Are you confident in congress's competence?

[Xerographica]

If there was no IRS, there would be no EPA or DoD. If the IRS exists at all, they always take more money, not less.

Eh? If taxpayers gave the IRS less funding... then the IRS would employ less agents.

In a pragmatarian system... taxpayers would be in charge of funding. Funding for congress, the IRS, the president, the supreme court, the EPA, the DOD, the DMV and every other government organization/department/agency would be entirely determined by taxpayers.

Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector. Taxpayers would choose which public goods they put into their shopping carts.

How many taxpayers are going to put the IRS in their shopping cart? Many? Some? None? Would the IRS receive more, the same, or less funding than it currently receives?

Right now you complain about the government. You say that the government victimizes taxpayers by stealing their money. The government is the villain in your story.

But in a pragmatarian system... if there was a villain in your story... then it would be taxpayers. The taxpayers would be the villain in your story. Specifically... whichever taxpayers chose to help fund the IRS.

If your neighbor helped fund the IRS... then he would be the villain.

You: Hey Bob, how's it going? Who'd you give your taxes to this year?
Bob: The IRS
You: What the $#@! Bob? Why would you do that?
Bob: Because I don't trust you
You: What?!
Bob: Yeah, I don't think you would voluntarily pay for public goods
You: Oh yeah?! Well... $#@! you Bob!
Bob: $#@! you too!

Well.... that didn't go so well. Right now you can encourage people to boycott the IRS... but most people don't want to end up in jail. But in a pragmatarian system people could boycott the IRS without going to jail. So you would just need to convince people to boycott the IRS. How hard could that be?

You: Hey Bob, how's it going? Who'd you give your taxes to this year?
Bob: The IRS
You: Oh, didn't you know the IRS is unnecessary?
Bob: Really?
You: Yeah, here's why...
Bob: Wow! That's good to know! I'm never again going to give money to the IRS!
You: That's great! Hey, we should have a BBQ some time!
Bob: Yeah!

Right now there's this thing called rational ignorance. It's a real thing. People aren't going to make much effort to try and learn something if they can't benefit from what they learn.

Me: See that big mountain?
You: Yeah?
Me: The winning lottery number is at the top
You: WOW! How come you're not racing to the top of the mountain?
Me: Because it's impossible to use the numbers
You: How's it impossible to use the numbers?
Me: Just trust me... it's impossible

Let's say that you spend all your time studying the EPA. If you learn that the EPA is defective... it's not like you can give the EPA less of your tax dollars. And if you learn that the EPA is effective... then you can't give the EPA more of your tax dollars. Therefore, it wouldn't be rational to spend all your time studying the EPA. Instead, it would be rational to be ignorant about the EPA.

Allowing people to choose where their taxes go would eliminate rational ignorance. Taxpayers would really want to do their homework in order to try and avoid having their hard-earned cash flushed down the toilet.

This means that, in a pragmatarian system, your neighbor Bob would be a lot more receptive and interested in any information that might help him avoid wasting his hard-earned money.

[Occam's Banana]

If there was no IRS, there would be no EPA or DoD. If the IRS exists at all, they always take more money, not less.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Gold Standard again.

Under so-called "pragmatarianism," if tax payers don't "choose" to spend taxes on the IRS, then there can be no tax collection ...

... and if there is no tax collection, then there can be no tax revenue ...

... and if there is no tax revenue, then there can be no tax spending ...

... and if there is no tax spending, then what is the point of allowing tax payers to "choose" what taxes will spent on ... ???

This is just one more example of the numerous circularities and inconsistencies that pervade "pragmatarianism."

(It really doesn't seem terribly "pragmatic," does it?)

[Xerographica]

I did not "run away" from anything ("bravely" or otherwise ).

Of course you did. If you ever manage to use words like "shortage" and "surplus" and "public good" and "demand" and "supply" then maybe you'll be actually addressing my argument rather than simply bravely running away.

The difference between Bill Gates being allowed to keep all his money and then spend it as and how he pleases (or not at all), on the one hand, and Bill Gates being forcibly robbed of his money and then allowed to choose how his stolen money is spent from among an arbitrarily limited slate of options, on the other hand, are entirely different things. The economic dynamics, incentives, etc. involved in each of those scenarios are profoundly divergent, and you DO NOT get to pretend that the only difference between them is (as you are pleased to say) "the elimination of the mere label of 'taxpayer' ..." But of course, if you actually acknowledged those incommensurable differences - which are fundamental, essential, critical and dispositive - then your entire case for so-called "pragmatarianism" would collapse, and "pragmatarianism" would be fully exposed for the fraudulent shell-game and diversionary placebo that it really is.

Are you assuming that, in a pragmatarian system, Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS?

A. Bill Gates would choose not to help fund the IRS. Clearly Gates does not appreciate being robbed. The question is... is he the rule... or the exception?

B. Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS. Clearly Gates appreciates being robbed. The same question... is he the rule... or the exception?

It matters whether Bill Gates is the exception or the rule because if most taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then... well... you have your work cut out for you. But if only a few taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then the majority of taxpayers aren't going to stand for being subjected to tyranny of the minority.

[Occam's Banana]

Of course you did. If you ever manage to use words like "shortage" and "surplus" and "public good" and "demand" and "supply" then maybe you'll be actually addressing my argument rather than simply bravely running away.

You have no argument.

Invoke as much jargon as you like, but all you have is a hodge-podge of circular, contradictory and/or obfuscatory verbiage.

("If you can't dazzle them brilliance, baffle them with bull$#@!.")

The following is a perfect example:

Are you assuming that, in a pragmatarian system, Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS?

A. Bill Gates would choose not to help fund the IRS. Clearly Gates does not appreciate being robbed. The question is... is he the rule... or the exception?

B. Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS. Clearly Gates appreciates being robbed. The same question... is he the rule... or the exception?

It matters whether Bill Gates is the exception or the rule because if most taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then... well... you have your work cut out for you. But if only a few taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then the majority of taxpayers aren't going to stand for being subjected to tyranny of the minority.

None of this does anything but question-beggingly restate and rephrase the very assertions and assumptions that are at issue.

It does nothing at all to actually address the deceitful equivocation that lies at the foundation of so-called "pragmatarianism."

Unless and until you eliminate that equivocation, you have no business complaining about people who won't waste time arguing with you.

(But of course, as I noted before, eliminating that equivocation would destroy "pragmatarianism" ...)

[osan]

Imagine if you needed brain surgery.

Oh would that I could... for that would mean I had a brain.

Would you ever seriously consider conducting the surgery yourself? I think that most of us would choose to leave brain surgery to the brain surgeons. There's little doubt that brain surgeons are uniquely and supremely qualified to conduct brain surgery. Therefore, we put our brains in their hands.

Why do I sense a bitter logical fallacy on the immediate horizon?

Now imagine that you had the option to spend your taxes yourself

Now imagine not having to pay taxes. That's the ticket.

Would you ever seriously consider choosing where your taxes go?

You'd better bet your ass I would.

Or, would you choose to leave tax allocation to your elected representatives?

Surely this is not a serious question.

Right?

Do you think that congresspeople are uniquely and supremely qualified to spend your taxes?

Either you are supremely head-$#@!ed, or your sense of humor is becoming burdensomely tedious.

Would you choose to put your taxes in their hands?

I'd sooner leave my testicles in their hands... and I'd never leave my testicles in their hands.

Nobody, that I know of, debates whether people should have the option to conduct brain surgery on themselves. But ask somebody whether people should have the option to spend their taxes themselves and you might end up in a pretty big debate. Why is that?

Because there is no equivalence between the two scenarios. They are utterly unrelated for reasons that I hope are glaringly obvious to you.

How many people would choose to shop for themselves in the public sector? What percentage of the purse would they control? Maybe 50%? Taxpayers would spend half of the public funds themselves and congress would spend the other half?

Have you taken up smoking meth? These questions are inane. As if that were not bad enough, they are fraught with a vague, dripping innuendo that smacks of something ridiculous or obscene... perhaps ridiculously obscene or obscenely ridiculous.

Would people who wanted to shop for themselves in the public sector be more conservative? Or liberal? Rich... or poor? Educated... or uneducated? Would professionals shop for themselves or have congress shop for them? Would brain surgeons choose to put their taxes into the hands of congress like congress chooses to put their brains into the hands of brain surgeons?

Forgive me, but this is just stupid. How about you make your point directly, rather than through the innuendo of irrelevant questions? Honestly, this is irritating.

<SNIP>

In a pragmatarian system there would be two main ways for the people to indicate that a politician is supremely and uniquely qualified to spend their taxes...

Still on about that pragmatarian nonsense? Sweet Jesus.

1. People could give the politician their vote
2. People could give the politician their taxes

Wow... you get to choose how to be an irrelevant slave. Where do I sign up?

If you trust the first way, then how could you possibly distrust the second way?

And if you don't trust the first way, then you should really want to have the option to directly allocate your taxes. It would be the only way to keep your hard-earned taxes out of incompetent hands.

Nobody wants to put their brain into incompetent hands. Why would it be any different with taxes? It seems pretty straightforward that giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes would be the best way to minimize the amount of taxes that end up in incompetent hands.

I'd come here expecting something worth discussing and found this. I want my money back.

[The Gold Standard]

Eh? If taxpayers gave the IRS less funding... then the IRS would employ less agents.

What don't you understand? The taxpayers don't give the IRS anything. They take it. By force. If you resist, they lock you in a cage. If you resist that, they kill you. If the taxpayers gave the IRS less funding, many would be dead. If you can tell me how to get around that problem, then I can promise you no government program would ever get another penny from me, regardless of what you call the system.

[Xerographica]

What don't you understand? The taxpayers don't give the IRS anything. They take it. By force. If you resist, they lock you in a cage. If you resist that, they kill you. If the taxpayers gave the IRS less funding, many would be dead. If you can tell me how to get around that problem, then I can promise you no government program would ever get another penny from me, regardless of what you call the system.

This thread is about pragmatarianism. It's in the economics category. Of course you're welcome to talk about whatever you want in this thread. But I just want to be clear that whatever you're talking about isn't related to the topic of this thread or the category that it's in.

Personally, I prefer to talk about pragmatarianism. Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector. I really love markets. Markets are wonderful. Markets are the opposite of socialism. I really hate command economies.

Right now I'm debating a socialist in this thread. We go back and forth and back and forth. He thinks that it would be a stupid idea to create a market in the public sector. He thinks that government planners do a far better job than taxpayers could.

I suppose I could simply accuse him of being immoral. But that would be a pretty short discussion. I could say "taxes are theft" and he would reply "you're wrong". It just doesn't seem like it would be a very productive discussion.

Have you ever had a productive discussion with a socialist? Or do you just mainly talk with other anarcho-capitalists?

[The Gold Standard]

Have you ever had a productive discussion with a socialist? Or do you just mainly talk with other anarcho-capitalists?

I don't have productive discussions with anyone, least of all you.

A market in the "public sector" is not a market. It is no different than socialism. If participation is not voluntary, but forced at gunpoint, then prices are meaningless, and so is your market.

[erowe1]

If we can't choose where our taxes go... then it means that congress chooses for us.

On the other hand, if we can choose where our taxes go, they're not taxes.

Also, your sylogism is invalid. You say:

Therefore... it would seem that members of this forum are confident in congress's competence.

But it's not the case that incompetence is what makes Congress bad. Incompetence is perhaps Congress's one redeeming quality.

[oyarde]

No.

I concur .

[heavenlyboy34]

On the other hand, if we can choose where our taxes go, they're not taxes.

Also, your sylogism is invalid. You say:


But it's not the case that incompetence is what makes Congress bad. Incompetence is perhaps Congress's one redeeming quality.

HA!! I submit this for RPF quote of the day. Well played, comrade.

[Xerographica]

But it's not the case that incompetence is what makes Congress bad. Incompetence is perhaps Congress's one redeeming quality.

Every major war that's ever been fought has been the result of the incompetence of one or more governments.

What's the demand for defense? You don't know. None of us do. And it's this opacity which allows congress to get away with saying that the supply of defense reflects, rather than subverts, the true will of the people.

[erowe1]

Every major war that's ever been fought has been the result of the incompetence of one or more governments.

I doubt that.

What's the demand for defense? You don't know. None of us do. And it's this opacity which allows congress to get away with saying that the supply of defense reflects, rather than subverts, the true will of the people.

No. This opacity is why we need to leave it to the free market. No central manager, not even one following the votes of a direct democracy, could ever replicate the compounded wisdom of hundreds of millions of people acting in their own interest with their own knowledge of what's best for them in their own circumstances. That's what the second Amendment is for.

What should the federal government spend on so-called defense? Nothing. Let us all keep our money and spend it on defense ourselves however we see fit.

[The Gold Standard]

What's the demand for defense? You don't know. None of us do.

And you will never know unless people spend their own money on defense at private providers, sacrificing voluntary purchases of other services to purchase defense. Telling the thieves that stole their money they would rather it be spent on the military than go directly into their bank account or go to the EPA is not a reflection of the demand for defense, or anything.

[Occam's Banana]

I already replied to this in post #34 - but I think it bears repeating, with some elaboration:

The difference between Bill Gates being allowed to keep all his money and then spend it as and how he pleases (or not at all), on the one hand, and Bill Gates being forcibly robbed of his money and then allowed to choose how his stolen money is spent from among an arbitrarily limited slate of options, on the other hand, are entirely different things. The economic dynamics, incentives, etc. involved in each of those scenarios are profoundly divergent, and you DO NOT get to pretend that the only difference between them is (as you are pleased to say) "the elimination of the mere label of 'taxpayer' ..." But of course, if you actually acknowledged those incommensurable differences - which are fundamental, essential, critical and dispositive - then your entire case for so-called "pragmatarianism" would collapse, and "pragmatarianism" would be fully exposed for the fraudulent shell-game and diversionary placebo that it really is.

Are you assuming that, in a pragmatarian system, Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS?

A. Bill Gates would choose not to help fund the IRS. Clearly Gates does not appreciate being robbed. The question is... is he the rule... or the exception?

B. Bill Gates would choose to help fund the IRS. Clearly Gates appreciates being robbed. The same question... is he the rule... or the exception?

It matters whether Bill Gates is the exception or the rule because if most taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then... well... you have your work cut out for you. But if only a few taxpayers appreciate being robbed... then the majority of taxpayers aren't going to stand for being subjected to tyranny of the minority.

Note that not a single word of Xerographica's reply to me addressed (let alone rebutted) anything I said. None of his reply did anything but question-beggingly reembody and rephrase the very assertions and assumptions that are at issue. His entire reply is nothing but a "shuck and jive" evasion of what I said.

Specifically, note that right off the bat, he bizarrely and irrelevantly starts talking about what I may have assumed might happen under a (so-called) "pragmatarian" system - and then he proceeds from there, exclusive of any other concern. He completely ignores the whole point of what I said - namely, that his "pragmatarian" system is derived upon the illegitimately equivocal pretense that "taxation with an arbitrarily limited set of choices for how taxed money will be spent" is somehow economically commensurable with "no taxation with an unlimited set of choices for how untaxed money will be spent (including the choice not to spend it)".

In other words: He did nothing at all to mitigate the deceitful equivocation that lies at the foundation of so-called "pragmatarianism" - and unless and until he eliminates that equivocation, he has no business complaining about people like me who won't waste time arguing with him about the alleged virtues and desirability of "pragmatarianism." (But of course, as I noted at the end of the bit he quoted from me, eliminating that equivocation would destroy "pragmatarianism.")

In other other words: "Pragmatarianism" is nothing more than an elaborate and pseudo-sophisticated facade for what is, at root, just a "bait and switch" scam ...

[Sola_Fide]

Do you agree with the following?

No, I don't. It assumes what it has to prove.

[Xerographica]

No. This opacity is why we need to leave it to the free market. No central manager, not even one following the votes of a direct democracy, could ever replicate the compounded wisdom of hundreds of millions of people acting in their own interest with their own knowledge of what's best for them in their own circumstances. That's what the second Amendment is for.

It really sounds like you love and appreciate the market... which is a breath of fresh air. But... I'm not sure if you truly do love and appreciate the market.

The question that we're all debating is whether taxation should be compulsory.

For nearly all of you the answer is a resounding "NO!!!!"

For congress the answer is a clear and definitive "Yes!"

For me, the only pragmatarian on this forum, the answer is "What's the market's answer?"

1. Should taxation be compulsory?

Anarcho-capitalists: No!!!!
Congress: Yes!
Market: ???

What's the market's answer? We don't know. Why don't we know? Because we don't have a market in the public sector. If we did have a market in the public sector then each and every taxpayer would be able to answer the question for themselves with their own taxes. That's how a market works. A market is the epitome of inclusive valuation. This is why markets provide the most valuable answers.

For some reason you aren't very interested in knowing the market's answer. It's as if you suspect that the market's answer will differ from your own. Evidently you think that the market's answer will be "yes".... or even "YES"... or maybe even "YES YES YES YES!!!!!!"

Should I trust your answer or the market's answer? Given that I love and trust the market.... I prefer to trust the market's answer. This definitely does not mean that I'll agree with the market's answer. It just means that it would be the epitome of hubris and conceit to try and bypass, skip or override the market's answer. In other words... it's the epitome of hubris and conceit to choose for millions of other people. Choosing for millions of other people is exactly what happens in a command economy. I hate command economies.

If we create a market in the public sector and taxpayers overwhelming boycott the IRS and congress... then so be it. The market has spoken. But I'm open to the possibility that the market will say something else. I'm a pragmatarian because I'm very interested in what the market has to say.

You seem to love and trust the market... but you don't seem very interested in creating a market in the public sector. So I don't think that you genuinely love the market. In other words, you're not a pragmatarian.

Engage in some soul searching. Decide whether or not you truly love and trust the market.

[erowe1]

1. Should taxation be compulsory?

Anarcho-capitalists: No!!!!
Congress: Yes!
Market: ???

What's the market's answer? We don't know. Why don't we know?

We do too know the market's answer. The market's answer is no. If you don't know that, I'm not sure why you don't. There's really no excuse.

If we create a market in the public sector...

If we create a market in anything at all, it's not the public sector any more.

Tell me, as a pragmatarian, when you want to allow people to decide how their taxes will be allocated, does that include the option of saying, "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?

[Xerographica]

We do too know the market's answer. The market's answer is no. If you don't know that, I'm not sure why you don't. There's really no excuse.

How do you know that the market's answer is "no" when people don't have the freedom to boycott the IRS?

Tell me, as a pragmatarian, when you want to allow people to decide how their taxes will be allocated, does that include the option of saying, "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?

Boycotting IRS = "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?

[The Gold Standard]

How do you know that the market's answer is "no" when people don't have the freedom to boycott the IRS?



Boycotting IRS = "I'll just keep my money, give none of it to the state in taxes, and allocate it on things other than the options you're giving me."?

So people can decide to withhold everything from the government? Then sure. I don't give a $#@! if you want to send your money to them. I don't see what's so special about this pragmatarian nonsense then. No, I'm not going to read about it. No, I don't care. If government is completely voluntary and has no authority over people that don't participate, then I don't care how you want to arrange it. I won't be involved.

[Xerographica]

So people can decide to withhold everything from the government?

No. People can decide to withhold everything from the IRS.

[The Gold Standard]

No. People can decide to withhold everything from the IRS.

Then what you are proposing is not a market of any kind.

[Xerographica]

Then what you are proposing is not a market of any kind.

With the current system... the IRS's budget is around $11 billion dollars. What do you think the IRS's budget would be if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go?

[Sola_Fide]

With the current system... the IRS's budget is around $11 billion dollars. What do you think the IRS's budget would be if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go?

The same or maybe more. Because government agencies can't be trusted, and money is fungible, no matter where the money is sent, all the worst coercive elements of government will still be funded.

[Xerographica]

The same or maybe more. Because government agencies can't be trusted, and money is fungible, no matter where the money is sent, all the worst coercive elements of government will still be funded.

Money is fungible... therefore... PETA gives money to the NRA?

[Sola_Fide]

Money is fungible... therefore... PETA gives money to the NRA?

PETA and the NRA are generally opposed to one another. What government agencies are opposed to each other? Plus, those are organizations that are voluntary. Government is coercive.

[The Gold Standard]

With the current system... the IRS's budget is around $11 billion dollars. What do you think the IRS's budget would be if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go?

Who the $#@! cares? It would be lining some bureaucrats pocket or killing someone somewhere, no matter where taxpayers choose to send it.

[Xerographica]

PETA and the NRA are generally opposed to one another. What government agencies are opposed to each other? Plus, those are organizations that are voluntary. Government is coercive.

The Marines and Army are opposed to each other. The DoD is opposed to the EPA and vice versa. The EPA is opposed to... Republicans.

Right now congress has the money. Congress controls the purse... which means that congress has the power.

But if consumers had the freedom to choose where their taxes go... then consumers would control the purse.... which would give them the power.

Here... read some Rothbard...

There are two and only two ways of acquiring wealth: the economic means (voluntary production and exchange) and the political means (confiscation by coercion). On the free market only the economic means can be used, and consequently everyone earns only what other individuals in society are willing to pay his services. As long as this continues, there is no separate process called "distribution"; there is only production and exchange of goods. Let government subsidies enter the scene, however, and the situation changes. Now the political means to wealth become available. On the free market, wealth is only a resultant of voluntary choices of all individuals and the extent to which men serve each other. But the possibility of government subsidy permits a change: it opens the way to an allocation of wealth in accordance with the ability of a person or group to gain control of the State apparatus.

Government subsidy creates a separate distribution process (not "redistribution" as some would be tempted to say). For the first time, earnings are severed from production and exchange and become separately determined. To the extent that this distribution occurs, therefore, the allocation of earnings is distorted away from efficient service to consumers. ...

It is obvious that production and general living standards are lowered in two ways: (1) by the diversion of energy from production to politics, and (2) by the fact that government inevitably burdens the producers with the incubus of an inefficient, privileged group. The inefficient achieve a legal claim to ride herd on the efficient. This is all the more true since those who succeed in any occupation will inevitably tend to be those who are best at it. Those who succeed on the free market, in economic life, will therefore be those most adept at production and at serving their fellowmen; those who succeed in the political struggle will be those most adept at employing coercion and winning favors from the wielders of coercion. Generally, different people will be adept at these different tasks, in accordance with universal specialization and the division of labor, and hence the shackling of one set of people will be done for the benefit of another set.

Once consumers can choose where their taxes go... then they will want to be served. And if the DMV or NASA fails to serve consumers then they will boycott the DMV and NASA and the IRS.

[Occam's Banana]

Here... read some Rothbard...

As a general rule, I don't initiate neg-reps - but you've earned one here for slandering Murray Rothbard by invoking him in defense of your fatuous nonsense.

You are truly delusional if you actually think that "pragmatarianism" is anything but yet another variant of the "political means" that Rothbard was criticizing.

Rothbard would think "pragmatarianism" is ludicrous - and assuming he'd even be willing to waste his time on it, he'd tear it apart for the double-talking con job it is.

[Xerographica]

As a general rule, I don't initiate neg-reps - but you've earned one here for slandering Murray Rothbard by invoking him in defense of your fatuous nonsense.

You are truly delusional if you actually think that "pragmatarianism" is anything but yet another variant of the "political means" that Rothbard was criticizing.

Rothbard would think "pragmatarianism" is ludicrous - and assuming he'd even be willing to waste his time on it, he'd tear it apart for the double-talking con job it is.

Here's Rothbard...

And what of those individuals who dislike the collective goods, pacifists who are morally outraged at defensive violence, environmentalists who worry over a dam destroying snail darters, and so on? In short, what of those persons who find other people's good their "bad?" Far from being free riders receiving external benefits, they are yoked to absorbing psychic harm from the supply of these goods. - Murray Rothbard, The Myth of Neutral Taxation

And here's a slice from a recent article on tax choice...

Along similar lines, should civil libertarians have to contribute to the NSA budget? Should pacifists be forced to buy drones and bombs? Should Occupy Wall Street types have to finance bank bailouts? Should drug war opponents pay to shut down medical marijuana growers? Should Black Lives Matter activists fund the Pentagon's 1033 program, paying to funnel military equipment to the police departments they want to demilitarize? - Bonnie Kristian, How to fix America's broken tax system: Let taxpayers decide where their money goes

Why would Rothbard have thought that pragmatarianism is ludicrous? Rothbard was completely correct that the fundamental problem with government is the complete absence of consumer choice. Pragmatarianism would solve this problem by giving taxpayers the freedom to choose where their taxes go. Pacifists would no longer have to pay for violence... environmentalists would no longer have to pay for the destruction of natural habitats... libertarians would no longer have to pay the NSA... liberals would no longer have to pay for bank bailouts... drug war opponents would no longer have to pay for the drug war... and so on.

Unfortunately for both of us... Rothbard isn't around today. But I'm sure you know and respect some people who follow in his tradition and are around today. Go ahead and ask any of them... such as Bob Murphy or Tom Woods... to publicly critique pragmatarianism. See... unlike yourself... they are actually familiar with Rothbard's work. Which is why they won't publicly critique pragmatarianism.

The only anarcho-capitalists who have no problem attacking pragmatarianism are those who are completely clueless about economics*. Rothbard most definitely was not clueless about economics. He had an excellent grasp of economics. I love reading his work and I frequently share it on my blog. It's really great stuff! Unfortunately... what Rothbard got really wrong was the solution to the problem of government. He wanted to destroy the government. He was willing to push a button that would have instantly annihilated the government. Can he be blamed for failing to see the real solution to the problem of government? Of course not! We're all fallible. We all have limited perspectives. Nobody has a perfect grasp on reality. Which is part of the reason that markets work infinitely better than command economies do.

Of course I might be wrong. If you're still certain that I'm wrong... then just go ask Bob Murphy or Tom Woods or any other respectable anarcho-capitalist to publicly explain in adequate detail why I'm wrong. As it stands... they have yet to do so. And the longer they avoid doing so... the more certain I become that I'm on the right track.

*So far the only credible anarcho-capitalist who has critiqued pragmatarianism is David Friedman. This is the extent of his critique...

I don't think that letting taxpayers allocate their taxes among options provided by the government solves the fundamental problems of government.

Unfortunately, he didn't elaborate. But from my perspective... and Rothbard's perspective... the fundamental problem with government is the absence of consumer choice. Which clearly would be solved by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. And once taxpayers can choose where their taxes go... the options provided by government will quickly diversify to reflect the diverse preferences of taxpayers. If enough taxpayers prefer for taxes to be voluntary... then this option will be provided soon enough. Markets work because producers have an incentive to cater to the preferences of consumers.

Right now government officials can get rich by cheating. A congressperson does some favors for the military industrial complex. In return... they give him an extremely well compensated position after he leaves public office.

But in a pragmatarian system... we'll have "rockstars" in the public sector just like we have "rockstars" in the private sector. J.K. Rowling is an example of a rockstar. She got stupid rich by effectively serving millions of people. In a pragmatarian system... if somebody in the public sector cures cancer for example... then taxpayers are going to want to give this person a lot of their tax dollars. This person will quickly become a rockstar. The potential to be a rockstar in the public sector will provide producers of public goods the maximum incentive to cater to the interests of taxpayers.

So the only thing wrong with the government is the absence of consumer choice. The simple solution is to add consumer choice to the government by giving taxpayers the freedom to choose where their taxes go.