Sound Money vs Tax Choice

[Xerographica]

Part of the reason we live in a republic rather than a democracy is that people really don't want to bother with every single little detail of government. So, once again I say the way to do this is to gut the fedgov and let the states take over all those functions. Then, people can choose which package deal they prefer by moving to that state.

There's a free market for you, with no risk of certain halfway popular agencies going broke while certain very popular agencies get overfunded and become wasteful just because the money is there.

Rather than allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves which government organizations they fund or do not fund...you're just going to make that decision for all of them? This is why tax choice has a chance of being implemented...it doesn't rely on one party to determine the proper scope of government. It's not just Ron Paul or Obama or Romney deciding what's baby and what's bath water. In a pragmatarian system we'd all have the opportunity to use our own taxes to indicate which parts of the government are worth keeping. If nobody is willing to fund something with their own taxes...then clearly it should be thrown out.

The market works because we all have the opportunity to put our own money where our own mouths are. The market is the epitome of a group process. That's why we would all benefit from creating a market in the public sector.

[The Gold Standard]

Would you want to be able to choose your style of execution?

No. Are you capable of answering a question with a statement? Why would you prefer to be able to choose your rapist?

[The Gold Standard]

The market works because we all have the opportunity to put our own money where our own mouths are. The market is the epitome of a group process. That's why we would all benefit from creating a market in the public sector.

In a free market people are not forced to participate. I think you used an example that people have to buy food and you can still have a free market in food. But people don't have to buy food. They can grow it or catch it or hunt it themselves if they wish. If they do have to buy food, not everyone is forced to spend a certain amount on it. In your plan everyone is forced to surrender what they are told to, and they can choose from the options set forth by the thief. Nothing like your food example.

[Xerographica]

No. Are you capable of answering a question with a statement? Why would you prefer to be able to choose your rapist?

Because if I could pick my rapist I'd pick Jennifer Connelly. You think life is about always having a wide selection of awesome options to choose from? You think if we got rid of taxes then, magically, we're never going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Freedom is about having more options. Allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to will give them more freedom. Can we get more freedom for taxpayers? Is that possible? Is it within our reach?

If we can't persuade people that some freedom for taxpayers is good...then good luck persuading people that "total" freedom for taxpayers is the best.

[Xerographica]

In a free market people are not forced to participate. I think you used an example that people have to buy food and you can still have a free market in food. But people don't have to buy food. They can grow it or catch it or hunt it themselves if they wish. If they do have to buy food, not everyone is forced to spend a certain amount on it. In your plan everyone is forced to surrender what they are told to, and they can choose from the options set forth by the thief. Nothing like your food example.

They don't have to "buy" food...yet they have to "catch" it or "hunt" it or "grow" it themselves...if they want to survive. Biology still forces them to expend their effort/energy to procure food. You want to focus on the coercion and I want to focus on the choice. I am certain that there will be very powerful consequences of giving taxpayers the freedom to choose how they spend their taxes in the public sector.

How could there not be powerful consequences? If a private organization gives somebody more food for less effort...then why would they grow food themselves? If a private organization gives a taxpayer more for less...then why would they give their taxes to a government organization that offers less for more?

We all want more for less. What happens when we allow taxpayers to try and get more public goods for less taxes in the public sector? Who will win? The taxpayers or the government organizations? If government organizations don't give taxpayers more for less then they will go bankrupt. If a government organization does give a taxpayer more for less...then well...the taxpayer receives more for less. That's profit.

[The Gold Standard]

Because if I could pick my rapist I'd pick Jennifer Connelly.

That is not an option. Your idea is that we can't keep our money, we can just choose where the loot goes. So you could choose Jennifer Connelly to be your rapist, but she would have to strap on the same 9 inch dick that all of the other rapists you could choose from would have.

[Xerographica]

That is not an option. Your idea is that we can't keep our money, we can just choose where the loot goes. So you could choose Jennifer Connelly to be your rapist, but she would have to strap on the same 9 inch dick that all of the other rapists you could choose from would have.

I mean, if every single government organization is going to rape taxpayers with a 9 inch dildo...then why wouldn't taxpayers just withhold their taxes from the IRS. If the IRS goes bankrupt then who would force taxpayers to pay taxes?

[The Gold Standard]

I mean, if every single government organization is going to rape taxpayers with a 9 inch dildo...then why wouldn't taxpayers just withhold their taxes from the IRS. If the IRS goes bankrupt then who would force taxpayers to pay taxes?

Because they will come to your door, kick it in, and point several guns in your face. Or are you saying that in your plan you allow for people to not pay taxes at all. If so, like I said earlier, I am in favor of it.

[Xerographica]

Because they will come to your door, kick it in, and point several guns in your face. Or are you saying that in your plan you allow for people to not pay taxes at all. If so, like I said earlier, I am in favor of it.

I said that people...

1. would have to pay taxes
2. could choose which government organizations they give their taxes to

Why would taxpayers choose to give their taxes to any organization that kicks down their doors, sticks guns in their faces and rapes them with 9" dildos?

[The Gold Standard]

I said that people...

1. would have to pay taxes
2. could choose which government organizations they give their taxes to

Why would taxpayers choose to give their taxes to any organization that kicks down their doors, sticks guns in their faces and rapes them with 9" dildos?

You pay your taxes or be forced to do so at gunpoint or get thrown in a rape cage. You don't understand why people pay them? I suppose they could just resist arrest and give up their lives. Are you suggesting that is what rational people would do?

[Henry Rogue]

Xerographica I noticed you simply use the term market in a generic way, Where many use Free Market in these discussions. Do you personally make a distinction between a market and a free market? Do you make a distinction between a market and a keynesian market? I ask because I think its important in understanding the effectiveness of a market, particularly in regards to competition. Sorry i jumped threads.

[acptulsa]

I said that people...

1. would have to pay taxes
2. could choose which government organizations they give their taxes to

So, people would have to pay taxes, but not to the IRS. Yet next year, they would still have to pay taxes. And you consider this sustainable?

Why don't you explain why the more conventional plan of minimizing the federal government and letting the states compete with each other is a bad plan? Because it isn't yours?

[Xerographica]

You pay your taxes or be forced to do so at gunpoint or get thrown in a rape cage. You don't understand why people pay them? I suppose they could just resist arrest and give up their lives. Are you suggesting that is what rational people would do?

Are you arguing that random people are going to go to your house and rob you? What's that have to do with pragmatarianism? If a pragmatarianism system, if somebody went to your house to collect your taxes...it would be because it was their job to do so. They would work for a government organization...a government organization which would be funded by taxpayers. Like I mentioned, in a pragmatarian system...every government organization would be directly funded by taxpayers.

So please explain to me exactly why taxpayers would choose to give their taxes to a government organization that kicks down their doors, sticks guns in their faces, rapes them with 9" dildos, takes their money and throws them into jail where they can be raped some more. If this happens to your neighbor then will you choose to give your taxes to this government organization? Or will you just choose to give your taxes to some other government organization? Perhaps one that gives education to kids.

[acptulsa]

And the following year (follow along, here, this is important), meaning specifically, the following year, when not one person in the nation has earmarked their taxes for the IRS, what percentage of the population pays any taxes at all? And if they don't, who does something about it?

Yes, people pay taxes voluntarily. Just not a lot of people. And the third year, when two thirds of the nation paid nothing and there was no IRS to do anything about it, the rest of the nation says, I don't think I'll be a sucker again this year...

Your so-called pragmatism lacks pragmatism.

[Xerographica]

Xerographica I noticed you simply use the term market in a generic way, Where many use Free Market in these discussions. Do you personally make a distinction between a market and a free market? Do you make a distinction between a market and a keynesian market? I ask because I think its important in understanding the effectiveness of a market, particularly in regards to competition. Sorry i jumped threads.

Well...I don't think there's much of a distinction between a market and a free-market. As consumers we prefer markets with many producers and as producers we prefer markets with few other producers.

How effective would a market in the public sector be? There's only one Dept of Defense...so you'd either give it your taxes or you wouldn't. But nobody would stop somebody from starting a non-profit militia. So if you donated money to this non-profit militia than perhaps you might not give any of your taxes to the DoD. Just like if you donated money to the Red Cross you might not give any of your taxes to FEMA. That doesn't mean you'd pay less taxes...it just means that you're not going to pay a government organization to do something that a private organization does more effectively/efficiently. If FEMA or the DoD go bankrupt...then the scope of government would narrow and then tax rate would decrease. Then you would pay taxes.

There's no way for me to know what the outcome will be...I just know for a fact that everybody wants more for less. That's what drives markets.

[Xerographica]

And the following year (follow along, here, this is important), meaning specifically, the following year, when not one person in the nation has earmarked their taxes for the IRS, what percentage of the population pays any taxes at all? And if they don't, who does something about it?

Who knows? Maybe we'll discover that the only reason people were reluctant to pay taxes was because they didn't want to pay for things that they didn't value. That's kind of a no-brainer. I'm not saying that that would happen for sure...I'm just saying that most people are reluctant to pay for things that they don't see any value in.

Yes, people pay taxes voluntarily. Just not a lot of people. And the third year, when two thirds of the nation paid nothing and there was no IRS to do anything about it, the rest of the nation says, I don't think I'll be a sucker again this year...

Your so-called pragmatism lacks pragmatism.

How's it not pragmatic? If you're concerned enough that the IRS wouldn't have sufficient revenue then you'd have no problem putting your taxes where your concern was. If something else concerned you even more...then that's where you'd put your taxes instead. And the end result is that the distribution of taxes reflects our true and actual concerns as a nation. How's that not pragmatic? Should we just lie about our actual concerns? Should we not put our taxes where our mouths are? Should we send our best and brightest minds on a wild goose chase?

[acptulsa]

Should we send our best and brightest minds on a wild goose chase?

Obviously you think so, or you wouldn't be engaging in this trollfoolery.

[The Gold Standard]

Or will you just choose to give your taxes to some other government organization? Perhaps one that gives education to kids.

I don't value any government organization. What are you going to do when I don't pay any of them? And who are you going to send to do it?

[Xerographica]

I don't value any government organization. What are you going to do when I don't pay any of them? And who are you going to send to do it?

Fine, I'll admit it. You won't be any better off in a pragmatarian system. Let's switch roles now. Let's pretend that I'm a liberal voter that does not pay any taxes. Why will I be better off in your system?

[Henry Rogue]

Well...I don't think there's much of a distinction between a market and a free-market. As consumers we prefer markets with many producers and as producers we prefer markets with few other producers.

How effective would a market in the public sector be? There's only one Dept of Defense...so you'd either give it your taxes or you wouldn't. But nobody would stop somebody from starting a non-profit militia. So if you donated money to this non-profit militia than perhaps you might not give any of your taxes to the DoD. Just like if you donated money to the Red Cross you might not give any of your taxes to FEMA. That doesn't mean you'd pay less taxes...it just means that you're not going to pay a government organization to do something that a private organization does more effectively/efficiently. If FEMA or the DoD go bankrupt...then the scope of government would narrow and then tax rate would decrease. Then you would pay taxes.

There's no way for me to know what the outcome will be...I just know for a fact that everybody wants more for less. That's what drives markets.

In the defense vs militia example I'm not so sure the government will play honest. As you stated producers prefer less competition. In the private market, businesses use protectionism to gain advantage over competitors, especially new start ups and they use the government to accomplish it. Why wouldn't the government simply make it illegal in the private sector? I'm also not so sure the government would shrink. It already spends more than it takes in in taxes in most years. Limited taxes hasn't stop the gov. from expanding. Whats to stop it from deficit spending? There is also the question of unions. In your view the taxpayer is a customer, but a taxpayer can also be viewed as an employer. One that has no ability to bargain. The government is monopolizes by unions. Competition and risk in this market appears shaky at best.

[Xerographica]

In the defense vs militia example I'm not so sure the government will play honest. As you stated producers prefer less competition. In the private market businesses use protectionism to gain advantage over competitors especially new start ups and they use the government to accomplish it. Why wouldn't the government simply make it illegal in the private sector?

Because taxpayers would directly allocate their taxes. You'd directly give your taxes to the government organizations which give you the most bang for your buck. In other words...the money is in the hands of the taxpayers. Right now drugs are illegal. Pragmatarianism wouldn't change that but it would allow taxpayers to decide whether they wanted to give their taxes to the DEA. So yes, the government could ban neighborhood watches and militias...but the funding to enforce this rule would be determined by taxpayers. Wouldn't taxpayers have better things to spend their taxes on? How would stomping out non-profit militias and neighborhood watches give you the most bang for your buck?

I'm also not so sure the government would shrink. It already spends more than it takes in in taxes in most years. Limited taxes hasn't stop the gov. from expanding. Whats to stop it from deficit spending?

For most questions regarding pragmatarianism it helps to consider the non-profit sector. Generally we don't see a lot of deficit spending in the non-profit sector. Non-profits hold fundraisers when they want more money...and if they don't raise enough money to do something then they just don't do it.

Also, remember...the money is in the hands of taxpayers. If a government organization is bankrupt...are you going to bail it out?

There is also the question of unions. In your view the taxpayer is a customer, but a taxpayer can also be viewed as an employer. One that has no ability to bargain. The government is monopolizes by unions. Competition and risk in this market appears shaky at best.

In some cases the taxpayer can be considered a customer...but in other cases the taxpayer might be considered a donor...or perhaps a shareholder. Personally, I'm not a big fan of unions...but am not quite sure how they factor in. Do we see unions in the non-profit sector? All things being equal...I don't see a taxpayer giving their taxes to a government organization that has very high overhead costs...which includes above average salaries.

[The Gold Standard]

Fine, I'll admit it. You won't be any better off in a pragmatarian system. Let's switch roles now. Let's pretend that I'm a liberal voter that does not pay any taxes. Why will I be better off in your system?

Prices will go down over time, not up. The money you save will buy more in the future when you want to spend it. Free markets lead to relentless competition, which means lower prices, better quality, and an abundance of choices for the consumer. You won't be thrown in a cage if you want to grow some weed in your yard and smoke it. You won't be manhandled or worse if you want to get on a plane. You and your children won't have to worry about being sent off to police a bunch of people who hate you for killing their children. No one will be listening to your phone conversations. Need I go on?

[Steven Douglas]

People would have to pay taxes...but they would be able to withhold their taxes from every single government organization except for one. Just like you have to buy food...but you can withhold your food money from every single food supplier except for one.

The comparison with food and government services is a meaningless argument from your own premise, and fails utterly as valid analogy. The artificial need to pay taxes (for anything whatsoever) is not in any way equivalent to the natural human need for food, and the requirement to pay for that food. Even the most conspicuously consumptive humans among us require only a certain (and more importantly FINITE), amount of food to survive--a very small amount, actually. That is NOT true of taxes, and how those can be consumed, with the possibility for infinite appetite and expansion. And yet you are setting what is tantamount to a veritable feast before the morbidly obese, without any regard to its actual needs, let alone the survival needs on EITHER part of the equation (payee or recipient).

Food suppliers all have food in common. The government is NOT like that at all, and you are offering substitutions for unlike things that are COMPLETELY UNRELATED to one another, and in every conceivable way, even while forcing a choice that may or may not be based on actual market demand. You wouldn't know that without NONE OF THE ABOVE as an option. In essence, you are asking that government agencies be treated as non-profit entities, each in competition for a funding pool that is guaranteed to exist, with winners that are guaranteed even if every single one of the contestants is mindless, wasteful, worthless, and sucks $#@!.

A strong reason why your proposal has NOTHING to do with the market, free or otherwise, is that it does not include competition from, and allocations to, the actual market -- AKA THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

For example, let's say that I decide that I ONLY want to allocate funding to education. But I also DO NOT want to feed a statist beast that I see as politically compromised, and thoroughly corrupt. I want to STARVE that nasty beast, so that I can allocate my funds to private entities that truly are more competitive, offering services that I want. Do I have the option of taking my education funding and giving that to the private educational entity of my choice (for profit or otherwise)? I'm pretty sure your answer would be a resounding NO.

But let's say that public funding for education dried up anyway, because nobody liked, by and large, what the public sector was offering. The free market COULD take over from there, but not under your proposal. That is because that money is still tied up in a false choice, with substitutions that are UNRELATED. I don't have to give money to public sector education; no, I can decide to make some other public sector fat-ass even fatter instead. You have essentially tied up funds that could be allocated privately, by saying, "You don't have to give it to public education, but you do have to give that same amount to some public entity --- ON THE PUBLIC SECTOR MENU ONLY.

In a normal market, the death of any industry (for lack of "funding") is INFORMATION. Not spending on a given industry frees up funds that may, not must, be applied to another. In the free market one of those industries that may be funded instead could be the buyer himself, as he may choose not to fund ANY industry, except as a true minimum, based on his own wants and needs -- thus causing ALL INDUSTRIES to suffer by that amount.

You have a decidedly Keynesianesque view, one that places an outright PROHIBITION on savings as a market check and balance, with a certain type of market (public sector) that is guaranteed never to contract. It only morphs, and changes shape--never size. The growth and revenue of government, as well as THE REQUIREMENT BY INDIVIDUALS TO SPEND, is NEVER in question under your proposal. How dandy for the luckiest of the most successful pandering bastages in the public sector, as you ask only who among them will be the beneficiaries of funding that is guaranteed never to diminish in the aggregate. That makes the public sector an highly generalized privileged class with virtually no private sector competitors. And there's the economics argument against your proposition in a nutshell, because under your proposal, there is no such thing as anything that even approaches a perfectly competitive market, ceteris paribus.

You'll call that limited narrow "choice", with no option for "None of the Above", something akin to "more efficient allocation", when in reality it is far less efficient. The reason for that: Not everyone is buying actual things from the public sector. Foreigners, for example, are paying only for the opportunity to have the PRIVILEGE, NOT RIGHT, of competing with real individual Citizens in a market that is, strictly speaking, only THEIRS as a matter of right. Privileged entities don't get anything beyond that, cannot expect anything beyond that, and the taxes taken from them are NOT THEIRS, AND ARE NOT TAKEN FOR THEIR BENEFIT. Your proposal is really only a mechanism by which political power and influence is wielded strictly on the basis of economic influence -- WITH NO DISTINCTIONS made with regard to market participants, foreign or domestic, all of whom wield a "vote". Thus, it is not just fascist, but fascism gone global. On crack.

[Xerographica]

Prices will go down over time, not up. The money you save will buy more in the future when you want to spend it. Free markets lead to relentless competition, which means lower prices, better quality, and an abundance of choices for the consumer. You won't be thrown in a cage if you want to grow some weed in your yard and smoke it. You won't be manhandled or worse if you want to get on a plane. You and your children won't have to worry about being sent off to police a bunch of people who hate you for killing their children. No one will be listening to your phone conversations. Need I go on?

Why would free markets lead to relentless competition in the private sector but not in the public sector?

[Steven Douglas]

Why would free markets lead to relentless competition in the private sector but not in the public sector?

Because you said "...competition in...the public sector..." (meaning within that protected, "funding pool guaranteed" vacuum)

So let's rephrase that so that it really does describe a Free Market:

Free markets lead to relentless competition between all sectors, public and private -- or else it is not a free market.

[Xerographica]

But let's say that public funding for education dried up anyway, because nobody liked, by and large, what the public sector was offering. The free market COULD take over from there, but not under your proposal. That is because that money is still tied up in a false choice, with substitutions that are UNRELATED. I don't have to give money to public sector education; no, I can decide to make some other public sector fat-ass even fatter instead. You have essentially tied up funds that could be allocated privately, by saying, "You don't have to give it to public education, but you do have to give that same amount to some public entity --- ON THE PUBLIC SECTOR MENU ONLY.

This argument doesn't even make sense. The scope of government narrowed but the tax rate didn't decrease? Let's make it even more nonsensical...the scope of government narrowed and then the tax rate increases.

[Steven Douglas]

This argument doesn't even make sense. The scope of government narrowed but the tax rate didn't decrease?

Your response made absolutely no sense, as it made no reference to anything in my response. When did you ever say that as the scope of government narrows, the tax rate would decrease? And for who: for the individual, or in the aggregate?

And even if you are proposing such a thing, where is the micro-economic consideration for the scope of government as it relates to the individual and his individual market choices?

You said, "People would have to pay taxes...but they would be able to withhold their taxes from every single government organization except for one."

That means that while the overall scope of government may indeed decrease, the tax rate remained the same, while the MAGNITUDE of government funding for The Chosen Branch in fact increases, thus enlarging ITS SCOPE, when a None of the Above choice might have provided for an overall reduction in government OVERALL.

Am I missing something?

[Xerographica]

Am I missing something?

If public education is defunded by taxpayers...it means that the scope of government narrowed. The government used to do A through P...and now it does A through O. As a result...congress would decrease the tax rate. Or maybe congress would not decrease the tax rate. Taxpayers would be responsible for funding congress though...so if taxpayers were not happy with the tax rate...then they could withhold their taxes from congress until congress got the message.

Basically, the less that the government does...the stronger the case for lowering the tax rate. This would create a dilemma for taxpayers though. Would they want a larger selection of government organizations to choose from...or would they want to pay less taxes? It would depend on whether the public sector gives them more or less bang for their buck than the private sector. Whatever the eventual division of labor between the two sectors would be...this equilibrium would maximize the benefit for the country.

[Henry Rogue]

Because taxpayers would directly allocate their taxes. You'd directly give your taxes to the government organizations which give you the most bang for your buck. In other words...the money is in the hands of the taxpayers. Right now drugs are illegal. Pragmatarianism wouldn't change that but it would allow taxpayers to decide whether they wanted to give their taxes to the DEA. So yes, the government could ban neighborhood watches and militias...but the funding to enforce this rule would be determined by taxpayers. Wouldn't taxpayers have better things to spend their taxes on? How would stomping out non-profit militias and neighborhood watches give you the most bang for your buck?

I think a significant portion of people will do what there told. People are easily convinced. Think Jingoism. I see government advertise quite a bit. Still theres the problem of implementation. No easy feat. Even if you convince enough voters, there will be quite a lot of resistance from those who want to retain there power. I just read a story a woman sent to jail for committing charity.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Her-Driveway.

For most questions regarding pragmatarianism it helps to consider the non-profit sector. Generally we don't see a lot of deficit spending in the non-profit sector. Non-profits hold fundraisers when they want more money...and if they don't raise enough money to do something then they just don't do it.

I don't think that's a good analogy nonprofit organizations don't have a central bank to print money and they can't print there own. Government can and will. what's QE3 at 30 or 40 billion a month printed

Also, remember...the money is in the hands of taxpayers. If a government organization is bankrupt...are you going to bail it out?

Not all the money is in taxpayers hands. A lot is held by banks and a lot is held by other countries. I don't think those holdings are being taxed. To your question no I would not.

In some cases the taxpayer can be considered a customer...but in other cases the taxpayer might be considered a donor...or perhaps a shareholder. Personally, I'm not a big fan of unions...but am not quite sure how they factor in. Do we see unions in the non-profit sector? All things being equal...I don't see a taxpayer giving their taxes to a government organization that has very high overhead costs...which includes above average salaries.

Yes unions do exist in the private sector, but they are shrinking, alarmingly according to them. Without protectionism they dwindle, with it they become Detroit. Gov. unions are growing, alarmingly according to me. They have used threats of violence against state legislative representatives in my state decades ago to gain power. They still do today, to keep that power. They will fight you tooth and nail.

[Seraphim]

Easy;

Garunteed income streams garner complacency. It's that simple. If the income is not garunteed, people do everything they can (quality and better prices) to keep the revenue going.

If you believe otherwise you are not paying attention to the behaviors of your fellow man/woman.

Why would free markets lead to relentless competition in the private sector but not in the public sector?