The Demand For Defense?

[Xerographica]

Of course lobbying has something to do with defense spending, and I'll be the first to argue defense spending is out of control, but in the wake of 9/11, and with war looming on the horizon, people were scared. They demanded war (not that Bush needed much convincing). Wars cost money, and since individually you are no worse off if your $10,000 goes to DoD than the EPA, it would seem logical to allocate your money to the DoD. This facilitates your ends - namely, getting the bastard responsible.

So yes - they would logically conclude the military needs more money to perform the task set before it, and would allocate more money to it. Since there's no collaboration in your system, rather than a balanced increase, we would likely see a massive yo-yo effect.

Stealth bombers in January, not enough bullets by December.

Here's what you wrote in the thread on slavery...

Then you would probably be invaded once there was insufficient defense supplied to actually supply a sufficient amount of national defense to maintain your sovereignty. Then the critically low level of supply would come back to bite you in the ass.

Even if you are personally a pacifist, you still need some level of national defense. If you refuse to pay for it because you're a pacifist, it will be undersupplied, and you will not have sufficient power to maintain your pacifist lifestyle.

Were pacifists scared after 9/11? Did they demand war? No? Yet, you've argued that they should be forced to pay for defense or else it will be undersupplied.

What do you mean there's no collaboration in my system? There will certainly be transparency and people will be able to directly allocate their taxes to the DoD at anytime throughout the year. Everybody would clearly be able to see exactly how much money the DoD has received. It would be prominently displayed on their website.

Incidentally - I'm not sure how the DoD was to blame for the failures leading up to 9/11. There were failures - don't get me wrong - at both the CIA and FBI, but neither of those is part of the DoD. At the time, each was its own agency (They've since been reorganized under the Dept of Homeland Security - which the DoD is still not part of).

If you ask any two experts it's doubtful that they'd perfectly agree regarding the cause/solution. Yet, in your mind, everybody would have rushed to give the DoD more than enough money. Well... except for the pacifists. The pacifists would have been the only people in America who believed that war wasn't the answer. Does that sound right to you? If the experts didn't agree... then why do you expect that taxpayers would have agreed? Maybe taxpayers would all trust the same expert? All taxpayers trusted Bush? Like all taxpayers now trust Obama?

Inquiring minds would also like to know, how did your micropayments forum go?

I still need to make some programming adjustments.

[Galloism]

Of course lobbying has something to do with defense spending, and I'll be the first to argue defense spending is out of control, but in the wake of 9/11, and with war looming on the horizon, people were scared. They demanded war (not that Bush needed much convincing). Wars cost money, and since individually you are no worse off if your $10,000 goes to DoD than the EPA, it would seem logical to allocate your money to the DoD. This facilitates your ends - namely, getting the bastard responsible.

So yes - they would logically conclude the military needs more money to perform the task set before it, and would allocate more money to it. Since there's no collaboration in your system, rather than a balanced increase, we would likely see a massive yo-yo effect.

Stealth bombers in January, not enough bullets by December.

Here's what you wrote in the thread on slavery...

Then you would probably be invaded once there was insufficient defense supplied to actually supply a sufficient amount of national defense to maintain your sovereignty. Then the critically low level of supply would come back to bite you in the ass.

Even if you are personally a pacifist, you still need some level of national defense. If you refuse to pay for it because you're a pacifist, it will be undersupplied, and you will not have sufficient power to maintain your pacifist lifestyle.

Were pacifists scared after 9/11? Did they demand war? No? Yet, you've argued that they should be forced to pay for defense or else it will be undersupplied.

Yes - in times of not-immediate national crisis, it will be undersupplied, because people do not see the need for maintenance by and large - they think in the here and now instead.

In times of national crisis, it will be oversupplied, because people tend to overreact to such crises.

Therefore, at different times, in different circumstances, it may be undersupplied or oversupplied, because the public at large has no idea what proper amounts of supply are. That requires access to classified information, which we cannot distribute at large or it's no longer classified.

What do you mean there's no collaboration in my system? There will certainly be transparency and people will be able to directly allocate their taxes to the DoD at anytime throughout the year. Everybody would clearly be able to see exactly how much money the DoD has received. It would be prominently displayed on their website.

Except there's an information delay. Even IF you presume people are going to spend the 8-12 hours per day necessary researching and absorbing the information necessary to make an informed decision about the proper amount of defense spending, it will cause a yo-yo effect as the public at large suddenly pours in money to the DoD, then realizes it's too large, then backs it out, causing it to be undersupplied, then rush back, causing it to be oversupplied again, etc etc etc.

It will cause funding to yo-yo like crazy, so the military can never start construction of an aircraft carrier without being unsure of whether they are able to complete it, and if they drop a billion dollars into an aircraft carrier and then have to abandon it because funding dips, that's a billion dollars of waste that wouldn't have happened with the board of directors being able to design the entity's budget in a stable way.

Incidentally - I'm not sure how the DoD was to blame for the failures leading up to 9/11. There were failures - don't get me wrong - at both the CIA and FBI, but neither of those is part of the DoD. At the time, each was its own agency (They've since been reorganized under the Dept of Homeland Security - which the DoD is still not part of).

If you ask any two experts it's doubtful that they'd perfectly agree regarding the cause/solution. Yet, in your mind, everybody would have rushed to give the DoD more than enough money. Well... except for the pacifists. The pacifists would have been the only people in America who believed that war wasn't the answer. Does that sound right to you? If the experts didn't agree... then why do you expect that taxpayers would have agreed? Maybe taxpayers would all trust the same expert? All taxpayers trusted Bush? Like all taxpayers now trust Obama?

I haven't heard any experts blame the DoD for 9/11. It's really not their department to analyze domestic intelligence - in fact, it's illegal for them to do so. Perhaps you'd care to link to some?

Inquiring minds would also like to know, how did your micropayments forum go?

I still need to make some programming adjustments.

Haven't you been working on that since April?

[Val Halla]

I highly recommend it, Galloism. It's a good read, like Atlas Shrugged.

Ew. Don't even use those two words together in the same post, much less right next to each other.

Don't say "Don't read Atlas Shrugged"?

[Galloism]

Ew. Don't even use those two words together in the same post, much less right next to each other.

Don't say "Don't read Atlas Shrugged"?

It's kinda like saying Baba Yaga.

[Xerographica]

Yes - in times of not-immediate national crisis, it will be undersupplied, because people do not see the need for maintenance by and large - they think in the here and now instead.

Everybody thinks in the here and now? Does everybody you know think in the here and now? None of your friends or family ever went to college? Nobody you know ever gives up momentary pleasure for future benefit?

In times of national crisis, it will be oversupplied, because people tend to overreact to such crises.

Taxpayers are taxpayers because they make hasty, emotional, irrational and uninformed decisions? Taxpayers are taxpayers because they make bad investments? So people who make good investments don't earn enough money to pay income taxes? Or perhaps nobody ever makes good investments? Everybody's equally bad at allocating resources? Everybody's equally irrational? No wonder you don't mind repressing difference... you think people are all alike!

Therefore, at different times, in different circumstances, it may be undersupplied or oversupplied, because the public at large has no idea what proper amounts of supply are. That requires access to classified information, which we cannot distribute at large or it's no longer classified.

Why wouldn't congresspeople tell the public what the proper amount of defense was? As I've explained to you numerous times before... congress would still be there. They would still have the same access to classified information. Maybe you're under the impression that the public wouldn't trust the people that they elected?

Except there's an information delay. Even IF you presume people are going to spend the 8-12 hours per day necessary researching and absorbing the information necessary to make an informed decision about the proper amount of defense spending, it will cause a yo-yo effect as the public at large suddenly pours in money to the DoD, then realizes it's too large, then backs it out, causing it to be undersupplied, then rush back, causing it to be oversupplied again, etc etc etc.

Right now you're assuming a huge flux in defense funding. But in order for this huge flux to occur... you're also assuming that the public at large would spend their taxes themselves rather than have their congresspeople spend their taxes for them. In other words, you're assuming that the public wouldn't trust their elected representatives. Why are you assuming this? How can you possibly assume this when you're arguing that people shouldn't have a choice whether or not their congresspeople spend their taxes for them?

Does the public, at large, perceive congresspeople to be trustworthy? Figure out your answer and stick to it. If your answer is "yes"... then you really shouldn't be worried about huge fluxes occurring because most people will choose to have congresspeople allocate their taxes. If your answer is "no"... then you really shouldn't be defending a system that allows untrustworthy people to spend everybody's taxes.

I haven't heard any experts blame the DoD for 9/11. It's really not their department to analyze domestic intelligence - in fact, it's illegal for them to do so. Perhaps you'd care to link to some?

I'm pretty sure that Osama wasn't an American. Pretty sure. I'm also pretty sure that he declared war on America. You'd figure that war being declared on America would fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. Like maybe the Pentagon would have a list of all the foreign entities that have declared war on America.

Inquiring minds would also like to know, how did your micropayments forum go?

I still need to make some programming adjustments.

Haven't you been working on that since April?

I've been procrastinating since April. Well... I always have more projects than time.

[Galloism]

Why wouldn't congresspeople tell the public what the proper amount of defense was? As I've explained to you numerous times before... congress would still be there. They would still have the same access to classified information. Maybe you're under the impression that the public wouldn't trust the people that they elected?

Except there's an information delay. Even IF you presume people are going to spend the 8-12 hours per day necessary researching and absorbing the information necessary to make an informed decision about the proper amount of defense spending, it will cause a yo-yo effect as the public at large suddenly pours in money to the DoD, then realizes it's too large, then backs it out, causing it to be undersupplied, then rush back, causing it to be oversupplied again, etc etc etc.

Right now you're assuming a huge flux in defense funding. But in order for this huge flux to occur... you're also assuming that the public at large would spend their taxes themselves rather than have their congresspeople spend their taxes for them. In other words, you're assuming that the public wouldn't trust their elected representatives. Why are you assuming this? How can you possibly assume this when you're arguing that people shouldn't have a choice whether or not their congresspeople spend their taxes for them?

Are you now admitting that the only way this system can possibly work is if people let Congress decide the spending?

So it only works if people decide not to use it?

Strange argument to make.

If your plan only works if people don't use it, it's probably a bad plan.

[Xerographica]

Are you now admitting that the only way this system can possibly work is if people let Congress decide the spending?

So it only works if people decide not to use it?

Strange argument to make.

If your plan only works if people don't use it, it's probably a bad plan.

It's a good plan because it's a win-win situation.

People don't directly allocate their taxes? Great! We've definitively determined that people truly trust their representatives.

People do directly allocate their taxes? Great! We've definitively determined that people do not truly trust their representatives.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that people don't trust their representatives. I really don't think that there's any real demand for impersonal shoppers. Let's say that I came to you with an idea for a business...

Hey Galloism... want to get stupid rich? Yeah? Ok... here's my idea. People give us lots of money and we buy them products which may or may not match their preferences. Think about how convenient it will be for our customers. They will never have to worry about shopping for themselves again! Yeah, they might end up with lots of products that they might not want...and might even hate... but think about how much time they'll free up when they never ever have to worry about shopping ever again!

How much money would you personally invest in this business? Would it help if we hired a bunch of product experts?

I see some demand for personal shoppers... but I struggle to imagine that there's any real demand for impersonal shoppers. I really don't want my money spent on clothes that I wouldn't wear... food that I wouldn't eat... cigarettes that I wouldn't smoke... tampons that I wouldn't use... books that I wouldn't read... guns that I wouldn't use... It's a long list. If you went to a store and put some random, but useful, product in some stranger's shopping cart... then I doubt that they are going to be very grateful.

The only basis of our current system is tradition. That's it. And once people are given the freedom to opt out of this nonsensical tradition... I'm pretty sure that most people would jump at the chance to do so. All their differences... and their desire not to have their money flushed down the toilet... would ensure maximum progress and improvements with public goods. Suppliers of public goods are only going to have the maximum incentive to improve their goods when consumers have the option to say, "No thanks!"

[Galloism]

Are you now admitting that the only way this system can possibly work is if people let Congress decide the spending?

So it only works if people decide not to use it?

Strange argument to make.

If your plan only works if people don't use it, it's probably a bad plan.

It's a good plan because it's a win-win situation.

You heard it here first folks - encouraging government corruption, waste, and inefficiency is a "win".

People don't directly allocate their taxes? Great! We've definitively determined that people truly trust their representatives.

People do directly allocate their taxes? Great! We've definitively determined that people do not truly trust their representatives.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that people don't trust their representatives.

That doesn't really matter that much. The question is whether an entity gets to choose, using its board of directors, how to spend its money, or whether the individual revenue generators get to choose how their particular revenue is spent, regardless of what products from that entity they actually use.

The amazing part about this thing is that the mark of success is how wasteful the government becomes. The more successful, the more wasteful. That's ludicrous.

The only basis of our current system is tradition. That's it. And once people are given the freedom to opt out of this nonsensical tradition... I'm pretty sure that most people would jump at the chance to do so. All their differences... and their desire not to have their money flushed down the toilet... would ensure maximum progress and improvements with public goods. Suppliers of public goods are only going to have the maximum incentive to improve their goods when consumers have the option to say, "No thanks!"

You are right in this aspect - it is merely tradition that the owners of an entity and their chosen representatives generally get to decide how the revenue of that entity is spent. I know of no corporation or entity that operates under the model you advocate. I therefore propose a solution.

Before crippling what is arguably the largest employer in all the world with this hair-brained idea, let's test it first. Convince Wal-Mart to adopt this model for its customers - where that customers get to decide what division(s) the revenue they provide goes to on an individual purchase basis. If it becomes the most successful business in all the world as a result of not being able to make its own spending decisions - allowing crowd-sourcing of its spending decisions - then you have a solid model it may be worth trying at the state level. It will be a successful test. That's a win.

If it implodes in on itself and leaves nothing but a smoking hole, then we have done away with one of the most abusive corporations in the world when it comes to taking advantage of people and laws. That's a win.

That's a true win-win.

[Xerographica]

You heard it here first folks - encouraging government corruption, waste, and inefficiency is a "win".

How does adding consumer choice to the public sector encourage corruption, waste and inefficiency? With the current system... if defense contractors lobby for another war... what are my options? Wait a few years to try and elect a better representative?

That doesn't really matter that much. The question is whether an entity gets to choose, using its board of directors, how to spend its money, or whether the individual revenue generators get to choose how their particular revenue is spent, regardless of what products from that entity they actually use.

If we created a market in the public sector... then people would simply pay for the products that they wanted more of. If they want more environmental protection... then they'd go to the EPA website and make a payment. Just like you can go to the Arbor Day website and make a payment. When I go to the Arbor Day website I don't dictate what they do with my money after I give it to them. If I don't like what they do with my money then I simply won't give them any more of my money. If it's not beneficial to allow people to choose, for themselves, to give their taxes to the EPA... then it's not beneficial to allow people to choose, for themselves, to give their money to the Arbor Day Foundation.

The amazing part about this thing is that the mark of success is how wasteful the government becomes. The more successful, the more wasteful. That's ludicrous.

What's ludicrous is that you think that government organizations have any incentive to avoid waste when their revenue doesn't depend on it. Let's say that you're going to get paid whether you work a lot... or a little. If you're rational then you're going to only work a little. Congress doesn't care how effective/efficient the EPA is... why should they? Congress isn't spending its own money. So why should they care if the EPA wastes it? It's an entirely different story with taxpayers. Taxpayers are the ones who actually earned the money... so they have the maximum incentive to ensure that it's not flushed down the toilet. Markets work and socialism fails because incentives matter.

Now, you're welcome to prove to me wrong that you don't care how your money is spent. Just paypal me $500 dollars. This would definitively prove that you don't really care how your money is spent. But you're not going to paypal me $500 dollars are you? Why not? Because you do care how your money is spent. And this is exactly why I want you to have the freedom to choose where your taxes go. When there are millions and millions of people truly caring how their money is spent... then, and only then, are producers going to have the maximum incentive to provide the maximum value.

Before crippling what is arguably the largest employer in all the world with this hair-brained idea, let's test it first. Convince Wal-Mart to adopt this model for its customers - where that customers get to decide what division(s) the revenue they provide goes to on an individual purchase basis. If it becomes the most successful business in all the world as a result of not being able to make its own spending decisions - allowing crowd-sourcing of its spending decisions - then you have a solid model it may be worth trying at the state level. It will be a successful test. That's a win.

If it implodes in on itself and leaves nothing but a smoking hole, then we have done away with one of the most abusive corporations in the world when it comes to taking advantage of people and laws. That's a win.

That's a true win-win.

My idea is to create a market within the public sector. Your idea is to test my idea by creating a market within one company. A market within Walmart? Isn't it enough that Walmart is already in a market? If you have a problem with Walmart then you have the freedom not to shop there.

If we created a market within the public sector... and you had a problem with the DOD... then you'd have the freedom not to shop there.

The benefit of a market is that, if you perceive that an organization is doing nonsensical things with society's limited resources... then you have the freedom not to give the organization your money. This freedom that you have helps to limit the amount of resources that are wasted on nonsensical uses.

Take Don Quixote for example. I think you'd probably agree that attacking a windmill is pretty nonsensical. So if Quixote asked for your money so that he could more effectively attack windmills... then you probably wouldn't give him any money. Your desire not to flush your money down the toilet would help to limit the number of windmills that were attacked. If people didn't have a choice whether they gave their money to Quixote... then lots of windmills would be needlessly destroyed.

I don't see a problem with the idea of creating a market within Walmart. I think this would help guarantee that Walmart did the most sensical things with society's limited resources.

[Galloism]

You heard it here first folks - encouraging government corruption, waste, and inefficiency is a "win".

How does adding consumer choice to the public sector encourage corruption, waste and inefficiency? With the current system... if defense contractors lobby for another war... what are my options? Wait a few years to try and elect a better representative?

Except there's an information delay. Even IF you presume people are going to spend the 8-12 hours per day necessary researching and absorbing the information necessary to make an informed decision about the proper amount of defense spending, it will cause a yo-yo effect as the public at large suddenly pours in money to the DoD, then realizes it's too large, then backs it out, causing it to be undersupplied, then rush back, causing it to be oversupplied again, etc etc etc.

It will cause funding to yo-yo like crazy, so the military can never start construction of an aircraft carrier without being unsure of whether they are able to complete it, and if they drop a billion dollars into an aircraft carrier and then have to abandon it because funding dips, that's a billion dollars of waste that wouldn't have happened with the board of directors being able to design the entity's budget in a stable way.

That doesn't really matter that much. The question is whether an entity gets to choose, using its board of directors, how to spend its money, or whether the individual revenue generators get to choose how their particular revenue is spent, regardless of what products from that entity they actually use.

If we created a market in the public sector... then people would simply pay for the products that they wanted more of. If they want more environmental protection... then they'd go to the EPA website and make a payment. Just like you can go to the Arbor Day website and make a payment. When I go to the Arbor Day website I don't dictate what they do with my money after I give it to them. If I don't like what they do with my money then I simply won't give them any more of my money. If it's not beneficial to allow people to choose, for themselves, to give their taxes to the EPA... then it's not beneficial to allow people to choose, for themselves, to give their money to the Arbor Day Foundation.

Here's the thing - you're once again confusing a division with an entity. They are not the same thing.

If you do not want to pay the federal government, you do not have to do so. You can move out of the country to a country which spends its money in a way more to your liking, and never pay the fed again.

The EPA is not a company. It is not a corporation. It is not an independent organization. It is a division within a larger entity.

The amazing part about this thing is that the mark of success is how wasteful the government becomes. The more successful, the more wasteful. That's ludicrous.

What's ludicrous is that you think that government organizations have any incentive to avoid waste when their revenue doesn't depend on it. Let's say that you're going to get paid whether you work a lot... or a little. If you're rational then you're going to only work a little. Congress doesn't care how effective/efficient the EPA is... why should they? Congress isn't spending its own money. So why should they care if the EPA wastes it? It's an entirely different story with taxpayers. Taxpayers are the ones who actually earned the money... so they have the maximum incentive to ensure that it's not flushed down the toilet. Markets work and socialism fails because incentives matter.

What's ludicrous is that you think that a entity such as the EPA would become more transparent about its internal foibles if their funding depends on that knowledge not being widely known.

If there was waste, rather than being honest about that waste and working to fix it, they would pay hush money to keep people from revealing it.

Incidentally: corporations already do this by paying settlements to former employees on the condition of nondisclosure. You would put the same pressures on a government agency.

Now, you're welcome to prove to me wrong that you don't care how your money is spent. Just paypal me $500 dollars. This would definitively prove that you don't really care how your money is spent. But you're not going to paypal me $500 dollars are you? Why not? Because you do care how your money is spent. And this is exactly why I want you to have the freedom to choose where your taxes go. When there are millions and millions of people truly caring how their money is spent... then, and only then, are producers going to have the maximum incentive to provide the maximum value.

No, they have the maximum incentive to make it look like they're producing maximum value. There's a key difference.

Before crippling what is arguably the largest employer in all the world with this hair-brained idea, let's test it first. Convince Wal-Mart to adopt this model for its customers - where that customers get to decide what division(s) the revenue they provide goes to on an individual purchase basis. If it becomes the most successful business in all the world as a result of not being able to make its own spending decisions - allowing crowd-sourcing of its spending decisions - then you have a solid model it may be worth trying at the state level. It will be a successful test. That's a win.

If it implodes in on itself and leaves nothing but a smoking hole, then we have done away with one of the most abusive corporations in the world when it comes to taking advantage of people and laws. That's a win.

That's a true win-win.

My idea is to create a market within the public sector. Your idea is to test my idea by creating a market within one company. A market within Walmart? Isn't it enough that Walmart is already in a market? If you have a problem with Walmart then you have the freedom not to shop there.

There already is a market within the public sector. There are multiple governments competing on a global scale for your residence. You can move to any one of them, but when you do, and voluntarily pay them for the privilege of living there, you give up that money to be apportioned by the relevant board of directors for the entity (or entities) you're paying.

If we created a market within the public sector... and you had a problem with the DOD... then you'd have the freedom not to shop there.

No you wouldn't. Defense is a public good and, by its very nature, is nonexcludable. Whether you pay for the military or not, you are still receiving its services.

The benefit of a market is that, if you perceive that an organization is doing nonsensical things with society's limited resources... then you have the freedom not to give the organization your money. This freedom that you have helps to limit the amount of resources that are wasted on nonsensical uses.

You do not get to walk into a buffet, eat the food, and then refuse to pay the full price of the buffet because you didn't want the steak.

Sorry.

I don't see a problem with the idea of creating a market within Walmart. I think this would help guarantee that Walmart did the most sensical things with society's limited resources.

Like I said: make it so Wal-Mart can no longer decide how it spends the money you pay them. If Wal-Mart succeeds because its board of directors cannot make a unified budget, then I will listen to your proposal.

[Geilinor]

Maybe Americans wouldn't have perceived our defense as defective? Perhaps, in their minds, they would have perceived that the problem had absolutely nothing to do with poorly spent funds and everything to do with inadequate funds?

Do you think after 9/11 that defense lobbying had anything to do with defense spending?

People would have chosen to send more money to defense out of fear, whether it was needed or not.

[Arkinesia]

If I missed the thread dedicated to discussing the demand for defense then please link me to it.

It's "omg i'm so smart I decided to that pragmatarianism is the one true way and I won't entertain any of the problems with it" once again.

It's the same thread you've done on NSG over a dozen times now.

What even counts as an original thread on NSG anymore? Semi-serious question.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

It's "omg i'm so smart I decided to that pragmatarianism is the one true way and I won't entertain any of the problems with it" once again.

It's the same thread you've done on NSG over a dozen times now.

What even counts as an original thread on NSG anymore? Semi-serious question.

"Singapore - the next world superpower"? First time I've seen one of those.

[Xerographica]

It will cause funding to yo-yo like crazy, so the military can never start construction of an aircraft carrier without being unsure of whether they are able to complete it, and if they drop a billion dollars into an aircraft carrier and then have to abandon it because funding dips, that's a billion dollars of waste that wouldn't have happened with the board of directors being able to design the entity's budget in a stable way.

How often do you perceive that the yo-yo will go back up? Why can't the DoD simply save its funding surplus for when it's suffering from a funding shortage? And again, by assuming that there will be a significant fluctuation in funding... you're also assuming that most taxpayers will choose to allocate their taxes themselves rather than have congress allocate their taxes for them. Which means that you're assuming that most taxpayers perceive that our elected representatives are untrustworthy. Why do you think it's a good idea for untrustworthy people to allocate everybody's taxes?

Here's the thing - you're once again confusing a division with an entity. They are not the same thing.

The Arbor Day Foundation is an entity and the EPA is a division? So what? They both supply a public good. People should have the freedom to decide whether they put the EPA's public good in their shopping cart just like they are free to decide whether they put the Arbor Day Foundation's public good in their shopping cart.

If you do not want to pay the federal government, you do not have to do so. You can move out of the country to a country which spends its money in a way more to your liking, and never pay the fed again.

If you think this is an effective way for pacifists to communicate their preferences... then why don't you think that it's an effective way for vegetarians to communicate their preferences? If a vegetarian doesn't want to have their money spent on meat then they would simply move out of the country. When your argument for public goods sounds absolutely absurd when applied to private goods... then you need to take a much closer look at your argument.

What's ludicrous is that you think that a entity such as the EPA would become more transparent about its internal foibles if their funding depends on that knowledge not being widely known.

It's mind-boggling that you think that congress could possibly scrutinize the EPA more closely and thoroughly than the millions and millions of people who actually worked hard to earn the tax dollars that they would be spending in the public sector. Yes, of course the EPA is going to have an incentive to hide its mistakes. But it's going to have an infinitely harder time hiding its mistakes when people can choose whether or not they give their tax dollars to the EPA. And the punishment for making a mistake is going to be infinitely greater as well. With the current system... congress rewards mistakes...

The government should not help to save Chrysler, of course not. This is a private enterprise system. It's often described as a profit system but that's a misleading label. It's a profit and loss system. And the loss part is even more important than the profit because it's what gets rid of badly managed, poorly operated companies. When Chrysler loses money…it's got to do something. When Amtrak loses money it goes to congress and gets a bigger appropriation. - Milton Friedman, What is Greed?

With the current system... it's impossible for the EPA to ever go bankrupt. The logical result is moral hazard. With a pragmatarian system... the EPA won't have a safety net. If it makes too many big mistakes too often... then its revenue will clearly reflect this. And it will continue to do so until the EPA does a much better job of protecting the environment.

Serving the public really isn't the same as serving congress. If it was... then markets and socialism would be equally viable. We might as well have congress spend all of our money rather than just a large chunk of it. Markets exert far more precise pressure than command economies do. If we created a market in the public sector... then the EPA would quickly evolve to reflect the diversity of people's preferences when it comes the environment. There would soon be numerous and separate EPAs each one functioning to protect different aspects of the environment. Just like there are numerous non-profits functioning to protect different aspects of the environment. The diversity of environmental government organizations would lead to much greater progress and coverage when it comes to protecting the environment.

No, they have the maximum incentive to make it look like they're producing maximum value. There's a key difference.

The best judges of whether the EPA is truly producing the maximum value are the people who care enough about the environment to spend their taxes on it. If people who care about the environment don't give their tax dollars to the EPA... but they give their private dollars to environmental non-profits... then the EPA has a problem.

You do not get to walk into a buffet, eat the food, and then refuse to pay the full price of the buffet because you didn't want the steak.

Refusing to pay the full price would be the same as refusing to pay all your taxes. But not once have I argued that taxes should be reduced. If pacifists don't give their tax dollars to the EPA... those tax dollars wouldn't go back into their pockets. Those tax dollars would be given to the EPA... or other government organizations.

[Galloism]

It will cause funding to yo-yo like crazy, so the military can never start construction of an aircraft carrier without being unsure of whether they are able to complete it, and if they drop a billion dollars into an aircraft carrier and then have to abandon it because funding dips, that's a billion dollars of waste that wouldn't have happened with the board of directors being able to design the entity's budget in a stable way.

How often do you perceive that the yo-yo will go back up?

With the United States? I'm not sure. Depends on how on-board people get with this stupid plan.

Could fluctuate twice a week, or hardly ever fluctuate at all, no matter what circumstances.

Why can't the DoD simply save its funding surplus for when it's suffering from a funding shortage?

This means the government would have to reserve immense capital, which would probably put the brakes on the economy.

And again, by assuming that there will be a significant fluctuation in funding... you're also assuming that most taxpayers will choose to allocate their taxes themselves rather than have congress allocate their taxes for them. Which means that you're assuming that most taxpayers perceive that our elected representatives are untrustworthy. Why do you think it's a good idea for untrustworthy people to allocate everybody's taxes?

Once again, if your plan only works because you think people won't use it, it's a bad plan.

Here's the thing - you're once again confusing a division with an entity. They are not the same thing.

The Arbor Day Foundation is an entity and the EPA is a division? So what? They both supply a public good. People should have the freedom to decide whether they put the EPA's public good in their shopping cart just like they are free to decide whether they put the Arbor Day Foundation's public good in their shopping cart.

Once again, this is apples and oranges. People are free to put the federal government or not in their "shopping cart", just as they are free to put the arbor day foundation in their "shopping cart". No one is making you live here.

Your comparison would be between Arbor Day's accounting department and the EPA.

If you do not want to pay the federal government, you do not have to do so. You can move out of the country to a country which spends its money in a way more to your liking, and never pay the fed again.

If you think this is an effective way for pacifists to communicate their preferences... then why don't you think that it's an effective way for vegetarians to communicate their preferences? If a vegetarian doesn't want to have their money spent on meat then they would simply move out of the country. When your argument for public goods sounds absolutely absurd when applied to private goods... then you need to take a much closer look at your argument.

Not really. Public goods and private goods do not behave the same way, and do not react the same way to market forces. Private goods can be excludable and rivalrous, which makes it much easier to manage under the methods you are trying to apply to public goods. The fact that you do understand the market differences between public and private goods is why you fail here.

But it's going to have an infinitely harder time hiding its mistakes when people can choose whether or not they give their tax dollars to the EPA.

Why would this be the case?

And the punishment for making a mistake is going to be infinitely greater as well. With the current system... congress rewards mistakes...

Congress rewards agencies for making mistakes? Proof?

The best judges of whether the EPA is truly producing the maximum value are the people who care enough about the environment to spend their taxes on it.

Prove it. What makes them the best judge? What investigatory powers do they have? What legal standards do they use?

If people who care about the environment don't give their tax dollars to the EPA... but they give their private dollars to environmental non-profits... then the EPA has a problem.

Yes - your system has caused the EPA to be underfunded, which means that corporations will be free to spew toxic waste into the environment with a very remote possibility of being caught and stopped. This is what's called a bad result.

Refusing to pay the full price would be the same as refusing to pay all your taxes. But not once have I argued that taxes should be reduced. If pacifists don't give their tax dollars to the EPA... those tax dollars wouldn't go back into their pockets. Those tax dollars would be given to the EPA... or other government organizations.

Once again, you don't get to tell the buffet owners that YOUR dollars cannot be spend on the steak because you didn't eat the steak. If 70% of the people eat the steak, the steak will continue to be supplied, and YOUR dollars will be used to fund the steak, even if you don't eat the steak, you don't like the steak, and you morally object to steak.

If you morally object to steak being served at the buffet, you go to a different buffet. You do not demand that the buffet owners segregate funds to prevent YOUR money being used from serving steak.

[Galloism]

It's "omg i'm so smart I decided to that pragmatarianism is the one true way and I won't entertain any of the problems with it" once again.

It's the same thread you've done on NSG over a dozen times now.

What even counts as an original thread on NSG anymore? Semi-serious question.

Look, I don't expect original threads, but it would be neat if Xerographica actually had a single thread one time about something other than trying to cripple the United States government with "pragmatarianism".

[Elepis]

Two Elizabethan quotes that sum up my ideas about the need for national defence

"And you all know Security is mortal's chiefest enemy"-William Shakespeare

"There is nothing more dangerous than security"-Francis Walsingham

Both men seem to know the corrupting and dangerous effects of humanities lust for total security at any cost, unfortunately such insight seems lost on modern leaders who seem more concerned with super-carriers than Health Services (*cough USA cough*)

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Two Elizabethan quotes that sum up my ideas about the need for national defence

"And you all know Security is mortal's chiefest enemy"-William Shakespeare

"There is nothing more dangerous than security"-Francis Walsingham

Both men seem to know the corrupting and dangerous effects of humanities lust for total security at any cost, unfortunately such insight seems lost on modern leaders who seem more concerned with super-carriers than Health Services (*cough USA cough*

It's not our fault supercarriers aren't as scary as needles. Well, unless you're Jihad Johnny...

[Arkinesia]

What even counts as an original thread on NSG anymore? Semi-serious question.

Look, I don't expect original threads, but it would be neat if Xerographica actually had a single thread one time about something other than trying to cripple the United States government with "pragmatarianism".

Fair enough. I like some variety in my rehashes as well.

[Xerographica]

Not really. Public goods and private goods do not behave the same way, and do not react the same way to market forces. Private goods can be excludable and rivalrous, which makes it much easier to manage under the methods you are trying to apply to public goods. The fact that you do understand the market differences between public and private goods is why you fail here.

Market forces do not work for public goods? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) both supply goods that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Therefore, both PETA and the NRA supply public goods. Yet, both organizations are also in the private sector where they are subject to market forces rather than command forces. This is a problem. Well.. at least based on your argument.

The solution to this "problem" would be simple. Members of both organizations would pool their donations and elect representatives to divvy the pool between the two organizations. I'm sure you like this solution... right? So why not create a thread where you propose this solution to your "problem"? You're not going to create the thread because you know that people would laugh at you and ridicule your idea.

Right now you're incredibly incoherent. And you're going to remain that way until you accept the fact that there's absolutely no logical or rational basis for our current system. Like I said, it's based entirely on tradition. Unfortunately, it's not a harmless tradition. It's extremely harmful.

It's one thing to get the supply of donuts wrong... but it's another thing entirely to get the supply of defense wrong. Our history is littered with examples of countries getting the supply of defense/offense entirely wrong. And this will continue to happen until you realize that command economies fail with public goods just as much as they fail with private goods. Just because a good is non-excludable and non-rivalrous doesn't mean that government leaders are going to come even close to determining the optimal supply. The optimal supply depends entirely on the preferences of the people... and the preferences of the people can only be known when they are free to directly allocate their own resources.

The only meaningful difference with public goods is that they are subject to the free-rider problem. Clearly, given the existence of numerous organizations in the private sector that supply public goods... like PETA and the NRA... the free-rider problem doesn't mean that public goods won't be supplied. It means that they will be undersupplied. This is why it's reasonable to force people to pay taxes. But that's it. That's the only step that needs to be taken to ensure that the supply of public goods is optimal. It's guaranteed that the supply will become extremely suboptimal when people aren't just forced to pay taxes... but they are also forced to allow a small group of government planners to decide how the taxes are allocated.

Right now the proportion of funding that PETA and the NRA receive is optimal. This means that taking funds from one and giving it to the other would decrease, rather than increase, the total amount of value that both organizations create. What isn't optimal, because of the free-rider problem, is their level of funding. This means that more value would be created if both organizations received more funding. How much more?

If everybody was forced to spend 5% of their income in the non-profit sector... but they could choose where their donations go... then both PETA and the NRA would receive more funding and this would increase the total amount of value that was created. Of course if people were forced to spend too much money in the non-profit sector then value would be destroyed.

Command economies cannot get the balance right. If you understand why this is true for private goods then you will understand why this is true for public goods as well. The fact that you don't understand why it's true for public goods means that you don't understand why it's true for private goods. Command economies cannot get the balance right for any goods because the balance depends entirely on the valuations of the people who comprise the economy. Right now Elepis, who is a part of the economy, can't use his own tax dollars to communicate that more healthcare is more important to him than more defense. He's the rule rather than the exception which guarantees that the balance will be wrong. Disregarding people's preferences/differences is how we end up at war. World peace depends entirely on regarding people's preferences/differences. Regarding doesn't mean agreeing... it just means respecting people enough to allow them to allocate their resources differently.

[Galloism]

Not really. Public goods and private goods do not behave the same way, and do not react the same way to market forces. Private goods can be excludable and rivalrous, which makes it much easier to manage under the methods you are trying to apply to public goods. The fact that you do understand the market differences between public and private goods is why you fail here.

Market forces do not work for public goods? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) both supply goods that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Therefore, both PETA and the NRA supply public goods. Yet, both organizations are also in the private sector where they are subject to market forces rather than command forces. This is a problem. Well.. at least based on your argument.

The solution to this "problem" would be simple. Members of both organizations would pool their donations and elect representatives to divvy the pool between the two organizations. I'm sure you like this solution... right? So why not create a thread where you propose this solution to your "problem"? You're not going to create the thread because you know that people would laugh at you and ridicule your idea.

No, that's not quite it - see, PETA and the NRA are run by different groups of people, who are both elected incidentally, and are completely separate entities. If I was arguing that the federal government's revenue should be combined with the government of Ohio's revenue, and then split, you'd have a point. Those are two separate entities with different directors and members. However, your usage of the NRA is quite (accidentally) applicable.

See, the NRA provides a number of different public AND private goods under a single umbrella. It provides gun training, lobbying for gun rights and hunting rights, legal services, a magazine, and some other things. They also have a number of support services to make this happen - accounting, member retention, advertising, outreach programs, etc. It also has one single chief executive and a single board of directors.

Members pay dues in order to remain part of the NRA (a lifetime membership is also available at a certain cost). Those membership dues are apportioned to the various divisions via vote of the elected board of directors, who create one unified budget for the organization. Your proposal is similar to forcing the NRA to allow members to apportion their membership dues by division, and yet I don't hear you suggesting that.

The rest of your post was more of the repeatedly asserted drivel.

[Xerographica]

No, that's not quite it - see, PETA and the NRA are run by different groups of people, who are both elected incidentally, and are completely separate entities. If I was arguing that the federal government's revenue should be combined with the government of Ohio's revenue, and then split, you'd have a point. Those are two separate entities with different directors and members.

Why should PETA and the NRA be completely separate entities while the EPA and the DoD should... errr... not be completely separate entities? If it's beneficial to bundle tanks and trees together then why isn't it beneficial to bundle rifles and rabbits together? Why should people have the freedom to boycott the NRA but they shouldn't have the freedom to boycott the DoD? How many people do you think want to boycott the DoD anyways?

Like I said, tanks and trees are bundled together solely because of tradition. It's not like some economists sat down and said, "Hey! It's a really good idea to bundle tanks and trees together!" Trust me, I've done my homework. There's zero, zilch, zip rational, coherent or logical explanation for bundling tanks and trees together. Or don't trust me and do your own homework.

Or... don't do your own homework and don't trust me. I'll be happy to share my homework with you. I can share what Paul Samuelson, the liberal Nobel prize economist, has said on the subject. I can also share what James Buchanan, the market Nobel prize economist, has said on the subject. I've thoroughly studied the topic from both sides of the debate. There aren't too many people that have done so which is why there aren't very many pragmatarians.

[Galloism]

No, that's not quite it - see, PETA and the NRA are run by different groups of people, who are both elected incidentally, and are completely separate entities. If I was arguing that the federal government's revenue should be combined with the government of Ohio's revenue, and then split, you'd have a point. Those are two separate entities with different directors and members.

Why should PETA and the NRA be completely separate entities while the EPA and the DoD should... errr... not be completely separate entities?

If PETA and the NRA decided to merge for some reason into a single entity (National Animal Association? People for the Ethical Treatment of Rifles?) then donations and membership dues to the organization could be separated by that organization's one single board of directors as it sees fit.

Entity structure is not irrelevant.

You haven't argued that the EPA and DoD should be split into completely separate entities. In order to do that, they would need to be NOT answerable to the president or Congress, collect their own taxes, pass their own laws, etc.

As long as the president is still their executive and they have a single board of directors over both, they are not independent entities.

If it's beneficial to bundle tanks and trees together then why isn't it beneficial to bundle rifles and rabbits together? Why should people have the freedom to boycott the NRA but they shouldn't have the freedom to boycott the DoD? How many people do you think want to boycott the DoD anyways?

You know what's funny about this?

I went down to Wal-Mart yesterday to get a few things. I don't like them, but I don't have a hell of a lot of choice when I need something today. Here's a business that sells medicine, provides automotive repair services, cell phone service, groceries, rifles, and fish. They also provide basic banking services. They don't sell rabbits, but they DO sell both guns and animals.

And yet, you don't argue that I should be able to dictate to wal-mart, by division, how they can spend their money. Why is that?

Edit: Heh heh. Just thought about this further - they sell trees too. Both guns AND trees.

Like I said, tanks and trees are bundled together solely because of tradition. It's not like some economists sat down and said, "Hey! It's a really good idea to bundle tanks and trees together!" Trust me, I've done my homework. There's zero, zilch, zip rational, coherent or logical explanation for bundling tanks and trees together. Or don't trust me and do your own homework.

Or... don't do your own homework and don't trust me. I'll be happy to share my homework with you. I can share what Paul Samuelson, the liberal Nobel prize economist, has said on the subject. I can also share what James Buchanan, the market Nobel prize economist, has said on the subject. I've thoroughly studied the topic from both sides of the debate. There aren't too many people that have done so which is why there aren't very many pragmatarians.

The fact that you've continuously failed to make a good argument on this forum doesn't mean I'm going to go out and make an argument for you. A failure on your part does not constitute a need on mine.

[Xerographica]

Why should PETA and the NRA be completely separate entities while the EPA and the DoD should... errr... not be completely separate entities?

If PETA and the NRA decided to merge for some reason into a single entity (National Animal Association? People for the Ethical Treatment of Rifles?) then donations and membership dues to the organization could be separated by that organization's one single board of directors as it sees fit.

What are the chances that PETA and the NRA would merge? Why would they ever want to merge? Can you think of any good reasons why they should merge? Let's say that you managed to get the leaders of both organizations into the same room. How would you sell the idea of both organizations merging?

You say that if both PETA and the NRA merged... then donations/dues could be allocated by the new organization's board of directors. Would you mention this in your pitch to convince both organizations to merge? Yeah? And if somebody asked what the benefit would be of only having one board of directors... then how would you respond? To be clear... you're mentioning this to defend your view that it's beneficial to have congress (one board) allocate everybody's taxes (dues) as it sees fit. If the government thinks it's a good idea then how could PETA and the NRA not think it's a good idea?

I'm sure that there are plenty members of PETA that secretly want to join the NRA and vice versa. So I really doubt that even a single member of PETA or the NRA would let their membership lapse if both organizations merged together. In fact, I'm sure that revenue would skyrocket once they merged. Hah... no. Revenue would plummet. The only way to prevent revenue from plummeting would be to force people to pay their dues. Actually... the EPA and DoD are merged and people are also forced to pay their "dues"! Wow! What a coincidence!

If the EPA and the DOD, and every other government agency, was unbundled then taxes could easily be raised. People would have no problem paying more money for the public goods that they truly value. *gasp*!? Sorry if I blew your mind. I know that it's a revolutionary concept.

You haven't argued that the EPA and DoD should be split into completely separate entities. In order to do that, they would need to be NOT answerable to the president or Congress, collect their own taxes, pass their own laws, etc.

As long as the president is still their executive and they have a single board of directors over both, they are not independent entities.

Prior to debating with you I never saw the need to argue that the EPA and DoD should be split. I never saw them as being together in any logical or rational way. Their products are bundled but the organizations themselves are separate. The EPA doesn't directly determine how the DoD spends its money and vice versa.

Yes, in a pragmatarian system, the EPA and DoD would have to facilitate payments. But if the NRA and PETA can handle payments then I'm pretty sure that the EPA and DoD wouldn't have a problem handling payments. If they did have a problem with such a simple task... then we really shouldn't be giving them our money in the first place.

What do you mean by the EPA and the DoD not being answerable to the president or congress? In a pragmatarian system the president and congress would still be there. If the president/congress orders the EPA/DoD to do something stupid... and they do it... then taxpayers would boycott them. The president can still say "follow me"... whether or not the people respond with "lead the way" depends entirely on how much they value the direction that he wants America to go in. If he wants America to go to war with Canada for no good reason... then I don't think people would give him or the DoD very much money.

One of the reasons that markets really work is that most organizations always want more money. This desire motivates organizations to provide the greatest possible value for consumers. It's very beneficial for consumers when they are the ones holding the carrot on the stick. When consumers aren't the ones holding the carrot on a stick... then they have it really rough. Right now consumers are holding the carrot on the stick in the private sector... but they aren't holding it in the public sector. Yet you're happy with this arrangement! As if it doesn't really matter whether or not consumers are the ones holding the carrot on the stick. So why not have congress hold the carrot on the stick in the private sector as well? Because... it sure would be a good idea to bundle the NRA and PETA together.

You know what's funny about this?

I went down to Wal-Mart yesterday to get a few things. I don't like them, but I don't have a hell of a lot of choice when I need something today. Here's a business that sells medicine, provides automotive repair services, cell phone service, groceries, rifles, and fish. They also provide basic banking services. They don't sell rabbits, but they DO sell both guns and animals.

And yet, you don't argue that I should be able to dictate to wal-mart, by division, how they can spend their money. Why is that?

Edit: Heh heh. Just thought about this further - they sell trees too. Both guns AND trees.

You're absolutely correct that Walmart sells a very wide variety of products. In fact, its variety of goods is probably greater than the government's variety of goods. The difference is... when you're at Walmart surrounded by an incredibly wide variety of goods... you're the one who decides how much of which goods to put into your shopping cart. You're the one who decides. You you you you you you. Markets work because they are all about you. Markets work because they are based on the premise that your preferences/differences matter. The alternatives fail because they don't even know how much you like donuts. If they can't get the supply of donuts rights... then why should we trust them to get the supply of anything really important right?

The alternatives know nothing really specific about you. This is why public goods are far less diverse than private goods.

Coincidentally, my third favorite liberal, Noah Smith, recently tweeted the following...

Proposal: Economists should replace "bundles" with "backpacks" as the standard term for a collection of goods.

When you go to Walmart... salespeople don't hand you a "backpack" filled with goods and expect you to pay for it. What would be the point of even going to shop at Walmart when the shopping has already been done for you? Walmart could simply send your backpack to you. "Backpack"? Backpack doesn't really feel right. Does it? It feels too small. Like, you couldn't fit a very big tree or rifle in a backpack. Like, maybe a bonsai and a pistol. Although I'm not sure what would be a better term.

Walmart certainly sells bundled items... but Walmart really doesn't choose which goods, bundled or otherwise, go into your shopping cart. The government, on the other hand, does choose which goods go into your shopping cart. You get the same bundle as everybody else.

The problem with bundling is that it's hard to replace the individual components. Imagine if the only way that you could replace your tires was by selling your car. You'd have to buy a car every time you needed new tires. That would suck. But because cars are moderately modular... you can simply replace the tires when you want to without having to replace your entire car. Clearly it would be pretty stupid for cars to be entirely monolithic.

The reason that we make a lot more progress with markets is because we can easily replace and upgrade individual goods. I can easily switch to energy saving light bulbs without having to wait a few years to convince you, and the rest of the country, to do so as well. The freedom that we have to make these marginal improvements ensures that society makes a lot more improvements in a lot less time.

In terms of the NRA... if I'm a member and I have an epiphany about shooting animals for sport... then I can simply replace the NRA with a better organization. I'm under absolutely no obligation to convince every other member to join me. The economic term for this is easy "exit". Exit becomes a lot less easy when you have to convince all the other members to exit with you. Of course if you could manage to convince all the other members to exit, then you would no longer have a reason to exit. The NRA would simply remove its support of killing animals for sport.

Easy exit means faster evolution. When people can easily replace goods and organizations... then goods and organizations more quickly evolve to meet the rapidly changing and diverse needs of society. If you have a problem with the NRA... but can't find a better organization... then you can simply start one. The creation of a new organization would increase the competition for members/dues. Markets are all about survival of the fittest organizations/goods with "fitness" being defined by consumers. If it was as easy to start a country as it was to start an organization... then it wouldn't be as inefficient to have "foot voting" as the only selective pressure placed on countries.

The fact that you've continuously failed to make a good argument on this forum doesn't mean I'm going to go out and make an argument for you. A failure on your part does not constitute a need on mine.

I asked you to make an argument for me? Errr... I have no problem making my own arguments. If you don't want to do any homework then don't be shy about it. Just say, "I don't want to do any homework".

[Galloism]

If PETA and the NRA decided to merge for some reason into a single entity (National Animal Association? People for the Ethical Treatment of Rifles?) then donations and membership dues to the organization could be separated by that organization's one single board of directors as it sees fit.

What are the chances that PETA and the NRA would merge?

Not very likely. An animal rights organization and one that protects the rights of hunters would seem to be at cross-purposes.

Why would they ever want to merge? Can you think of any good reasons why they should merge? Let's say that you managed to get the leaders of both organizations into the same room. How would you sell the idea of both organizations merging?

I wouldn't.

That was your idea.

You say that if both PETA and the NRA merged... then donations/dues could be allocated by the new organization's board of directors. Would you mention this in your pitch to convince both organizations to merge? Yeah? And if somebody asked what the benefit would be of only having one board of directors... then how would you respond? To be clear... you're mentioning this to defend your view that it's beneficial to have congress (one board) allocate everybody's taxes (dues) as it sees fit. If the government thinks it's a good idea then how could PETA and the NRA not think it's a good idea?

It would be a good idea, if PETA and the NRA suddenly merged for some reason. It's a bad idea if they are not merged because an entity should be able to decide how its revenues are spent.

I'm sure that there are plenty members of PETA that secretly want to join the NRA and vice versa. So I really doubt that even a single member of PETA or the NRA would let their membership lapse if both organizations merged together.

Actually, there's no rule that says you can't be a member of PETA and the NRA at once. I'd suspect the overlap is infinitesimally small, but there's not particular rule against it.

If the EPA and the DOD, and every other government agency, was unbundled then taxes could easily be raised.

This is an assertion that defies logic. Given you've basically already admitted your plan would result in more waste than the alterative - via forcing advertising of government agencies for funding - why would I knowingly be more willing to pay taxes KNOWING that more of it is going to be wasted? That's ludicrous - it leads inevitably to the conclusion that I should do everything to avoid paying taxes so as not to have more of my money wasted on advertising.

People would have no problem paying more money for the public goods that they truly value. *gasp*!? Sorry if I blew your mind. I know that it's a revolutionary concept.

Except there's no reasonable basis for this assertion to be true.

You haven't argued that the EPA and DoD should be split into completely separate entities. In order to do that, they would need to be NOT answerable to the president or Congress, collect their own taxes, pass their own laws, etc.

As long as the president is still their executive and they have a single board of directors over both, they are not independent entities.

Prior to debating with you I never saw the need to argue that the EPA and DoD should be split. I never saw them as being together in any logical or rational way.

So you don't understand entity structure?

Quelle surprise.

Their products are bundled but the organizations themselves are separate. The EPA doesn't directly determine how the DoD spends its money and vice versa.

Actually, Congress and the president determine how the DoD spends its money. Congress and the president also determine how the EPA spends its money.

Think of it this way. I am now a major stakeholder in my electric company (hypothetically). I'm also the president, and there's a board of directors that determines how the money collected by this electric company is spent. This electric company has 4 main divisions: power plant purchasing/construction, power distribution and sale, corporate security/loss management, and cold fusion research. Within each division, you also have functions of accounting, HR, etc.

Of the two, only the power distribution division actually receives revenue.

Each of the four divisions has a vice president, and the chain of command is such that no one can order someone from another division to do anything, and all four vice presidents report directly to me and the board of directors.

Are these divisions four entities or one?

What do you mean by the EPA and the DoD not being answerable to the president or congress?

If they still have the same chief executive (the president) and the same board of directors (congress), they are not really separate entities. They are divisions.

In a pragmatarian system the president and congress would still be there. If the president/congress orders the EPA/DoD to do something stupid... and they do it... then taxpayers would boycott them.

Which is kinda stupid really, given if the president and Congress order them to do something stupid, and they DON'T do it, the president can summarily fire the chief and replace him with someone who will. You would punish a division which has no choice but to follow presidential direction... while not actually touching the president's office at all, given the overall tax revenue would remain the same.

The president can still say "follow me"... whether or not the people respond with "lead the way" depends entirely on how much they value the direction that he wants America to go in. If he wants America to go to war with Canada for no good reason... then I don't think people would give him or the DoD very much money.

Which is really stupid, because Congress can always borrow whatever it needs, and use excesses in other divisions as collateral.

One board of directors to rule them all.

One of the reasons that markets really work is that most organizations always want more money.

This is actually a really good reason for the DoD to manufacture fear and foreign threats so they can continue to get money. Gives the DoD a good reason to surreptitiously fund terrorists and unfriendly regimes.

You know what's funny about this?

I went down to Wal-Mart yesterday to get a few things. I don't like them, but I don't have a hell of a lot of choice when I need something today. Here's a business that sells medicine, provides automotive repair services, cell phone service, groceries, rifles, and fish. They also provide basic banking services. They don't sell rabbits, but they DO sell both guns and animals.

And yet, you don't argue that I should be able to dictate to wal-mart, by division, how they can spend their money. Why is that?

Edit: Heh heh. Just thought about this further - they sell trees too. Both guns AND trees.

You're absolutely correct that Walmart sells a very wide variety of products. In fact, its variety of goods is probably greater than the government's variety of goods. The difference is... when you're at Walmart surrounded by an incredibly wide variety of goods... you're the one who decides how much of which goods to put into your shopping cart. You're the one who decides. You you you you you you. Markets work because they are all about you. Markets work because they are based on the premise that your preferences/differences matter. The alternatives fail because they don't even know how much you like donuts. If they can't get the supply of donuts rights... then why should we trust them to get the supply of anything really important right?

So why can't I define wal-mart how to spend my money? Here's the thing - when you buy your Christmas tree on December the 1st, Wal-Mart isn't going to use even one dime to buy a new Christmas tree to sell. Just because you bought a Christmas tree doesn't mean your money will be used to produce more Christmas trees. Your money is going towards new years decorations, even if you hate new years on principle.

And let's keep in mind that you can choose, in a number of cases, what government programs you use. If you do not want food stamps, you don't have to take them. No one is holding a gun to your head. If you are a farmer and want to refuse farm subsidies, you are free to do so. No one is holding a gun to your head. You can refuse a number of government products if you want to, but public goods cannot always be refused. Whether you pay for the military or not, you are using the service.

Same with the EPA - you are using the service. Refusing to pay for it does not change the fact you are using it.

The problem with bundling is that it's hard to replace the individual components. Imagine if the only way that you could replace your tires was by selling your car. You'd have to buy a car every time you needed new tires. That would suck. But because cars are moderately modular... you can simply replace the tires when you want to without having to replace your entire car. Clearly it would be pretty stupid for cars to be entirely monolithic.

And yet many things are. For instance, most people cannot repair their TVs anymore. They are not generally constructed in such a way to be modular. If the power supply blows out, you typically have to throw away the whole TV. If the LCD display goes out, you typically have to throw away the whole TV.

The reason that we make a lot more progress with markets is because we can easily replace and upgrade individual goods. I can easily switch to energy saving light bulbs without having to wait a few years to convince you, and the rest of the country, to do so as well. The freedom that we have to make these marginal improvements ensures that society makes a lot more improvements in a lot less time.

Strangely, the public generally resisted energy saving light bulbs until the government adjusted the market to promote them.

Our state even gave energy saving light bulbs to the poor, because the non-energy saving light bulbs were slightly cheaper to purchase, even though they were more expensive over time. This is what is called a market failure.

The government stepped in. For the best really.

In terms of the NRA... if I'm a member and I have an epiphany about shooting animals for sport... then I can simply replace the NRA with a better organization. I'm under absolutely no obligation to convince every other member to join me. The economic term for this is easy "exit". Exit becomes a lot less easy when you have to convince all the other members to exit with you. Of course if you could manage to convince all the other members to exit, then you would no longer have a reason to exit. The NRA would simply remove its support of killing animals for sport.

Easy exit means faster evolution. When people can easily replace goods and organizations... then goods and organizations more quickly evolve to meet the rapidly changing and diverse needs of society. If you have a problem with the NRA... but can't find a better organization... then you can simply start one. The creation of a new organization would increase the competition for members/dues. Markets are all about survival of the fittest organizations/goods with "fitness" being defined by consumers. If it was as easy to start a country as it was to start an organization... then it wouldn't be as inefficient to have "foot voting" as the only selective pressure placed on countries.

It's not easy to create an electric company, yet you expect me to do something about not supporting my only electric company. Here's the thing: you can leave the country and go to one more to your liking, and it will generally cost less than it will for me to leave my electric company.

Why can't I decide how my electric company uses my money?

The fact that you've continuously failed to make a good argument on this forum doesn't mean I'm going to go out and make an argument for you. A failure on your part does not constitute a need on mine.

I asked you to make an argument for me? Errr... I have no problem making my own arguments. If you don't want to do any homework then don't be shy about it. Just say, "I don't want to do any homework".

I said "good argument". You need to make a good argument.