, morality, principles, coercion, rape, theft, violence then you're in the wrong forum category. This is the economics category...where we talk about economics. If you want to talk about morality/religion then you should be in the philosophy category. Trust me...I hung out there for a while...those people really do not want to talk about economics.

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'.

Again, you're in the wrong category

no, you're advocating the same thing that politicians and people who fundamentally misunderstand markets have been advocating for years.

Really? Please link me to where politicians and people have advocated allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

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.

Economics is based on the idea that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Does it suck to have to choose between eating your cake and having your cake? Of course, but your choice reveals your priority and your priority influences how society's limited resources are used.

Again and again...I'm not saying that our choices in the public sector will be wonderful or awesome...I'm saying that there's incredible value in allowing taxpayers to make hard decisions with their own taxes. This is the opportunity cost concept.

[Steven Douglas]

Are organizations in the non-profit sector for-profit firms? Obviously not.

Non-sequitur. There is no requirement with non-profits that you must choose at least one, with a fixed amount that is required to be allocated at gunpoint and ear-marked for at least one entity in that sector.

You argue that not all taxpayers are equal...yet now you want to argue that all government organizations are equally shitty.

Wrong. It's entirely subjective, and except for myself on an individual level, that is not my argument to make for others, any more than I would argue that all widgets are shitty, or that all menu options in a given restaurant are shitty. Thus, your question, "...how is it possible for organizations to all be equal?" is nothing but a straw man.

If a government organization fails...will taxpayers give it more taxes?

Obviously the answer to that is yes. By force, with extreme risk of individual loss of life, liberty and/or property. Have you seen the real world and how it works?

And that's all you need to know to support pragmatarianism.

No, you have determined by fiat that a guaranteed funding prize will exist, even if the sum total of all public sector agencies are judged as failures by some. That is vital information that is not being conveyed under your hypothetical regime, which guarantees a "pie" that will be divvied by some combination of favorites, whether their share is deserved or not. That does not even approach "optimal allocation".

Again -- you are throwing the equivalent of a beauty pageant that allows for a field of contestants that may be nothing but ugly troglodytes en masse. But we would not know that for sure, would we? That is because you have guaranteed that at least one of those butt-uglies will be crowned, and will take the grand prize.

Why the forced spending? Why are the concepts of savings, budget surpluses and capital formation completely and conspicuously absent from your paradigm?

What would be wrong with each taxpayer, under your regime, having a PUBLICLY HELD TRUST ACCOUNT -- one that is established--as ALLOCATED BAILMENTS--for public sector expenditures, present or future, with no guarantees that those funds will EVER be released? That could serve an equally necessary market function, as a mechanism for taking money out of circulation, thus giving value back to currency holders (savers) everywhere. Taxes would be still be paid, with revenues collected, but NO AGENCY would get funding from any of it should an individual choose not to allocate to any of them at that time. That funding would still there, just not for the choices offered at that particular time.

Agencies would then not be part of some sham, rigged contest that rewards Most Popular Losers. For one portion of the market, they would have to keep trying to persuade individuals to authorize the release of some of whatever is in their bailment trust account. The message to all agencies would be: "Go back to the drawing board, every last piece of shit one of you. Risk some of your current funding to do a market study to find out why none of you are getting ANYTHING released from my account at this time. Do like the real market does; go get a new set of prettier troglodytes to fill the stage, or risk part of your current funds trying something else entirely, and see what my response is on an individual level."

Only if you did the above would you have something that is at least analogous and consistent with genuine market principles. As of now, you have what is tantamount to a morbidly obese inflatable blob, one that is of constant size but variable in shape only.

[Xerographica]

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

It's impossible for any two organizations to fail exactly to the same extent. So you'd have to give your taxes to the government organization that has failed the least.

By that same logic...there is one government organization that has failed more than all the other government organizations. If you and other taxpayers agree on which government organization this is...then guess what? That government organization will go bankrupt.

The idea here is for taxpayers, rather than congress, to pick the winners and losers in the public sector. Are taxpayers any good at picking winners and losers? Well...I don't think they would have any taxes to pay if they weren't.

[staerker]

It's impossible for any two organizations to fail exactly to the same extent. So you'd have to give your taxes to the government organization that has failed the least.
...
The idea here is for taxpayers, rather than congress, to pick the winners and losers in the public sector. Are taxpayers any good at picking winners and losers? Well...I don't think they would have any taxes to pay if they weren't.

Okay, I see. But how is sending my money to a government organization that is a lesser of failures more beneficial than sending it to a 'winner' in the private sector?
Because I don't want a 'loser' to be made a 'winner' at my expense.

[Steven Douglas]

It's impossible for any two organizations to fail exactly to the same extent. So you'd have to give your taxes to the government organization that has failed the least.

[Xerographica]

What would be wrong with each taxpayer, under your regime, having a PUBLICLY HELD TRUST ACCOUNT -- one that is established--as ALLOCATED BAILMENTS--for public sector expenditures, present or future, with no guarantees that those funds will EVER be released? That could serve an equally necessary market function, as a mechanism for taking money out of circulation, thus giving value back to currency holders (savers) everywhere. Taxes would be still be paid, with revenues collected, but NO AGENCY would get funding from any of it should an individual choose not to allocate to any of them at that time. That funding would still there, just not for the choices offered at that particular time.

Nothing's wrong with the idea...it's a great idea. Let me see if I'm getting it right...

Let's say that these are my present public funding options...
A. Defense
B. Public education
C. Public healthcare
D. None of the above / Publicly held trust account

If I didn't want to give my taxes to A, B or C...then I could just give my taxes to D. Nobody would be able to spend this money in the public sector and I wouldn't be able to spend it in the private sector. However, at anytime in the future...if a new government organization was created that I wanted to support...or my priorities changed...or if the effectiveness/efficiency of A, B, or C improved...then I would have the option to spend my reserved taxes in the public sector however I saw fit.

If this is your suggestion then I'm all for it. I'd love to know how many taxpayers would give their taxes to D. Would the total amount of tax revenue given to D represent 1%...10%...or 25% of the total tax revenue?

That being said...I don't think it would be something that I would necessarily "bundle" together with the pragmatarian concept. It's something that I would personally support though.

In this sense pragmatarianism is like voting. If we pretend that voting didn't exist...and I was advocating that people be allowed to vote...I wouldn't say, "we should be allowed to vote and we should vote for the legalization of marijuana". First I'd worry about being able to vote and then I'd worry about rallying people to vote for the things that I supported. Would enough voters support the idea of "option D" to make it a reality? I don't see why not.

[Xerographica]

Okay, I see. But how is sending my money to a government organization that is a lesser of failures more beneficial than sending it to a 'winner' in the private sector?
Because I don't want a 'loser' to be made a 'winner' at my expense.

Is the "winner" in the private sector doing more good than the amount of harm being done by the biggest "loser" in the public sector?

The government has been around for a long time...I'm not going to bother trying to tackle the existence of government. My goal is to help people to understand the value of having the option to withhold their taxes from the government organizations that are doing the most harm.

Few people agree with everything that the government does just like few people disagree with everything that the government does. Most people agree with some things that the government does...but they don't all agree on which things these are. This fact presents an "opportunity" that I believe has not been properly "exploited".

That's all that markets are...it's this "discovery" process.

Every year, 100 million homes pay for a bundle of cable channels. Like any bundle, it's hard to see exactly what they are paying for. That is somewhat the point of bundling -- to disguise the true cost of the constituent items. - Derek Thompson

I don't think any consumers really want to pay for cable channels that they aren't interested in. If this is true with cable channels...then how could it not be true with public goods?

[Steven Douglas]

Nothing's wrong with the idea...it's a great idea. Let me see if I'm getting it right...

Let's say that these are my present public funding options...
A. Defense
B. Public education
C. Public healthcare
D. None of the above / Publicly held trust account

If I didn't want to give my taxes to A, B or C...then I could just give my taxes to D. Nobody would be able to spend this money in the public sector and I wouldn't be able to spend it in the private sector. However, at anytime in the future...if a new government organization was created that I wanted to support...or my priorities changed...or if the effectiveness/efficiency of A, B, or C improved...then I would have the option to spend my reserved taxes in the public sector however I saw fit.

Exactly.

If this is your suggestion then I'm all for it. I'd love to know how many taxpayers would give their taxes to D. Would the total amount of tax revenue given to D represent 1%...10%...or 25% of the total tax revenue?

I am sure that you would see an immediate wholesale collapse of government agencies' budgets across the board, an increase in surplus funds, and a mad scramble by the public sector to eliminate this nuisance, which no legislator would ever sign onto in the first place.

Because funds allocated to savings could not be touched--not even for "investment" purposes, they would removed temporarily from circulation, which, ceteris paribus, would place downward pressure on prices throughout the economy, due to economy-wide monetary deflation (savers are always the spender's best friends). Public sector unemployment would be rampant, but that would be a positive thing for the overall economy, because productivity would then be based on real, not artificial or legislated, value.

As pinches are felt in various parts of the public sector, you would see massive adjustments, with funding released for some programs that really are valued by individuals.

Assuming a sound currency in a perfectly competitive free market, such a thing could be disastrous for lending institutions, at least initially, as their illusion of solvency absolutely depends upon continual artificial monetary inflation, given that the nominal value of outstanding debts extant would not adjust to the increasing scarcity/value of the currency (debtors increasingly unable to pay debts in a currency that is scarcer, and therefore more difficult to obtain due to increasing value).

That being said...I don't think it would be something that I would necessarily "bundle" together with the pragmatarian concept.

Why, specifically?

It's something that I would personally support though.

Then why not bundle it? Here's your problem. As you have it now, the fiscal tax-and-spend progressive socialist left would certainly like the aspect of a guaranteed pie that comes from a forced choice, but would oppose it overall because of the demographics involved, as most of the taxes paid (read=votes cast) are from the middle class and wealthier private sector (not to mention objections that would arise about the power of tax "votes" paid in and "cast" by foreigners and foreign corporations). The public sector entitlement recipients in the more progressive socialist base of voters could well see their entitlements dwindle to nothing, as they cast their own "voting" pennies into a magic fountain, expecting dollars to flow back their way.

The fiscally conservative right wouldn't support such a system for the only reason that the left might be in favor of it, and that's because it is a guaranteed, over-bloated source of funding that does nothing to cut the overall tax rate that you've essentially guaranteed in the aggregate. Let's say that choices A-F are passed over, and all funding goes to G. According to your logic, that massive windfall for G would represent "optimal" funding for G. It must be optimal, as the fallacious logic would go, because that's what everyone "chose" to allocate to them, under color of "freely" even.

By adding in the element I suggested, you would indeed put a crucial free market principle into play, and you might even assure the solvency of the government, once all the waste and fat was eliminated. But in so doing you would also completely eliminate any possibility of support from either of the two major parties, which form an A-Frame of mutual support for the banking and finance industries, each for their own political reasons. There are just too many on the take, with favorable legislation and artificial economic advantages doled out, both public and private.

[mohassan]

Economics is based on the idea that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Does it suck to have to choose between eating your cake and having your cake? Of course, but your choice reveals your priority and your priority influences how society's limited resources are used.

Again and again...I'm not saying that our choices in the public sector will be wonderful or awesome...I'm saying that there's incredible value in allowing taxpayers to make hard decisions with their own taxes. This is the opportunity cost concept.

You acknowledge that people's priorities influence how limited resources are used. By that same token why can't you acknowledge that any taxation distorts the choices/REAL PRIORITIES, therefore resources wasted? This distortion affects value of goods, it raises prices of certain goods, that shouldn't rise in normal market conditions.

You welcome the idea of allowing tax payers to place their money into a fund, and wait until the government proposes a good project they are happy to pay for. Why do you have to take their money? Why not take their money when they DO want to contribute?

[Henry Rogue]

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.
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?
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.

You're good, I can see you have been doing this for a long time. The study of economics is a new endeavor of mine, which is obvious to you. I was trying to put a lot of things in that post in a short time, so it looked like rambling even to me. When you get right down to it economics is a social interaction between two to all people. That is determined by human behavior, for a lack of a better word. Am I wrong? Now we have this other interaction between an authority group and a subordinate group which is also determined by human behavior by both groups. With your grasp of economics you are confident of the market. Are you equally confident of your understanding of the authoritative/subordinate interaction? You can't say the same behaviors apply or it would already act as a market and there would be no need for Pragmatarianism. Now on a personal level its obvious to me that you do not view taxes as theft nor believe in a necessity to reduce them. Only to make them more efficient. It's surprising you allocate time to RPF a Forum named after a Man who has a sign on his desk that states "Don't steal the government hates competition." You maybe surprised that there are a lot of Constitutionalist and Libertarians, small government people on this forum who don't think income tax is necessary and some don't believe a police force is necessary and they have the history of the United States as proof. I think you would have great luck on a republican forum. However i have learned some things, so post away.