My War vs Your Money!

[Xerographica]

Yes, this thread is about my favorite topic and I really sympathize with you if you're over it already. All my life I've been listening to the same "less government vs more government" debate so I really know how you feel. Except, the debate between Republicans and Democrats has been going on now for the past 100 years...while the tax choice debate hasn't even really started.

...seeming to claim that this is a major historic moment and that what we are going to see is almost a permanent national commitment towards limited government. Um, I'm skeptical, and I'd like you to perhaps review what you think, Mr. Bell, since Mr. Tapscott is gone, is the key evidence that proves that a corner has been turned. And the reason that I am asking...the reason why I am skeptical is that you could look at Teixeira and Judis thesis, I think it was around 2005, when they were predicting a permanent progressive majority. You can look at some articles in 2003 after the first Bush mid term election arguing that there is a permanent Republican majority. You can go back all the way to 1912 when Taft drove out the progressives from the Republican Party and see that pro-limited government...pro-state activist government have been going at it all this time for almost 100 years now and it seems that one side periodically gains the upper hand and then the other side periodically gains the upper hand and each side, when they periodically gain the upper hand, claims a permanent victory. You can see these claims often. And then they go down in flames. So I'm wondering why you think that at this time the conservative limited government movement has won after 100 years of this and that the progressive state activist side has lost. - Tea Party Movement and Government discussion on C-Span

At the heart of every war is a law. We all want laws...except for perhaps a few anarchists. The problem with the current system is that people are forced to fund laws that they do not value. This violates the basic rule of economics. Yet, when we suffer the inevitable economic consequences of violating the basic rule of economics...we mistakenly believe that the solution is to throw the bums out. So the Democrats and the Republicans have passed the White House back and forth for the past 100 years. And voters? They are none the wiser.

That's why I'm here.

I saw a man pursuing the horizon;
Round and round they sped.
I was disturbed at this;
I accosted the man.
"It is futile," I said,
"You can never — "

"You lie," he cried,
And ran on. - Stephen Crane

If you want a war, any war, then you have to be willing to put your money where your mouth is. Why? Because that's honesty. Economics is just like a computer...it operates on the garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) concept. GIGO "is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data ("garbage in") and produce nonsensical output ("garbage out")". If we input lies into economics then the output will be an abundance of garbage. This is exactly why taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

Here's a short and simple survey.

If taxpayers could choose where their taxes go...

1. would the war on terror receive...
A. more funding?
B. less funding?
C. the same amount of funding?

2. would the war on drugs receive...
A. more funding?
B. less funding?
C. the same amount of funding?

3. would the war on poverty receive...
A. more funding?
B. less funding?
C. the same amount of funding?

What is pragmatarianism? It's the war on economic ignorance. Is it worth it for you to help me fight this war? Is it worth it for you to help people understand the basic relationship between scarcity and choice?

Your time is scarce and here you are with a choice. You can make my war your war or you can continue fighting your own war.

4. Do you value having this choice?
A. Yes
B. No

[Zephie]

cbba

[Xerographica]

cbba

I was about to tell you that it should be illegal to use acronyms that aren't listed in the urban dictionary. Then I realized that those were your survey answers. *sigh* Sometimes I'm not the swiftest cookie in the tool shed.

[Saruhan]

cbaa

[Vetalia]

One question before I answer is: what happens to a surplus of money for a given program and/or unallocated funds?

[Conserative Morality]

The problem with the current system is that people are forced to fund laws that they do not value.

I'm sorry, I think you meant 'The best part of'

[Williamson]

bbaa

[Xerographica]

One question before I answer is: what happens to a surplus of money for a given program and/or unallocated funds?

Taxpayers would be able to allocate their taxes at anytime throughout the year and each government organization would have a fundraising progress bar on its website.

If a government organization has reached its fundraising goal...then it's doubtful that taxpayers will derive much value in giving the organization more money. This is the economic concept of diminishing returns.

[Mavorpen]

At the heart of every war is a law. We all want laws...except for perhaps a few anarchists. The problem with the current system is that people are forced to fund laws that they do not value. This violates the basic rule of economics.

That's the POINT. Government exists to solve collective action problems, problems that CANNOT be solved by the market. Collective Action problem occur when individual incentives are not compatible with group advancement.

[TaQud]

1.c
2.b
3.c
4.a...

[Xerographica]

At the heart of every war is a law. We all want laws...except for perhaps a few anarchists. The problem with the current system is that people are forced to fund laws that they do not value. This violates the basic rule of economics.

That's the POINT. Government exists to solve collective action problems, problems that CANNOT be solved by the market. Collective Action problem occur when individual incentives are not compatible with group advancement.

Governments exist because people believed that rulers/emperors/kings had divine authority. Governments continue to exist because of the possibility of the free-rider problem. The free-rider problem is solved by forcing people to pay taxes. Once we force people to pay taxes then there's no reason for them to "lie" about their values. They wouldn't have the option to spend their taxes on a new TV rather than on protecting the environment. Their options would be to fund...

A. environmental protection
B. public education
C. public healthcare
D. the war on terror
E. the war on poverty
F. the war on drugs
G. and so on

They would have many public goods to choose from and only a limited amount of taxes to spend. Here we see the relationship between scarcity and choice. We can understand this relationship and understand economics...or we can ignore this relationship and impede progress.

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

[Mavorpen]

Governments exist because people believed that rulers/emperors/kings had divine authority.

Bullshit. Divine Right wasn't even a concept when the first governments were formed. It even says so in your source.

The remote origins of the theory are rooted in the medieval idea that God had bestowed earthly power on the king, just as God had given spiritual power and authority to the church, centering on the pope.

Governments continue to exist because of the possibility of the free-rider problem. The free-rider problem is solved by forcing people to pay taxes. Once we force people to pay taxes then there's no reason for them to "lie" about their values. They wouldn't have the option to spend their taxes on a new TV rather than on protecting the environment. Their options would be to fund...

A. environmental protection
B. public education
C. public healthcare
D. the war on terror
E. the war on poverty
F. the war on drugs
G. and so on

No, governments exist because, yet again, markets have shown themselves to do a shitty job at solving collective action problems.

[Xerographica]

Bullshit. Divine Right wasn't even a concept when the first governments were formed. It even says so in your source.

So offer some examples of ancient governments whose rulers/emperors/kings did not use religion to justify their authority. The separation of church and state is an extremely modern concept...

Ancient history is replete with examples of the mixing and melding of Church and state. Typically a successful ruler or king would assume various "priestly" titles, in addition to the "temporal" titles that such a position tended to confer. Some examples of this certain Church-state mixing and melding are: the execution of Socrates, whereby Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian state for among other things, "his disrespect for the gods", the claim of many of the ancient Judean kings to rule with a mandate from Heaven, or the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby Nicene Christianity was made the state church of the Roman Empire.

No, governments exist because, yet again, markets have shown themselves to do a shitty job at solving collective action problems.

Were the pyramids an example of a collective action problem? Is herding cats an example of a collective action problem? Is putting a man on the moon an example of a collective action problem? Is building a great wall between America and Mexico an example of a collective action problem? Is curing cancer an example of a collective action problem? Is funding WWIII an example of a collective action problem?

In a pragmatarian system...voters would decide what should be considered a collective action problem and taxpayers would use their own taxes to indicate which government organizations were truly effective at solving our most pressing collective action problems. Where's the problem?

[Vazeckta]

Most people would probably give bbaa, I would give bbba.

[Mavorpen]

So offer some examples of ancient governments whose rulers/emperors/kings did not use religion to justify their authority. The separation of church and state is an extremely modern concept...

Straw man. Divine right has nothing to do with religion in politics or involved with government. Divine Right can exist WITHOUT a church involvement with the government and WITHOUT the government establishing a formal church or showing preference of one religion.

Were the pyramids an example of a collective action problem? Is herding cats an example of a collective action problem? Is putting a man on the moon an example of a collective action problem? Is building a great wall between America and Mexico an example of a collective action problem? Is curing cancer an example of a collective action problem? Is funding WWIII an example of a collective action problem?

Yes.

In a pragmatarian system...voters would decide what should be considered a collective action problem and taxpayers would use their own taxes to indicate which government organizations were truly effective at solving our most pressing collective action problems. Where's the problem?

Because it shows blatant ignorance of the functioning of government.

[Neu Leonstein]

The problem with the current system is that people are forced to fund laws that they do not value. This violates the basic rule of economics.

There is no such "basic rule of economics".

Economics is just like a computer...

What? Economics is the science of analysing how people make/should make resource allocation decisions, and the consequences of those decisions. It is not a computer.

I told you the problem with your tax allocation theory before, and rather than reply, you left and told me to reply to you on Ron Paul's forums. I will do no such thing - I will only ask you to stop referring to economics as though it supports your idea. We know that in providing public goods individual incentives do not align to produce a socially-optimal level of production - yet you ignore this and instead treat all government services as though they were tradeable services with a market price. As I told you before, there are some things the government does that could be traded and provided in a market, and those things I agree could be handled through a tax choice type system.* But the major programs done by the state, including defense, many types of infrastructure, legal and policing services, and potentially even unemployment benefits or basic healthcare services, cannot be funded on a voluntary basis.

*And even that is then a political choice, which economics can and should inform, but still includes other considerations.

[Ifreann]

That's why I'm here.

I would have thought that something like blogspot would serve you better.

[Avenio]

That's why I'm here.

I would have thought that something like blogspot would serve you better.

Not even Blogspot could contain the ineffable truth that is tax choice. In time, the whole internet will know of his grand quest. And, in knowing, will drown in J.S. Mill quotes.

[Ifreann]

I would have thought that something like blogspot would serve you better.

Not even Blogspot could not contain the ineffable truth that is tax choice.

I'll be damned...

In time, the whole internet will know of his grand quest. And, in knowing, will drown in J.S. Mill quotes.

Only the dead can know peace from this crusade.

[Vetalia]

Not even Blogspot could not contain the ineffable truth that is tax choice. In time, the whole internet will know of his grand quest. And, in knowing, will drown in J.S. Mill quotes.

The concept of donations to government agencies being tax deductible doesn't make a whole lot of sense...for virtually everybody, by the time you've filed your tax return the government's already spent the money you paid in so to take advantage of it you'd have to write the government a check and then claim it against your tax return, basically paying the same tax twice.

The return itself is really just a reconciliation form to arrive at the proper amount of tax owed for that period.

[Xerographica]

Economics is just like a computer...

What? Economics is the science of analysing how people make/should make resource allocation decisions, and the consequences of those decisions. It is not a computer.

It is like a computer. We input our choices and the output is a certain distribution of resources. People choose to buy watermelons and this shifts the necessary resources to the production of watermelons. What would happen if all us watermelon lovers pretended that we didn't enjoy watermelons and we stopped purchasing them? Farmers would stop growing watermelons and they would grow another crop instead. Garbage in, garbage out. If we input lies into the computer then the output will be lies.

It's just like Monty Python's Holy Grail. You know the part where the bridge keeper asks three questions? Yeah, economics is just like that. If we input our true values then the output will be products/services that we truly value. If we don't have the freedom to input our true values...then the output will be pyramids.

I told you the problem with your tax allocation theory before, and rather than reply, you left and told me to reply to you on Ron Paul's forums.

LOL...I bravely ran away? "Rather than reply?" Errr...my thread was locked...but I posted my reply in this thread...which was then quickly locked. I linked you to my reply and mentioned that if you wanted to reply then you were welcome to either do so on my blog or on the Ron Paul forum.

I will do no such thing - I will only ask you to stop referring to economics as though it supports your idea.

I will do no such thing - because unless you prove otherwise, economics does support tax choice.

We know that in providing public goods individual incentives do not align to produce a socially-optimal level of production - yet you ignore this and instead treat all government services as though they were tradeable services with a market price. As I told you before, there are some things the government does that could be traded and provided in a market, and those things I agree could be handled through a tax choice type system.* But the major programs done by the state, including defense, many types of infrastructure, legal and policing services, and potentially even unemployment benefits or basic healthcare services, cannot be funded on a voluntary basis.

Not sure if you're doing it intentionally or not...but you have pragmatarianism confused with anarcho-capitalism. Pragmatarianism is all about ceteris paribus. The only thing it changes is that it gives taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes. That's it. Do prices need to be put on every single public good in order for this to work? Obviously not...that's ridiculous. That's like arguing that prices need to be put on all the goods and services supplied by non-profits in order for the market to work in the non-profit sector.

Here's the real kicker...

I think the idea that any normal person doesn't understand opportunity cost is pretty silly. If I buy a ticket for a movie, I can't buy food with the same money. Don't think we need the OP to explain this to anyone (with bible passages, no less).

First you argue that it's silly to say that any "normal" person doesn't understand the opportunity cost concept. Yet, here you are arguing that my argument is that we need to place prices on public goods for the market to work in the public sector. What am I to think? The only logical conclusion is that you don't truly understand the opportunity cost concept.

If I spend my taxes on public education, I can't support public healthcare with the same money. That's the opportunity cost concept. That's the basic relationship between scarcity and choice. We use massive amounts of information and make a decision that reveals our true values at that moment in time. Even something as simple as purchasing a watermelon uses heaps and heaps of information to help us decide whether the expenditure is worth the risk. Our opportunity cost decisions, and the mountains of information that goes into them, are what we need to input into the "computer" in order for the output to be the public goods that are most likely to benefit our society as a whole. In order to make this happen we just need to give taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes.

Logistically speaking, at anytime throughout the year you could go to the EPA website and submit a tax payment. They'd give you a receipt and you'd submit all your receipts to the IRS by April 15.

The problem with the current system is that people are forced to fund laws that they do not value. This violates the basic rule of economics.

There is no such "basic rule of economics".

Paying for things that you do not want, need or value doesn't violate a basic rule of economics? What about the fact that everybody wants the most bang for their buck? Is that a basic rule of economics? What about everybody wanting more for less? I'm pretty sure that's a basic rule of economics...but you're really welcome to prove me wrong. Just paypal me $5,000 and then I'll paypal you $5.

What will happen if taxpayers are given the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector? Well...if you fail to understand that economics has a very basic and universal rule...then you won't want to find out. But if you do understand the basic rule of economics...if you understand the value seeking process...if you understand why markets are far superior to command economies...then I shouldn't have to tell you what will happen if taxpayers are given the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector.

[Martean]

BBAA (Spain)

[Xerographica]

Because it shows blatant ignorance of the functioning of government.

The government is supposed to succeed where the market fails. But without our spending decisions the idea of government success is meaningless. Did the Egyptian government successfully use Egypt's limited resources to build pyramids? Well yeah...no doubt. But was that truly the most socially beneficial use of their limited resources? If the Egyptian taxpayers had been given a choice, I really don't think that they would have spent their taxes on building the pyramids.

[Mavorpen]

Because it shows blatant ignorance of the functioning of government.

The government is supposed to succeed where the market fails. But without our spending decisions the idea of government success is meaningless. Did the Egyptian government successfully use Egypt's limited resources to build pyramids? Well yeah...no doubt. But was that truly the most socially beneficial use of their limited resources? If the Egyptian taxpayers had been given a choice, I really don't think that they would have spent their taxes on building the pyramids.

...What? The Egyptian workers were voluntarily building the pyramids.

[SaintB]

If people could choose where their tax money got spent we'd all be fucked.