Which allocation method do you prefer?

[Big Jim P]

Everyone allocates all of their resources to me.

[Forsher]

being poor means you are forced to play the lottery.

No, you are only forced to choose between healthcare and food when (basic) healthcare is not provided in such a way that people no longer have to choose between food and healthcare.

Again, it is a choice to set up a system that forces people to choose between the two, rather than a system where people don't have to make such a choice, by enforcing solidarity.

I hope you realise that my point was really much much wider than just healthcare. Being poor means you always have to play the lottery in any situation that involves some sort of risk. This extends into areas that relatively few people (contemporary to this discussion) think ought to be provided on a non-user pays basis... e.g. insurance, replacement of aged household goods. Basically, that you think, e.g. the govt., should provide (basic?) healthcare without cost is beside the point... what I just said is why you have any right to think this.

You've got $100. [etc, etc]

Your example completely ignores the existence of a government and the fact that market systems are typically way more complex than 1 person making a deal with 1 person.

It's unfortunately rather typical of my discussions with libertarians, there's an enormous lack of knowledge & understanding. "If people would just abandon all these rules that were made for a reason, which I fail to understand, then everything would magically work out." It's a rather horrid mix of ignorance and magical thinking.

Okay, whatever. You seem horribly unaware of how government assistance actually works.

Firstly, no, you cannot read what I just said and assume that the govt. is not involved. I didn't say that you "earn" $100... I said you had a $100 and also had a job. There are some forms of welfare that still apply if you already have a job. However, by and large, once you have a job, the govt. tends to consider its job done and things get much harder (hence why people discuss concepts like "working poor"). A lot of govt. assistance, in my experience, actually takes the form of loans anyway (consider, for instance, back to school costs through WINZ). Basically, because I assumed that my person was making all the right decisions, given their circumstances, you have to assume that they have made use of what govt. assistance they are able to obtain.

Secondly, that the govt. could do things differently is nonsensical. For instance, you could mandate that organisations like Auckland Transport come up with a community services concession (maybe it'd even 'stack' with existing ones), but, right now, they do not do this and there is no public transport concession that exists for being, for want of a better phrase, poor. When you are making decisions, with even the vaguest smear of rationality, you do not factor in things which do not exist... doing that isn't irrational decision making, it's delusional decision making.

Thirdly, you cannot actually take my example to say that it argues against doing things differently. You seem to think it does. What my example does is show you an example of a user pays system of healthcare. It doesn't say that this is a good thing. It doesn't even explicitly say what's going on is bad... it trusts the reader to figure that out for itself.

To recap, I thought it was an insult to the thread's intelligence to point that we had assumed our discussion was in the context of a user pays healthcare system: that seemed like a given.

In terms of how markets operate...

The entire foundation of a market can be considered very simply. Firstly, we assume people are rational. Secondly, we assume that they want to maximise their personal benefits. If we want we can make a whole bunch of other assumptions and from those we determine that the market allocates resources efficiently (and socially desirably). These assumptions don't actually affect how the market operates even though they alter how it works.

From this point forward, you have some individual, John, who wants to buy something from another party, Firm. If Firm is the only seller, then we start off with whether or not Firm wants to set a price or a quantity... then we move on to whether or not, given Firm's actions, John actually buys anything. If there are more sellers other than Firm, then we need to consider Firm's behaviour given those other sellers, then we consider John's behaviour given Firm's actions. We will often make some more assumptions about the way these firms interact... even if this means we come up with obviously (and laughably) wrong statements like petrol stations all sell fuel at the same price.* Anyway, in some situations, Firm will actually make decisions based on what they think John will do... maybe John is the only buyer, or maybe there is just no reason for John to choose Firm and if Firm doesn't fall in line, then John will go elsewhere. Take a bunch of Johns or whatever and you have the going rate. However, it is also the case that firms, etc. always choose a price and then enter the market and they simply adjust it as necessary once exposed to the market.

Behind the scenes of this John/Firm interaction you have a bunch of other things going on... by which we mean other markets. For instance, maybe John's got a low paid job as a cleaner. Say he's technically an independent contract worker. Sadly for him, his contract is coming up for renewal and since he formed his previous contract a large cleaning firm has come into town. This firm is able to buy materials in bulk and takes advantage of economies of scale... so it can offer a more enticing contract than John, even though its cleaners don't actually earn any more money than he does. Or, maybe, John's an industrial cleaner, but he's working in a time and place where there's a structural shift and people start telecommuting: the demand for John's services falls away. What is John to do? Well, because John is "poor", he is unable to invest in himself and there's a good chance trying to find additional work** adds additional costs. In other words, John is forced to play the lottery and has to hope that it all works out for him. Luckily it does: the place he was cleaning convinces the cleaning firm to hire him.

There are also other markets operating behind Firm's scenes. And changes in these markets could well lead to an increase in the costs of what John was interested in buying. This could be a complete disaster for John. As a poor cleaner, in a contract, his income is particularly sticky so when costs change around him, he has to consume less. And for a lot of poor working people, inflation actually will lead to a fall in purchasing power if minimum wages are not increased at the same rate (fairly easy when you have a low inflation environment).

But who cares about all this? Well, not us. This stuff is completely irrelevant to the question posed by that example. Quite aside from easily being able to demonstrate the same point, a market consists of a series of related, individual events. This means, when I rock up to a shop looking to buy something, I could negotiate a bit over the price*** but every other interaction doesn't have a visible impact on the result of our negotiation... which will actually probably consist of 0 negotiation, as I made the decision to buy whatever based on the listed price. We were not, at this point, doing anything other than exploring the question of trade-offs... and in particular that it was irrational to visit a GP (that we already knew cost money to see) because of what doing so meant you went without in both the long and short term.

*Where I live, it's about 20 cents cheaper than 20 minutes closer to town (or 20 minutes further away). Location, location, location. However, because all supermarkets have 4 cents off deals with different petrol stations, you can even have petrol stations three minute's walk from each other selling at different prices.

**Again, I assume that John is paying attention to these changes happening around him.

***My last haircut cost me $13.50. Why? I didn't have $14 cash on me and the "seller" didn't mind about the 50c. (Not that said barber has any worries with people walking down to the ATM.)

From an individual point of view, it is better that you have some sort of system that maximises individual sense of success.

That is true in more egalitarian systems, that allow everyone to achieve some measure of success in life, even when they were born without the money, power or abilities that allow one to 'win' in a pure free market system.

Pure free market systems minimize the individual sense of success, creating very few winners and many losers.

Firstly, you didn't answer my question. That's helpful.

Secondly, we shouldn't really desire maximisation of individual success. This would, for instance, cause things like smoking to balloon again. This is really why I asked the question.

[Xerographica]

Incidentally, regarding your example of grain speculation: It led to the French Revolution. I'm not kidding - one of the major causes of the famine which undermined the monarchy's popular support was rampant speculation on the price of grain.

Anyone can quote an author to look good. Have you actually read Wicksell as I have Adam Smith, or were you just looking for a libertarian quote to suit your demand of the moment?

Might want to improve your reading skills and reread Adam Smith...

When the government, in order to remedy the inconveniences of a dearth, orders all the dealers to sell their corn at what it supposes a reasonable price, it either hinders them from bringing it to market, which may sometimes produce a famine even in the beginning of the season; or if they bring it thither, it enables the people, and thereby encourages them to consume it so fast as must necessarily produce a famine before the end of the season. The unlimited, unrestrained freedom of the corn trade, as it is the only effectual preventative of the miseries of a famine, so it is the best palliative of the inconveniences of a dearth; for the inconveniences of a real scarcity cannot be remedied, they can only be palliated. No trade deserves more the full protection of the law, and no trade requires it so much, because no trade is so much exposed to popular odium.

In years of scarcity the inferior ranks of people impute their distress to the avarice of the corn merchant, who becomes the object of their hatred and indignation. Instead of making profit upon such occasions, therefore, he is often in danger of being utterly ruined, and of having his magazines plundered and destroyed by their violence. It is in years of scarcity, however, when prices are high, that the corn merchant expects to make his principal profit. He is generally in contract with some farmers to furnish him for a certain number of years with a certain quantity of corn at a certain price. This contract price is settled according to what is supposed to be the moderate and reasonable, that is, the ordinary or average price, which before the late years of scarcity was commonly about eight-and-twenty shillings for the quarter of wheat, and for that of other grain in proportion. In years of scarcity, therefore, the corn merchant buys a great part of his corn for the ordinary price, and sells it for a much higher. That this extraordinary profit, however, is no more than sufficient to put his trade upon a fair level with other trades, and to compensate the many losses which he sustains upon other occasions, both from the perishable nature of the commodity itself, and from the frequent and unforeseen fluctuations of its price, seems evident enough, from this single circumstance, that great fortunes are as seldom made in this as in any other trade. The popular odium, however, which attends it in years of scarcity, the only years in which it can be very profitable, renders people of character and fortune averse to enter into it. It is abandoned to an inferior set of dealers; and millers, bakers, mealmen, and meal factors, together with a number of wretched hucksters, are almost the only middle people that, in the home market, come between the grower and the consumer.

The ancient policy of Europe, instead of discountenancing this popular odium against a trade so beneficial to the public, seems, on the contrary, to have authorized and encouraged it. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

And bedamned to those who starve because "the price of labour" won't keep a roof over their heads, eh? I recommend Jonathan Swift's works to you, one in particular. As far as the broader question of the (un)wisdom of price floors goes, labour is not broccoli - the conditions in which I use your labour matter infinitely more than those in which I use a head of broccoli. It won't object to being chopped up into small pieces, or spread out to make up the part of four heads' worth of broccoli in recipes, or left in the sweltering heat for days at a time. Why? Because those things produce no suffering, whereas using labour in any of those fashions does. And broccoli does not object to being bought at half-price, but labour almost invariably does - for good reason.

As a rule, I don't approve of price ceilings or floors on most goods. But human labour, that's an exception to the rule. Because human labour is not an ordinary good.

You're correct that human labor is different. Humans, unlike other goods, have a choice. And it's because they have a choice that we should not prevent them from making their own choices. Soldiers have been left in the sweltering heat for days at a time. And they've been blown up into small pieces. Spending a year in Afghanistan I endured the former but thank goodness obviously not the latter. Who are you to prevent people from choosing to join the military? Who are you to decide what cost is worth what benefit for other people? You can never ever walk in another person's shoes. So it's the epitome of pretentious to prevent people from making decisions for themselves. Of course you're more than welcome to try and solely rely on persuasion and incentives to encourage people to make decisions that you consider to be better. This is what facilitates the flow and exchange of information.

Labour has intrinsically less mobility than capital - as a share of their ready assets, almost any company will spend far, far less moving its production to a new locale in response to a price incentive than a family or even a lone worker will. It can be done by the latter, but is worth doing only when the price disparity has become very significant indeed.

If we benefit when capital moves to where it is most needed... then we obviously benefit when labor also moves to where it is most needed. Everybody is harmed when incentives to move resources are artificially modified. This is true whether we're talking about food or labor.

Remind me; how's that working out for America? Businesses moved to areas which had labour surpluses - they moved overseas. And it doesn't matter if there's a minimum wage or not; the $2.50/hour which Chinese manufacturing workers get paid (circa 2015) simply won't keep an American worker alive, far less in a position to purchase the goods that he's making. Ford, for all his stupidity on race relations, sussed that out - a mass-consumption economic model can only work when people are making enough money (by and large) to afford the very goods or services they're producing.

It's not working out great for America that China has almost caught up to us? So it would work out best for America if it was the only developed country in the world? Seriously? It would be best for America if this forum only consisted of Americans? Because America has a monopoly on ingenuity and creativity? When Hillary Clinton says that we shouldn't keep talent on the sidelines she's obviously only referring to American talent? It's redundant to say "American talent" because talent only exists in America?

Incidentally, while we're still on the topic of labour-market economics: What do you advocate to be done when automation displaces the 35-40% of jobs it's expected to over the next decade? That's actually a low guess, for a Western economy - I've seen estimates as low as 42% (CEDA's estimation of the impact on Australia) and as high as 48% (Deloitte's estimation of the impact on Switzerland) - but I wanted to be generous to you, give you a smaller problem to solve. When a large chunk of the workforce, perhaps even a majority of it, is simply superfluous to the production of goods and most services, what would an economically-rational autocrat do?

The supply and variety of better options is a function of the efficient allocation of resources. How can we improve the efficiency of allocations? By facilitating valuations. When everybody's valuations are far more accessible, everybody's decisions will be far more valuable. If automation frees up a massive amount of labor... then benefit will be maximized if this labor is put to its most valuable uses. Labor can only be put to its most valuable uses when everybody's valuations are far more accessible.

In case you missed it... humans are incredibly diverse. This means that demand is incredibly diverse. Unfortunately, the large bulk of this diverse demand is hidden because people don't recognize the importance of making their valuations far more accessible. If people recognized the importance of making their valuations far more accessible... then there would be a massive abundance of diverse and valuable employment options.

As problems with the free market go, it's one that's acknowledged by all but the most stubborn of Austrian adherents. It is acknowledged to work in both directions, incidentally: not only does the free market overproduce goods with negative externalities, it underproduces goods with positive externalities - benefits for people not engaged in the transaction.

I acknowledge externalities. What you don't grasp is that the size (costs/benefits) of externalities can't be correctly measured by governments...

It is impossible for anyone, even if he be a statesman of genius, to weigh the whole community's utility and sacrifice against each other. - Knut Wicksell, A New Principle of Just Taxation

As I pointed out to another participant in this thread... I'm not a libertarian... I'm a pragmatarian. Chances are extremely good that you've never had the glorious opportunity to exchange thoughts with a pragmatarian before. So please inform yourself of the basics so that we can have a far more productive discussion.

As far as public goods go, I again don't particularly believe that it's necessary for any government to know how much people value (read: are willing to pay for) public goods, because the government has a compelling social interest in producing an adequate supply of those goods to meet the basic needs of society as a whole, which is an interest that no private-sector producer ever holds.

You expect congress to make public goods choices with due consideration for my wellbeing. My wellbeing? In the private sector I have to spend so much time and energy going around telling producers what works for my wellbeing. I shop and shop and shop. For example, I go to the store and buy some artichokes. In doing so I tell Frank the farmer, "Hey! You correctly guessed that my wellbeing depends on artichokes! Thanks! Good lookin' out! Here's some money! Keep up the good work!"

Yet here you are telling me that congress can know what works for my wellbeing despite the fact that I've never once in my life shopped in the public sector. It boggles my mind. It blows my mind. It bears repeating with emphasis... congress can know what works for my wellbeing despite the fact that I've never once in my life shopped in the public sector. If you even suspect that this is true... then please... don't hide your insight under a bushel. Start a thread here, there and everywhere and say "Hey folks! Shopping is entirely redundant! It's entirely unnecessary for us to spend so much of our limited time and energy using our cash to communicate what works for our wellbeing."

Your patronizing ad hominem remarks are duly noted, and dismissed. When it comes to assessments of my worth, I'll take the grades I was given over the course of multiple degree programmes (one of which was incidentally a Bachelor's Degree in Commerce, with a major in Economics) over the smug, self-satisfied remarks of a random stranger on the Internet. After all, my academic assessors had an incentive (since you love that word) to evaluate my work impartially and fairly rather than scoring cheap points at someone else's expense.

Heh. Yeah... overly sensitive about your worth? You have a double standard when it comes to private goods and public goods. You think shopping is necessary for private goods but it's unnecessary for public goods. This is what I meant by incoherent. My favorite living economist, Alex Tabarrok, is also incoherent. So is Paul Romer. They are good economists but they'd be infinitely better economists if they could get their story straight.

Given that nobody's willing to pay you to post here, why do you do so? If you were a rational economic being (i.e., not "cheating"), you would not post in this forum. Indeed, you, as Economically Rational Man, would engage in only the barest minimum of leisure activities needed to physically and psychologically support you as you tirelessly work to produce for your own gain, and those activities would be carefully structured so as to ensure that they aligned with your next task's requirements. Economically Rational Man works 12-hour days, six days a week - the most that the human body and mind are capable of sustaining on a long-term basis.

Seriously? Homo economicus maximizes his benefit. Does this mean that he spends his entire time working? Only if you want to make the entirely stupid assumption that everybody derives the same amount of benefit from the same things.

[Galloism]

As I pointed out to another participant in this thread... I'm not a libertarian... I'm a pragmatarian. Chances are extremely good that you've never had the glorious opportunity to exchange thoughts with a pragmatarian before. So please inform yourself of the basics so that we can have a far more productive discussion.

Strange assertion that there's more than one of you, and you link back to your own blog to prove it. That's a little bit strange, don't you think?

You have a double standard when it comes to private goods and public goods. You think shopping is necessary for private goods but it's unnecessary for public goods. This is what I meant by incoherent.

Once again, saying different problems require different solutions is not in any way incoherent, no matter how much you assert it insistently on this forum.

WHY do you not insist that all boats should have wheels underneath? You want them for all cars, why not all boats? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

WHY do you not insist that all cars should have wings for lift? You want them for all planes, why not cars? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

WHY do you not insist that all planes should have turn signals? You want them for all cars, why not planes? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

Or do you admit that different problems sometimes require different solutions?

[Quokkastan]

As I pointed out to another participant in this thread... I'm not a libertarian... I'm a pragmatarian. Chances are extremely good that you've never had the glorious opportunity to exchange thoughts with a pragmatarian before. So please inform yourself of the basics so that we can have a far more productive discussion.

Strange assertion that there's more than one of you, and you link back to your own blog to prove it. That's a little bit strange, don't you think?

You have a double standard when it comes to private goods and public goods. You think shopping is necessary for private goods but it's unnecessary for public goods. This is what I meant by incoherent.

Once again, saying different problems require different solutions is not in any way incoherent, no matter how much you assert it insistently on this forum.

WHY do you not insist that all boats should have wheels underneath? You want them for all cars, why not all boats? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

WHY do you not insist that all cars should have wings for lift? You want them for all planes, why not cars? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

WHY do you not insist that all planes should have turn signals? You want them for all cars, why not planes? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

Or do you admit that different problems sometimes require different solutions?

No matter how many times you roll him up that hill, he's still going to come tumbling back down.

[New Chalcedon]

Strange assertion that there's more than one of you, and you link back to your own blog to prove it. That's a little bit strange, don't you think?


Once again, saying different problems require different solutions is not in any way incoherent, no matter how much you assert it insistently on this forum.

WHY do you not insist that all boats should have wheels underneath? You want them for all cars, why not all boats? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

WHY do you not insist that all cars should have wings for lift? You want them for all planes, why not cars? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

WHY do you not insist that all planes should have turn signals? You want them for all cars, why not planes? WHY are you so incoherent on this fact?

Or do you admit that different problems sometimes require different solutions?

No matter how many times you roll him up that hill, he's still going to come tumbling back down.

...You can lead a horse to water...

[Xerographica]

Given that values are entirely subjective, this goal can only be achieved when people are free to spend their money in order to communicate what they consider beneficial/progressive.

That only makes sense if everyone has the same amount of money to start with, because then everyone can equally maximize their benefits, based on their own needs. If you have unequal buying power, people with more money can get way more benefits. Why is this optimal?

For example, don't you believe in the law of diminishing returns? Because that would suggest that some wealth redistribution will increase the average benefits, because the more benefits people already have, the more money is needed to get the same effect.

The distribution of wealth reflects the spending decisions of lots of people. Artificially changing the distribution of wealth means overruling the spending decisions of lots of people. I imagine myself going around a grocery store and overruling people's spending decisions. "You don't need so many cans of tuna"... or... "You should have more veggies". It would be absurd for me to do this. Yet, here you are recommending that this be done on a massive scale.

This sounds rather sociopathic. The killing of Jews wasn't wrong because they had better uses, it was wrong because they are people with human rights.

Look at the mentally handicapped, they were killed because they couldn't be productive citizens. Do you think that this was right? Or that letting them starve in a free market system where people have to work for their food is right? Do you think that they lost the right to live when they 'decided' to be born with a mental handicap?

Obviously there have been plenty of governments that have had no problem taking away people's rights. The Holocaust didn't occur because people were unfamiliar with the concept of rights... it occurred because people don't understand the problem with overruling everybody's spending decisions.

The issue shouldn't be whether the handicapped have a right to live... the issue is society's valuation of the handicapped. Because of the free-rider problem... society's valuation of the handicapped could only be determined by allowing people to choose where their taxes go.

And perhaps I voted for a system that removes the arbitrariness of depending on benefactors and created a system of government benefits. A system that you want to demolish.

As I already said, I'm a pragmatarian. I simply want to give people the option to choose where their taxes go.

It's not immoral to earn money. It's immoral to be lucky in a way that allows you to earn a lot of money, without wanting to share some of that with the less lucky.

If people had the option to choose where their taxes go... what percentage of them would behave immorally/selfishly?

I'm going to stop here and leave you to your silly straw men. Social-democrat systems in the real world provide a safety net and if you ever become a honest debater, you can try to argue why your system is better than one with a safety net.

For now, let me just say that your lack of knowledge, combined with bad debating techniques and a lack of logic is extremely off putting.

I already told you that I'm a pragmatarian. Yet, here you are assuming that my system wouldn't have a safety net. Why are you making this assumption?

[Xerographica]

As I pointed out to another participant in this thread... I'm not a libertarian... I'm a pragmatarian. Chances are extremely good that you've never had the glorious opportunity to exchange thoughts with a pragmatarian before. So please inform yourself of the basics so that we can have a far more productive discussion.

Strange assertion that there's more than one of you, and you link back to your own blog to prove it. That's a little bit strange, don't you think?

What's strange is your interpretation of what I wrote.

Once again, saying different problems require different solutions is not in any way incoherent, no matter how much you assert it insistently on this forum.

A. The main problem is how to allocate society's resources
B. The best solution will maximize benefit/progress
C. Because values are subjective, it's necessary to determine people's valuations

Do you agree with A, B and C?

[Aapje]

I hope you realise that my point was really much much wider than just healthcare. Being poor means you always have to play the lottery in any situation that involves some sort of risk. This extends into areas that relatively few people (contemporary to this discussion) think ought to be provided on a non-user pays basis... e.g. insurance, replacement of aged household goods.

Well, I do think that the social safety net should provide for things that are necessary to run a modern household in a way that is compatible with the demands of modern society.

IMO, you cannot believe in meritocracy and then deny people the means to achieve their potential to a reasonable extent. Of course, you are free to believe that social mobility is unimportant and people who are born poor should make 10 times the effort for half the gain as a person born into wealth....but again...then you believe in a class-based society, not a meritocracy. You are allowed to believe that, but don't BS people that it's about 'optimal/fair' outcomes.

Basically, that you think, e.g. the govt., should provide (basic?) healthcare without cost is beside the point... what I just said is why you have any right to think this.

Can you clarify? I don't understand what you mean by "why you have any right to think this."

I have a right to have an opinion on how society should be run, just like everyone else. I have a right to think that my opinion is better than the opinion of other people.

Okay, whatever. You seem horribly unaware of how government assistance actually works.

Funny, I think the same about you.

However, by and large, once you have a job, the govt. tends to consider its job done

No, the working poor get benefits in many countries.

A lot of govt. assistance, in my experience, actually takes the form of loans anyway (consider, for instance, back to school costs through WINZ).

I'm not from New Zealand, but after googling for WINZ I found a lot of mention of subsidies and such and no mention of support that had to be paid back.

Anyway, (reasonable) income-test education loans vs free education is more an issue of wealth redistribution in general. The question of having those loans vs not having those loans at all is more the issue when it comes to allowing people to achieve their potential to a reasonable extent.

Basically, because I assumed that my person was making all the right decisions, given their circumstances, you have to assume that they have made use of what govt. assistance they are able to obtain.

Well, a big issue in my country is that the government services are too complex for less-educated people. So it's not a reasonable assumption that people are necessarily able to take advantage of the assistance.

Secondly, that the govt. could do things differently is nonsensical. For instance, you could mandate that organisations like Auckland Transport come up with a community services concession (maybe it'd even 'stack' with existing ones), but, right now, they do not do this and there is no public transport concession that exists for being, for want of a better phrase, poor. When you are making decisions, with even the vaguest smear of rationality, you do not factor in things which do not exist... doing that isn't irrational decision making, it's delusional decision making.

I was talking about how we allocate things as society.

If you assume that the current system is fixed and only the individual has a choice, then you are limited to the choices that society leaves you. At that point, you often can't use the alternative allocation methods. For example, businesses may not be allowed to sell below cost. Furthermore, if you employ a linvoid system, while the rest of society doesn't, your wealth will quickly drain away, because you don't get treated as you treat others.

To recap, I thought it was an insult to the thread's intelligence to point that we had assumed our discussion was in the context of a user pays healthcare system: that seemed like a given.

The issue is that you seemed to be arguing the validity of an allocation system based on one possibility. How can I conclude anything else than that you think that such a system should be in place?

I cannot read your mind, so if you don't indicate that your example is merely a thought experiment that is only valid for one choice of a (healthcare) system, then how can I know that you are not arguing the general case? You need to state these things.

Firstly, we assume people are rational.

Provably false.

Secondly, we assume that they want to maximise their personal benefits.

Provably false.

If we want we can make a whole bunch of other assumptions and from those we determine that the market allocates resources efficiently (and socially desirably).

I'm pretty sure that many of those assumptions would be false too (basic economy 101 explains that true free markets are pretty much impossible within the real world).

As the assumptions are false, your conclusions will not be valid for humans and our physical world. What is the value of a purely theoretical 'efficient system' that has no application in the real world, as the prerequisites for it to function 'efficiently' are false?

In other words, John is forced to play the lottery and has to hope that it all works out for him.

A system which involves a strong random element, where people take long term suboptimal choices (like not getting insurance), is not efficient.

which will actually probably consist of 0 negotiation, as I made the decision to buy whatever based on the listed price.

Exactly, so the entire question of what kind of 'allocation method' one prefers is silly at the individual level, as most people have very little choice. That's why your example was silly and useless.

Secondly, we shouldn't really desire maximisation of individual success. This would, for instance, cause things like smoking to balloon again.

I don't understand this. Why should people achieve success through smoking? How does that work?

Most smokers I know feel slaves to the cigarette, they aren't exactly proud of their 'achievement' of being addicted.

[Aapje]

I acknowledge externalities. What you don't grasp is that the size (costs/benefits) of externalities can't be correctly measured by governments...

It's not rational to ignore problems that cannot be measured exactly, rather than either use a best estimate or 'be on the safe side' approach (where the latter ought to be based on a cost/benefit analysis based on the potential harm and cost of reducing that chance).

As I pointed out to another participant in this thread... I'm not a libertarian... I'm a pragmatarian. Chances are extremely good that you've never had the glorious opportunity to exchange thoughts with a pragmatarian before. So please inform yourself of the basics so that we can have a far more productive discussion.

Your site has libertarian arguments and (thus) libertarian mistakes.

Like not acknowledging the existence of non-linear benefits. When spending X provides Y in benefits for society, but spending 1/2 X provides 1/4 Y benefits and spending 2 X provides Y in benefits; it's much more efficient to spend out of a common fund and/or make everyone pay a fixed amount that adds up to X, than to allow people to give what they want, with the likely outcome to be inefficient spending.

Have you ever been part of a group at a restaurant where you have a communal bill and each person is expected to pay their share? It never works out right. And that is when people are actually expected to pay their share, not even the 'pay whatever you want, while you are not prevented from benefiting from government services' system that you propose; which obviously leads to free rider problems as well.

The distribution of wealth reflects the spending decisions of lots of people. Artificially changing the distribution of wealth means overruling the spending decisions of lots of people. I imagine myself going around a grocery store and overruling people's spending decisions. "You don't need so many cans of tuna"... or... "You should have more veggies". It would be absurd for me to do this.

Yet people's decisions are already 'overruled' by having lower tax rates for necessary goods.

So what you call absurd is actually considered sensible by most people. Of course, you are an extremist for whom it is either all or nothing, which leads you to dismiss one extreme and then choosing the other extreme. However, both extremes are equally silly, you just close your eyes to the problems of the extreme choice that you choose.

society's valuation of the handicapped could only be determined by allowing people to choose where their taxes go.

Which we do by making laws that limit people's behavior, rather than depending on the kind of libertarian system that you prefer.

As I already said, I'm a pragmatarian. I simply want to give people the option to choose where their taxes go.

That's just a variant of libertarianism. That you can't see that, just demonstrates again how little understanding you have of even your own position.

If people had the option to choose where their taxes go... what percentage of them would behave immorally/selfishly?

Very many, because humans are known to act selfishly and rationalize it as fair.

This is why 'enlightened' dictatorships never work out. The dictator always ends up helping himself and his clan over the backs of others. This is why a democracy is the best system we have found so far, because the clash of interests with no automatic winner, means that people have to compromise on their selfishness. Your system is somewhat similar to a democracy, but with 'one dollar, one vote', rather than 'one man, one vote.' The logical consequence is that the balance of power will be (even more) shift to favor the rich, who will treat the poor unfairly.

Yet, here you are assuming that my system wouldn't have a safety net. Why are you making this assumption?

I'm assuming that you prefer a voluntary safety net, which doesn't work, as an insufficient number of people will be willing to make the rather large payments that are necessary for a reasonable safety net.

Countries exist with no safety net, where people are free to fund a private welfare organization to build their own safety net. Yet this is never sufficient (to my standards). So my argument against you is the same one that I use against communism: show me somewhere where your system actually works.

[Forsher]

Well, I do think that the social safety net should provide for things that are necessary to run a modern household in a way that is compatible with the demands of modern society.

IMO, you cannot believe in meritocracy and then deny people the means to achieve their potential to a reasonable extent. Of course, you are free to believe that social mobility is unimportant and people who are born poor should make 10 times the effort for half the gain as a person born into wealth....but again...then you believe in a class-based society, not a meritocracy. You are allowed to believe that, but don't BS people that it's about 'optimal/fair' outcomes.

There's a person I kind of know who decided, once upon a time, that it would be a good idea to do a law degree and change the world. Then they got however far through one and decided that this was nuts.

There's a famous quote that is something like "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

Both seem to accurately describe your impression of what this conversation is. We don't speak, here, of what ought to be or what we think but rather of what is.

In any case, that you think anyone who bothers to argue that "being poor forces you" to do anything is unconcerned about issues of socio-economic inequality is laughable. It just doesn't add up. What is the probability that someone thinks social mobility is unimportant given they've chosen to describe the state of being poor as forcing people to do stuff? I don't know. It's low, though.

Can you clarify? I don't understand what you mean by "why you have any right to think this."

I have a right to have an opinion on how society should be run, just like everyone else. I have a right to think that my opinion is better than the opinion of other people.

And I am saying if you want to believe that a govt. should provide (basic?) healthcare then you better do so based on what I have been, rather patiently, explaining. However, again, the point is that such questions of what ought are not, in fact, the question at hand. Actually, that's not strictly true: it's whether or not "linvoid" allocation is ever anything other than undies on your head, pencil up your nose mental. Short answer, no it is not. Long answer... given your only challenge to the logic underpinning the short answer is to mention a non-price system, we can say the logic is sound.

(Later on I was talking about Big Points. This is the maximal extent to which they are relevant to my posts. I suggest that believing in a certain Big Point is fine if and only if your logic is thus.)

Funny, I think the same about you.

We'll get to this.

No, the working poor get benefits in many countries.

Generally not enough... the point was "job done" not "nothing at all". If the job is done, you walk away and the impetus to do more is gone. This is why we then followed up with "things get much harder (hence why people discuss concepts like "working poor")".

I'm not from New Zealand, but after googling for WINZ I found a lot of mention of subsidies and such and no mention of support that had to be paid back.

You probably should have noticed, given that I pointed out what I was thinking of (recall: in my experience), an example exactly like that.

Anyway, (reasonable) income-test education loans vs free education is more an issue of wealth redistribution in general. The question of having those loans vs not having those loans at all is more the issue when it comes to allowing people to achieve their potential to a reasonable extent.

And, again, you want to talk about big points. You can do that. Fine. I don't care. I'm not interested in that discussion, right now anyway. Don't, however, confuse these Big Points with what we really are discussing.

The point, as a refresher, was that you made an assumption about an example which could not be sustained.

Well, a big issue in my country is that the government services are too complex for less-educated people. So it's not a reasonable assumption that people are necessarily able to take advantage of the assistance.

Was it a reasonable assumption that "Budgeting won't help... you're already spending what you have very efficiently."? Probably not. Does that assumption's being true actually matter in terms of the example's point? Well, insfoar as all that is sufficient is that our example consumer believes they're efficient... no, it doesn't.

Imagine that we're trying to choose between a BA and a BCom in economics. That you have to take some maths papers either way (and you hate maths*) is a cost. However, this is not relevant to your decision because it is true in either case. What is relevant is what else you have to take. If you really hate accounting but love geography, you should, rationally, favour the BA (assuming the benefits of either degree are equal and there are no other relevant costs). Just because something is True^TM doesn't mean it matters.

*This is possibly an example of imperfect information... people get excited about the mathsless economics they've been doing at school and so don't realise that it really ought to be very maths-centric.

I was talking about how we allocate things as society.

If you assume that the current system is fixed and only the individual has a choice, then you are limited to the choices that society leaves you. At that point, you often can't use the alternative allocation methods. For example, businesses may not be allowed to sell below cost. Furthermore, if you employ a linvoid system, while the rest of society doesn't, your wealth will quickly drain away, because you don't get treated as you treat others.

Yes, exactly.

Recalling that this was an example of why linvoid allocation won't work... the point was that the fact sacrifice had to be made. That you redefine the sacrifice from some absolute (Xero's "efficient allocation") to relative (Xero's "linvoid allocation") doesn't change that there is a sacrifice, doesn't change the problem.

The issue is that you seemed to be arguing the validity of an allocation system based on one possibility. How can I conclude anything else than that you think that such a system should be in place?

I cannot read your mind, so if you don't indicate that your example is merely a thought experiment that is only valid for one choice of a (healthcare) system, then how can I know that you are not arguing the general case? You need to state these things.

Well, firstly, we're presented with a thread that is about various user-pays methods of allocations. You can pay with time ("fair"), you can pay with absolute amounts ("efficient") or you can pay with relative amounts ("linvoid"). In the earlier part of my post, I outright rejected the "fair"method.

Secondly, I was responding to the following "It's perfectly logical to (for example) want linvoid allocation for something like healthcare and efficient allocation for caviar, because the first is something that everyone should have and the second is just a luxury." So, we were talking specifically about paying some "linvoid" amount... i.e. that the user has to pay something, sacrifice something, in order to obtain some healthcare.

Thirdly, you never seem to have bothered with the point of the exercise... explaining "Basically, while some sort of "sacrifice ratio" sounds like a nice way of measuring value it is ultimately bunk".

In other words, simply paying attention to what we were talking about, rather than taking snippets of posts and choosing to talk about Big Points/Ideas, should have made it clear... Here's a great example:

"That is, linvoid and "what you can pay" aren't actually the same system. It doesn't capture relative valuations either because you might very well value health and fuel the same, but one is a cost you know you have to meet now..."

became

"one is a cost you know you have to meet now..."

And, thus, a criticism of "linvoid" and in particular a criticism of thinking "linvoid" was equitable (because it appears to acknowledge what people can pay) became an opportunity to get up and talk about time-distortion and rationality.

Provably false.

Imagine A and B. Imagine they're children and they are motivated to eat gummy bears. Imagine that equidistant between and out of reach of both A and B are two gummy bears resting on platforms. The platforms have a rope looped through a hook such that if you pull one end of the rope it comes free but if you pull both ends the platforms come within reach of A and B. A and B each have an end of the rope. This is a repeated exercise. Somehow these un-rational* creatures manage to not attempt to eat both gummy bears. (For reference, chimps...not so much.)

I'm not sure what your evidence is, but you aren't asked to believe that we can assume an individual is rational or irrational... you are "asked" to believe that people are rational enough. If children are able to make forward thinking rational decisions (eating both discourages future co-operation, i.e. that the two gummy bears are the only gummy bears you're getting), then it should be a fairly simple thing to believe in being "rational enough". This involves, for instance, believing that people don't make decisions which will obviously hurt their interests... and we don't actually care about efficiency here, so making a decision with long-term costs (e.g. smoking) does not count as "hurting their interests". That some individuals will hurt their interests is not people behaving irrationally.**

*Deliberately favoured over irrational.

**Even though technically it is.

Provably false.

I'm not going to lie... I don't know/can't remember if this assumption is necessary. It probably isn't... you just have a different looking personal demand function if you're not.

In any case, your challenge was how markets work. Here I gave you some assumptions you need to believe in enough to understand what I understand is our understanding of the market ape.

I'm pretty sure that many of those assumptions would be false too (basic economy 101 explains that true free markets are pretty much impossible within the real world).

Yes. Irrelevant, but yes. There's a reason why I started with "if". There's a reason why my tone is dismissive. They were and are beside the point of how these things operate. They are necessary for efficiency, but I wasn't trying to show markets are efficient.

As the assumptions are false, your conclusions will not be valid for humans and our physical world. What is the value of a purely theoretical 'efficient system' that has no application in the real world, as the prerequisites for it to function 'efficiently' are false?

Woah, slow down kiddo... said the Scouse gangster to the London Businessman/Drug Distributor. Again with the Big Points/Ideas.

Firstly, you didn't set up that exercise (i.e. showing that markets are efficient) with "the fact that market systems are typically way more complex than 1 person making a deal with 1 person."

Secondly, I didn't suggest you did when I characterised that critique with "In terms of how markets operate...".

Thirdly, as we just saw above, I pointed out that we would not be using the assumptions (that imply efficiency), but if we wanted to we could.

Fourthly, you should probably see if you disagree with what those conclusions are rather than looking only at the assumptions as a matter of good practice... "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

Finally, I will actually answer your question even though I am aware that I risk the whole of the above being ignored in order to focus in on my acknowledging the Big Point. Very simply, it sets up an ideal/a framework, which you can then attempt to achieve.... for instance, you have competition law (which could be understand as trying to make all firms price takers), you have marketing/advertising law (which could be understood as addressing some of information problems), you have intellectual property law (which balances incentives and removing barriers to entry/homogeneity), you have policy (which you could understand as being able to do something about using location to leverage market power) etc. etc. Of course, if people really aren't "rational enough" then this really doesn't matter... but you have not shown that, and it is not particularly difficult (not really at all) to think of examples that show some kind of rationality.*

*And things like market panics can be understood not necessarily as irrationality but as issues of information. What other people do is seen as better information than alternatives... which is why people like to talk about credibility.

(I should note that I do not think people are rational. I do, barring strong evidence otherwise, think that they are rational enough... at least for the concept of a market to exist and operate.)

A system which involves a strong random element, where people take long term suboptimal choices (like not getting insurance), is not efficient.

Efficiency had nothing to do with this. John existed as an example simply to show that your challenge "the fact that market systems are typically way more complex than 1 person making a deal with 1 person" meant nothing to the example.

I won't be drawn into this particular Big Point/Idea.

Exactly, so the entire question of what kind of 'allocation method' one prefers is silly at the individual level, as most people have very little choice. That's why your example was silly and useless.

Thread (Chalcedon, Gallo, Xero, anyone else, it doesn't matter who or how many), help me out here... did I suddenly start arguing with my position?

"When you are making decisions, with even the vaguest smear of rationality, you do not factor in things which do not exist... doing that isn't irrational decision making, it's delusional decision making."

"But who cares about all this? Well, not us. This stuff is completely irrelevant to the question posed by that example."

I'm going to say no, I didn't. But, then, I was recently responsible for this disaster in competent thinking, so I really at least try to check.

The example is meaningful precisely because you make your decisions given some system. The example is meaningful because it shows how and why a "linvoid" system is neither sane nor equitable. The example is meaningful because there was no reason, at all, to think we were discussing a non-user pays system. The example is meaningful because it shows why user-pays healthcare has serious flaws. The. Example. Was. Meaningful

I don't understand this. Why should people achieve success through smoking? How does that work?

Most smokers I know feel slaves to the cigarette, they aren't exactly proud of their 'achievement' of being addicted.

Read a smoking thread sometime.

You still haven't answered the question.

[Aapje]

The example is meaningful because it shows how and why a "linvoid" system is neither sane nor equitable.

My complaint about the poll was that you don't have to choose one system for everything. You can pick one system where it works the best and another system where it works better.

Giving an example of a situation where it doesn't work doesn't show that it can't work. What you and Xero are doing is the equivalent of driving a Tesla over rough terrain and then arguing that cars like that are useless, because they fail to handle that terrain. Reality is that the Tesla works fine on the asphalt.

The example is meaningful because there was no reason, at all, to think we were discussing a non-user pays system

My objections are perfectly true for a 'user-pays & government sells' scenario, where a linvoid system can work. There is no indication in the first post in the thread that this scenario is not part of the question.

Read a smoking thread sometime.

You still haven't answered the question.

Giving me the runaround is not going to work. I won't answer questions that you refuse to explain.

[Xerographica]

Yet, here you are assuming that my system wouldn't have a safety net. Why are you making this assumption?

I'm assuming that you prefer a voluntary safety net, which doesn't work, as an insufficient number of people will be willing to make the rather large payments that are necessary for a reasonable safety net.

With pragmatarianism, taxation wouldn't be voluntary. People would still have to pay the same amount of taxes. The only difference is that they would have the option to choose where their taxes go. Let's review your stance on morality...

In my opinion, not helping people in trouble when you can help, is immoral.

Let's say that I'm a taxpayer in a pragmatarian system. You lose your job. You would be in trouble. According to you, it would be moral for me to allocate my taxes to your unemployment benefits. Is this the only possible way for me to morally allocate my taxes?

If I didn't spend my taxes on your unemployment benefits... it's not like I could put those tax dollars back in my wallet and spend them on filet mignon and caviar. If I didn't spend my taxes on your unemployment benefits... I'd still have to spend them in the public sector. Let's say that I spent my taxes on public education. Therefore, perhaps my taxes would help a teacher keep his job. Would this allocation be more or less moral than paying for your unemployment benefits?

What if I spent my taxes in such a way that you were provided with a new job? Would this allocation be more or less moral than paying for your unemployment benefits?

The vast majority of ways that I could spend my taxes in the public sector would either help people keep their jobs and/or help create new jobs.

I'm pretty sure that in a pragmatarian system the safety net wouldn't need to be as large as it is. This is because far less people would need a safety net. People wouldn't get laid off... they would quit because they had found better employment opportunities. There would be more competition for labor and, as a result, labor would be better protected.

Right now taxpayers don't really debate whether more tax dollars need to be spent on food stamps or on creating jobs. It's not like taxpayers can choose where their taxes go. But if they could choose where their taxes go... then they would debate which allocation was more beneficial. As a result, lots of dispersed and relevant information would be shared. Everybody would make far more informed allocation decisions. Of course there would still be problems. But these problems would be tackled by a larger group of people. So better solutions would be found in less time. Society would make a lot more progress in a lot less time if people could choose where their taxes go.

[Chestaan]

The efficient allocation is incorrectly named as its not necessarily that efficient. Such a system should be called market allocation. A truly efficient allocation would be one which maximises utility. As an example of how the market allocation can be inefficient look at the fact that people can starve to death while others cab afford to buy Ferraris. Or the fact that people can die because they lack the means to buy a few cents worth of medicine. In fact the market allocation has even worse inefficiencies in that it both overproduces food while also allowing people to starve. Hardly what we could call efficient.

[Galloism]

Strange assertion that there's more than one of you, and you link back to your own blog to prove it. That's a little bit strange, don't you think?

What's strange is your interpretation of what I wrote.

not really. You referred to "dealing with a pragmatarian", implying there's more than one of you. Then you linked back to your own blog to "familiarize" him with pragmatarians.

Once again, saying different problems require different solutions is not in any way incoherent, no matter how much you assert it insistently on this forum.

A. The main problem is how to allocate society's resources
B. The best solution will maximize benefit/progress
C. Because values are subjective, it's necessary to determine people's valuations

Do you agree with A, B and C?

I'll agree with A.

I don't agree with B in full. The best solution will maximize benefit/progress to the extent practical while also ensuring a certain minimum standard of living for all.

C is also partially true. It is not necessary, but preferable to determine people's valuations to the extent practical. However, because of the nature of some goods, sometimes that valuation is best determined by spending, and sometimes it's best determined by voting or polling. Sometimes it's flat out unknowable and one of those three options is just as close as we can get.

Now, I put it back to you.

A) The main problem is how to transport things.
B) the best solution will minimize costs to transport and maximize speed thereof
C) because efficient transportation uses physics, it's necessary to use physics to determine the best option

Do you agree with A, B, and C?

[Galloism]

In fact the market allocation has even worse inefficiencies in that it both overproduces food while also allowing people to starve. Hardly what we could call efficient.

This is an interesting point, incidentally.

10% of food is lost at the retail level - it spoils or is thrown out before ever being purchased by consumers.

http://www.endhunger.org/PDFs/2014/USDA ... ummary.pdf

And yet... people starve to death. We literally throw food away while people starve to death. That's the 'efficient' system.

This system has certain benefits to it, but it's not the holy grail.

[Forsher]

The example is meaningful because it shows how and why a "linvoid" system is neither sane nor equitable.

My complaint about the poll was that you don't have to choose one system for everything. You can pick one system where it works the best and another system where it works better.

Giving an example of a situation where it doesn't work doesn't show that it can't work. What you and Xero are doing is the equivalent of driving a Tesla over rough terrain and then arguing that cars like that are useless, because they fail to handle that terrain. Reality is that the Tesla works fine on the asphalt.

Let me say this again... your only objections to what I said have absolutely nothing to do with "linvoid" systems. In fact, your only counter-point was to spend absolutely ages talking about an irrelevant dynamic... one where an example person (e.g. John, although the original example was the nameless general "you") does not have to sacrifice anything.

In short, you have fundamentally failed to defend your assertion that a Tesla can drive on asphalt, having instead told me all about inter-continental jumbo jets.

The example is meaningful because there was no reason, at all, to think we were discussing a non-user pays system

My objections are perfectly true for a 'user-pays & government sells' scenario, where a linvoid system can work. There is no indication in the first post in the thread that this scenario is not part of the question.

Let's be crystal clear here...

1) We were talking about a "linvoid" system.

2) A "linvoid" system, by definition, is a user-pays system.
2.1) Specifically, Xero's example of "linvoid" sets up a situation where you have some sort of "sacrifice ratio".
2.2) This was represented, in Xero's lingo (and he's literally and non-hyperbolically the only person qualified to talk about "linvoid," because he coined the term) as "ability to pay".

3) You proposed that a "linvoid" system would be appropriate for some types of product (e.g. healthcare) but not others (e.g. caviar).
3.1) Xero's initial description of "linvoid" (in this thread) framed the system in the sense of equitable allocation.
3.2) Subsequent discussion has made it abundantly clear that we have been discussing a "linvoid" system within an equitable framework.
3.2.1) I have argued that you have, in fact, been unable to avoid talking about equity.
3.2.2) In particular, I claim that Aapje has consistently and persistently done so to such an extent that the point of the conversation was lost.

4) I initially contended that a "linvoid" system was necessarily unfair.
4.1) In particular, I proposed that fairness is based on balancing the interests of all parties involved in the decision.
4.2) In response to Aapje's point in (3), I further argued that a "linvoid" system would not be equitable.
4.2.1) I invited the reader to believe that incentives matter.
4.2.2) I explained that "the poor" (an unfortunate phrase) have no incentive to sacrifice any portion of their income.
4.2.3) Fundamentally, a "linvoid" system merely transformed the nature of the sacrifice and did not address the cause of the issue (i.e. incentives).
4.3) Aapje responded to this as a question of time-value rationality.
4.3.1) I contended that not going to a GP is the rational choice.
4.3.2) In the long term, what is sacrificed in order to go to a GP creates a need for medical care.
4.3.3) I substantiated this by way of an example.

5) Aapje claimed that you only had to play the lottery when "(basic) healthcare is not provided" so you don't.
5.1) It is not clear whether or not Aapje thinks a "linvoid" system is such a system.
5.1.1) As it is still user-pays, the sacrifice still exists, which would imply Aapje does not think a "linvoid" system achieves this.
5.1.1.1) Aapje did not criticise the logic of having to make a trade-off. Hence the above is logical.
5.1.2) However, I am writing this, which suggests Aapje does think a "linvoid" system is such a system.
5.1.2.1) If this were not true, why are we disagreeing?
5.1.2.2) Perhaps, as I contend above, Aapje is labouring under the false belief the logic of the example has been disputed (or, even, refuted).
5.2) Aapje criticised several aspects of the example.
5.2.1) I defended the example.
5.2.2) Aapje criticised the defence.
5.2.2.1) I say criticised. I really mean asserted.
5.2.3) I pointed out that Aapje's criticisms were not relevant.
5.2.3.1.1) "Just because something is True^TM doesn't mean it matters."
5.2.3.1.2) I claimed that the example showed that the a "linvoid" system was insane and inequitable.
5.2.3.1.3) That was a mistake: the example only shows that it is inequitable.
5.2..3.1.3.1) The early discussion on "fairness" was what demonstrated insanity (given you hold fairness to be defined in that manner).
5.2.4) Aapje ignores everything else to return to (3), that is "a "linvoid" system would be appropriate for some types of product (e.g. healthcare) but not others (e.g. caviar)."

6) This post.

Your "objections" are thusly:

1) But what if we don't have to make a sacrifice? (i.e. randomly jumped to a totally new dynamic of a non-user-pays system)*
2) You have attempted, and failed miserably, to question the other assumptions of the example.

At no point have you dealt with the original contention, even though I just quoted it back at you, linvoid and "what you can pay" aren't actually the same system, where "what you can pay" is thought to represent some sort of equitable paradigm. The whole damn point is that you can pay nothing. You can sacrifice nothing. "Linvoid" just changes the "currency"... you're still broke.

In any case, you have never substantiated the initial claim that a Tesla can drive on asphalt.

*I am sure Xero has several things to say about a command type economy or whatever, but we are only asked to entertain user-pays systems in this thread.

Read a smoking thread sometime.

You still haven't answered the question.

Giving me the runaround is not going to work. I won't answer questions that you refuse to explain.

I've been reading about awareness and consciousness lately... perhaps, if you want me to explain, you could do me the common courtesy of answering my question on the fourth attempt.

In any case, it is hardly "the runaround"... most children would pick up the suggestion that they need to expand your horizons in this situation. In fact, I refuse to do anything other than write passive-aggressive (meta?)commentary in cases like this (i.e. of ironic questions that don't actually need to be asked).

I'd say it's been a privilege, but really I needed the confidence boost after the aforementioned debacle. Don't reply unless you address the following:

1) Substantiate your claim.
2) Respond to the point... i.e. that a "linvoid" system is not and cannot be equitable.*
3) Answer my question.

*And, yes, this argument does suggest that, at least in examples like what we've been talking about, Xero's efficient system can't be equitable either. Don't respond to this: it's irrelevant, although you're clearly very interested in the idea.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Dude, honestly, he's married and your fanboyism is getting creepy as fuck. Give it a rest.

[Xerographica]

Dude, honestly, he's married and your fanboyism is getting creepy as fuck. Give it a rest.

LOL. How many of his threads have I replied to? How many of my threads has he replied to? If you did the math then you'd realize that you've got the fanboy relationship backwards.

[Galloism]

Dude, honestly, he's married and your fanboyism is getting creepy as fuck. Give it a rest.

LOL. How many of his threads have I replied to? How many of my threads has he replied to? If you did the math then you'd realize that you've got the fanboy relationship backwards.

Once again, you are looking at the quantity of posts without considering the relative quantity compared to the number of posts of each user has. I am much richer in posts than you are and therefore have more posts to spare.

If you are going to make a comparison as to the number of posts of me replying to you versus you replying to me and making threads about me, you would have to compare against the total number of posts available between posters. Otherwise, you can't determine our true preference for posting about each other relative to our differential wealth of posts.

[Aapje]

2) Respond to the point... i.e. that a "linvoid" system is not and cannot be equitable.*

The issue is that we seem to be having is that you want to be having a different discussion than me. It's not very helpful to argue that I'm wrong for that.

To address your statement: I think that the question whether any system is equitable is nonsense. It's like arguing whether green is a better color than red. If my goal is to hide in hide in the bushes (like soldiers are known to do), then green is better for that purpose. If my goal is not to be shot by a hunter, red is better.

When it comes to economics, the situation is even harder, because soldiers tend to agree that it's better not to be seen, but people don't agree on what makes a fair allocation of goods. For some, 'fair' is when everyone has the same, for others, 'fair' is when those with the highest production get everything. Most people are in between, but not at the same spot.

So you can have a reasonable discussion about whether a system, or mix of systems, causes more or less wealth inequality or whether it causes power imbalances that get used to force people into certain decisions (etc); but you cannot declare that a level of wealth inequality or any level of power imbalance is objectively equitable.

TL;DR version: equitable is a moral term and thus subjective.

Let's be crystal clear here...

My position is that reality is so complex that no simple solution can address it.

The best we can do is take a basic system that works somewhat (like capitalism) and then address the deficiencies by adding restrictions (like laws), additions (like subsidies) and use non-capitalist methods in situations where that works better. At that point, you still have a system with many flaws, but fewer and smaller flaws than most alternatives.

So the second reason why your statement is not very useful is that it is a truism, but phrased in a way that implies that there are systems other than a a "linvoid" system that do lead to results that a sane person can call 'correct.'

[Xerographica]

The efficient allocation is incorrectly named as its not necessarily that efficient. Such a system should be called market allocation. A truly efficient allocation would be one which maximises utility. As an example of how the market allocation can be inefficient look at the fact that people can starve to death while others cab afford to buy Ferraris. Or the fact that people can die because they lack the means to buy a few cents worth of medicine. In fact the market allocation has even worse inefficiencies in that it both overproduces food while also allowing people to starve. Hardly what we could call efficient.

You see that Bob is starving. I see that you give him food. My assumption is that you derived utility from giving him food. If you don't give him food... then what do I assume?

A. You wouldn't derive utility from Bob being fed. In this case, from your perspective, it's not inefficient for Bob to starve. Maybe because you hate Bob. And if everybody hates Bob, then "we" would call it efficient for Bob to starve. Just imagine that Bob was a serial killer.

B. You would derive utility from Bob being fed. So why didn't you give him food? Well, you were hoping that I would give Bob food. This hope is reasonably rational. If I gave Bob food then you could have the utility of Bob being fed without having to spend any of your own money. Unfortunately for Bob, I was hoping that you would give him food and I could have the utility of him being fed without having to spend any of my own money.

Does "B" sound familiar? It should. It's the free-rider problem. The thing is, the point of the government is to solve the free-rider problem. So if you're arguing that people are currently starving... then you're arguing that the government is failing to solve the free-rider problem. This means that your issue isn't with the market... your issue is with the government. You think that you're criticizing the market but, in reality, you're actually criticizing the government.

But it's not the government's fault. The government isn't a mind-reader. The government can't possibly know how much utility you would derive from preventing people from starving. Without this knowledge the government can't possibly efficiently allocate tax dollars.

What's the solution?

You see that Bob is starving. You also see that Sarah is sick. You have to spend 50% of your income on public goods but you can choose which public goods you spend your taxes on. If you don't give any of your taxes to Bob, then you have to give all of your taxes to Sarah. I see that you give all of your taxes to Sarah and none of your taxes to Bob. What do I guess? I guess that you derived more utility from helping Sarah than you would have from helping Bob. So society's resources were efficiently allocated.

[Forsher]

Two quotes, before we begin.

We haven't the money so we've got to think.

One out of three ain't bad.

2) Respond to the point... i.e. that a "linvoid" system is not and cannot be equitable.*

The issue is that we seem to be having is that you want to be having a different discussion than me. It's not very helpful to argue that I'm wrong for that.

If you want to believe that, you can.

To address your statement: I think that the question whether any system is equitable is nonsense. It's like arguing whether green is a better colour than red. If my goal is to hide in hide in the bushes (like soldiers are known to do), then green is better for that purpose. If my goal is not to be shot by a hunter, red is better.

When it comes to economics, the situation is even harder, because soldiers tend to agree that it's better not to be seen, but people don't agree on what makes a fair allocation of goods. For some, 'fair' is when everyone has the same, for others, 'fair' is when those with the highest production get everything. Most people are in between, but not at the same spot.

So you can have a reasonable discussion about whether a system, or mix of systems, causes more or less wealth inequality or whether it causes power imbalances that get used to force people into certain decisions (etc); but you cannot declare that a level of wealth inequality or any level of power imbalance is objectively equitable.

TL;DR version: equitable is a moral term and thus subjective.

Subjectivity and objectivity have an interesting relationship. Namely, you can have an entirely objective answer but it is true only insofar as you compare it to some standard... and choosing that standard is what is "subjective". For instance, "better" was defined above based on "ability to hide". Brown is objectively better given our interest. We can extend this logic into rejecting the implicit notion that subjectivity precludes meaningfulness. After all, you simply need to ask a question which makes sense to the people it's being asked of. How you know a question makes sense is simple: context. On an international forum like this that can be a bit difficult (e.g. do you know what Boxing Day is? have you heard of crumbed chicken?) but conversations generate their own internal context... they generally construct the subjectively chosen standard as they go.

Fairness and equity are related concepts. Luckily, I have been defining what I've meant by fair... balancing the interest and agency of all parties involved. Equity... well, not so much. However, if that is what fairness is being used to mean and I've been discussing equity as something distinct, I think it makes sense to evaluate equity as being different. Furthermore, you may recall that I talked about "what you can pay" as being an understanding of what you were saying with the caviar/healthcare distinction point. Thus, given your side of the discussion, it is pretty obvious that equitable, as we've been talking about, means respecting human dignity. Your point is a nonsense... a general rule that has no bearing on the conversation experienced. Hence:

a "linvoid" system is not and cannot be equitable.

We could be less arbitrary... in the sense that the standard chosen by the conversation of two randoms on the internet is arbitrary... and opt to discuss equity as a court might understand it. My logic, as far as I remember my brief and very commercially focussed instruction on the topic, stands in such a case. However, I think most people would understand fairness and equity in terms of human dignity and establishing otherwise... even in very theoretical discussions of economics... would require establishing the subtleties of the standard beforehand.

Of course, power imbalances had nothing to do with why John had to play the lottery... unless you track back to some previous point to mention that the working poor do not have enough power to create a system which means they don't.

Let's be crystal clear here...

My position is that reality is so complex that no simple solution can address it.

The best we can do is take a basic system that works somewhat (like capitalism) and then address the deficiencies by adding restrictions (like laws), additions (like subsidies) and use non-capitalist methods in situations where that works better. At that point, you still have a system with many flaws, but fewer and smaller flaws than most alternatives.

So the second reason why your statement is not very useful is that it is a truism, but phrased in a way that implies that there are systems other than a a "linvoid" system that do lead to results that a sane person can call 'correct.'

The market system, as we understand it, requires laws. They are not restrictions, although they can be, they are the equivalent of the domain of a function... the function doesn't make sense outside the domain, and markets do not make sense without laws.

Not that the "linvoid" system isn't just a different packaging of the "efficient" system. The "fair" system is something quite radically different insofar as it essentially means time is currency... or, if you like, all sellers make an offer of $0, which naturally can be accepted and enforced by whoever happens to notice the offer first.

And, in any case, this is an entirely dull point... very few people (at least, those familiar with pure public goods) believe that markets work for everything... and, as I alluded to before, you're actually pretty hard-pressed to find people with entirely non-market philosophies. Your particular point, that a "linvoid" system would be appropriate for healthcare, was what we have theoretically been disputing... although you apparently disagree with me that the thrust (abstract principle underlying this belief) was that it'd be more equitable this way.

To make the final point here, we must take a slight detour. An individual human is not rational, yes? However, we find an attempt to create beings of rational thought (e.g. Sherlock Holmes, House) fairly frequently. Yet, these creatures are not purely rational either (a major flaw is that both absolutely loathe boredom*). I think there is a reason for this... to be completely rational would make them appear insane to us. Perhaps part of this is because they operate as if there is a reason for every action, every phrase. It follows that for real people, and real action, there is not necessarily some great rationale**. However, the appeal of these characters is, in some sense, that they better... that they make the right decision.

The point, then, is that while people might generally not bother making sure a change is better than the base state, if you see a proposal that something should change (i.e. to providing healthcare linvoidally) then you better establish that it is. And for this reason it doesn't matter I may or may not imply that there is a perfect/correct system out there somewhere because implicitly I am holding the system to a specific standard: that it is better than what we've already got.***

*Scarcely odd, Holmes inspired House. Also, I loathe boredom myself so I may be predisposed to notice these tendencies and forget instances where they tolerate boredom.

**For instance, maybe I made "because the first is something that everyone should have" grander than it was intended to be...not because I am some overly rational creature but because if it were I writing this, there would be something behind this.

***Which was assumed to be some sort of user-pays system... specifically one that makes you pay for visits to your GP... although this may have been in error. We have, however, established that the user-pays system was definitely the only possible scenario, the point here is that my vision of the "what we've already got" was framed with respect to my experience rather than whatever Aapje's intended one was.

[Aapje]

With pragmatarianism, taxation wouldn't be voluntary. People would still have to pay the same amount of taxes. The only difference is that they would have the option to choose where their taxes go.

How does that deal with short term emergencies? Local and national governments continuously deal with smaller and bigger emergencies where they make choices (including the reallocation of funds) to deal with that. Will you require citizens to alter their choices just as often as politicians do? Because if so, it is an absurd burden. Right now, this is too much work even for full-time politicians, who split up this job over many people, who each specialize.

Frankly, it's just delusional to think that citizens can inform themselves sufficiently about all issues, while still having a normal job. Such a system cannot work without some form of abstraction, where most/all people offload this responsibility to follow all the details of politics to someone else. At that point, you are just back at a form of representational government, where people pick a person to choose the appropriate allocation of taxes for them.

---

How does your system prevent calculating behavior where people don't choose an allocation that they prefer, but force an unfair compromise through manipulation? An example:

Imagine that there are only two things the government can spend money on: A and B. I want 40% of overall taxes to be spent on A and 60% on B. The average voter chooses 60% of tax to be spent on A and 40% on B. Rational behavior is now for me to allocate 0% of my taxes to A and 100% to B. This makes the end result closer to my preference, than if I would allocate my taxes according to my actual preference.

The problem with this calculating behavior is that it depends not just on knowing my own preferences, but on knowing the preferences of everyone else, which are not really knowable, especially when other people act rationally as well and use the same trick. So you end up in a situation where people guess what other people will vote and allocate their taxes based on that, which leads to outcomes that are no longer representative of the desired outcome of the average person.

Let's say that I'm a taxpayer in a pragmatarian system. You lose your job. You would be in trouble. According to you, it would be moral for me to allocate my taxes to your unemployment benefits. Is this the only possible way for me to morally allocate my taxes?

If I didn't spend my taxes on your unemployment benefits... it's not like I could put those tax dollars back in my wallet and spend them on filet mignon and caviar. If I didn't spend my taxes on your unemployment benefits... I'd still have to spend them in the public sector. Let's say that I spent my taxes on public education. Therefore, perhaps my taxes would help a teacher keep his job. Would this allocation be more or less moral than paying for your unemployment benefits?

In my opinion, the right to live is considerably more important than having a job, so it's less moral to let someone die and instead spend that money on a teacher.

I strongly disagree that any spending results in equally moral outcomes, if that's what you are arguing.

I'm pretty sure that in a pragmatarian system the safety net wouldn't need to be as large as it is.

I don't understand how a different allocation of tax would suddenly eliminate the need for a 'large' safety net. It's not a logical conclusion from anything you've said.

Is your argument that if people choose the allocation themselves, rather than career politicians, that they will do a better job? If so, what proof do you have for this? Do you think that it's a given that a person who does politics next to a job and doesn't have time to really dive into it, will do a better job than a specialist? Because common sense says that a specialist will generally do a better job.

This is because far less people would need a safety net. People wouldn't get laid off... they would quit because they had found better employment opportunities. There would be more competition for labor and, as a result, labor would be better protected.

Frankly, you come across as a dreamer. You have these ideas of how your system will magically result in paradise, but no logical explanation of how this will work.

Right now taxpayers don't really debate whether more tax dollars need to be spent on food stamps or on creating jobs.

Actually, they do. These things get debated and are part of the political positions of politicians. However, people have to choose for a set of policies, rather than cherry pick. A good argument can be made that the former is better than the latter.

It's not like taxpayers can choose where their taxes go.

They do, by proxy. Denying this just makes you look like a person who denies reality. Of course you can argue that doing it directly is better than doing it by proxy, but then argue that. Don't use falsehoods to make your point.

As a result, lots of dispersed and relevant information would be shared. Everybody would make far more informed allocation decisions.

This thing that you are doing is called wishful thinking.

Nothing is stopping people today from debating politics more, from educating themselves more, from being more engaged in general. The reason why people don't is not (just) the system, it's that they have limited time and many things they want or need to do. Any system that forces uninterested or overstretched people into making choices, will result in lazy choices, not somehow turn these people into political experts. It's not realistic to think that a sprinkling of 'pragmatic' dust will make people suddenly care about things they didn't find interesting before or will allow them to spend more time on politics.

But these problems would be tackled by a larger group of people.

Larger is not automatically better. A group of fools will make worse decisions than a small group of experts.

Furthermore, your solution will merely result in having people allocate money, but that doesn't determine how the money is spent. You can do welfare in many ways with the same amount of tax money. I don't see how your solution gets citizens to tackle problems, unless you want to decide all choice by referendum, which goes way further than choosing how to allocate tax money.

In the current system, the large group of people get a relatively easy task: pick a group of experts. They often do rather poorly at it. Why would it go better when you give the large group of people a much harder task?

So better solutions would be found in less time. Society would make a lot more progress in a lot less time if people could choose where their taxes go.

And people would shit caviar and piss champagne....after all, if you are going to be a hopeless Utopian, why not go all the way.

[Xerographica]

With pragmatarianism, taxation wouldn't be voluntary. People would still have to pay the same amount of taxes. The only difference is that they would have the option to choose where their taxes go.

How does that deal with short term emergencies? Local and national governments continuously deal with smaller and bigger emergencies where they make choices (including the reallocation of funds) to deal with that. Will you require citizens to alter their choices just as often as politicians do? Because if so, it is an absurd burden. Right now, this is too much work even for full-time politicians, who split up this job over many people, who each specialize.

If you've read the pragmatarianism FAQ, then you would know that taxpayers would be free to spend their tax dollars at anytime throughout the year. Right now consumers can shop in the for-profit sector at anytime of the year. Right now donors can shop in the non-profit sector at anytime of the year. Do consumers and donors alter their spending decisions as often as politicians do? Well... consumers and donors alter their spending decisions whenever they need to. And taxpayers would do the same exact thing in the public sector. Government organizations would have to adapt accordingly just like non-profit and for-profit organizations have to adapt accordingly. The point of organizations is to serve the public... not the other way around. We don't exist to serve Nation States. NS exists to serve us. And if we decide for any reason that it's failing to effectively serve us, then we're free to leave.

Frankly, it's just delusional to think that citizens can inform themselves sufficiently about all issues, while still having a normal job. Such a system cannot work without some form of abstraction, where most/all people offload this responsibility to follow all the details of politics to someone else. At that point, you are just back at a form of representational government, where people pick a person to choose the appropriate allocation of taxes for them.

Yeah, just like it's delusional to think that consumers can inform themselves sufficiently about all products and services. Just like it's delusional to think that donors can inform themselves sufficiently about all the causes.

Our society is based on a division of labor. A jack of all trades is a master of none. But a division of labor is really not an argument against consumer choice. Like I've said, pragmatarianism would give taxpayers the option to choose where their taxes go. If taxpayers are happy with how well they are being served by their elected representatives, then they'll have absolutely no reason to take the time and make the effort to directly allocate their taxes. If you want to assume that taxpayers will take the time and make the effort to directly allocate their taxes... then you're assuming that taxpayers are NOT happy with how well they are being served by their elected representatives.

The problem with this calculating behavior is that it depends not just on knowing my own preferences, but on knowing the preferences of everyone else, which are not really knowable, especially when other people act rationally as well and use the same trick. So you end up in a situation where people guess what other people will vote and allocate their taxes based on that, which leads to outcomes that are no longer representative of the desired outcome of the average person.

Let's use a specific example. I started the Facebook page for the Epiphyte Society. Please explain exactly how I can somehow trick, or manipulate you into making a donation to the Epiphyte Society.

In my opinion, the right to live is considerably more important than having a job, so it's less moral to let someone die and instead spend that money on a teacher.

But having a job allows you to buy the things that you need to live. For sure the "right" to live is important... therefore it's more moral to fund police than it is to fund after-school programs and other public goods that minimize the creation of criminals? The "right" to live is important... therefore it's more moral to fund treating diseases than it is to fund the prevention of diseases? An ounce of prevention is NOT worth two of cure? A stitch in time does NOT save nine?

I strongly disagree that any spending results in equally moral outcomes, if that's what you are arguing.

Values and morality are entirely subjective, so I definitely wouldn't argue that all spending is equally valuable/moral.

Hopefully you can agree that reasonable people can disagree about the best approach to protect life. Hopefully you can agree that it's problematic to limit the number of approaches to protecting life. Hopefully you can agree that people choosing where their taxes go would result in the widest possible variety of approaches to protecting life.

Is your argument that if people choose the allocation themselves, rather than career politicians, that they will do a better job? If so, what proof do you have for this? Do you think that it's a given that a person who does politics next to a job and doesn't have time to really dive into it, will do a better job than a specialist? Because common sense says that a specialist will generally do a better job.

Like I said, directly allocating taxes will be optional. Taxpayers are only going to choose this option if they perceive that their representatives aren't doing a very good job.

Let's review part of what you said when I asked you why you didn't help the starving person yourself...

Perhaps I was unaware (and far away).

Taxpayers vastly outnumber politicians. Chances are good that you personally know a lot more taxpayers than politicians. Point to any problem on a map and you can bet good money that taxpayers are going to be far closer to that problem than politicians. Taxpayers are never going to be far away from any problem. Taxpayers are going to personally see, and feel, far more problems than politicians can personally see and feel.

Also, taxpayers are the ones who actually earned the money. This means that they have the maximum possible incentive to try and ensure that their hard-earned money isn't wasted.

When we add these two facts together, it should be intuitive that taxpayers are going to apply far more precise pressure on government organizations than politicians can. We should see a lot more improvement and progress in a lot less time.

Taxpayers will communicate with each other and the rest of society by their spending decisions. Taxpayers will spend their money on problems in order to try and bring the problem (and potential solutions) to the attention of more people. The more money that's spent on a problem... the more attention that will be drawn to the problem.

Actually, they do. These things get debated and are part of the political positions of politicians. However, people have to choose for a set of policies, rather than cherry pick. A good argument can be made that the former is better than the latter.

It's hard to really appreciate human diversity. If people could choose where their taxes go, eventually the supply of public goods would accurately reflect the diversity of the demand for public goods. Bundling is only beneficial when it doesn't block diversity.

They do, by proxy. Denying this just makes you look like a person who denies reality. Of course you can argue that doing it directly is better than doing it by proxy, but then argue that. Don't use falsehoods to make your point.

Do you know what the chances are that your vote will change the outcome of an election? You're more likely to get killed in an accident driving to the voting booth. But with spending, on the other hand, there's a 100% chance that your dollar will change the outcome of the economy. Markets work because valuation is inclusive. The more inclusive the valuation, the more valuable the outcome.

Nothing is stopping people today from debating politics more, from educating themselves more, from being more engaged in general. The reason why people don't is not (just) the system, it's that they have limited time and many things they want or need to do. Any system that forces uninterested or overstretched people into making choices, will result in lazy choices, not somehow turn these people into political experts. It's not realistic to think that a sprinkling of 'pragmatic' dust will make people suddenly care about things they didn't find interesting before or will allow them to spend more time on politics.

In school it pays to do your homework. Well, not literally... but the more you study, the better your grade. In a market, it literally pays to do your homework. If you do your homework then you save money. If you fail to do your homework... then you run the risk of flushing your money down the toilet.

Can I spend a lot of time studying the effectiveness of the EPA? Of course. But what if I learn that the EPA is defective? Can I boycott it? Not easily. What if I learn that the EPA is super effective? Can I allocate more of my taxes to it? Nope. Therefore, it doesn't pay to study the EPA. It's far more rational to spend my time studying things that do pay. It's rational to be ignorant about the EPA. "Rational ignorance" is a real thing. Feel free to google it. But the concept of rational ignorance should be intuitive if you fully grasp the fact that incentives matter.

Larger is not automatically better. A group of fools will make worse decisions than a small group of experts.

...there's no real evidence that one can become expert in something as broad as "decision making" or "policy" or "strategy." Auto repair, piloting, skiing, perhaps even management: these are skills that yield to application, hard work, and native talent. But forecasting an uncertain future and deciding the best course of action in the face of that future are much less likely to do so. And much of what we've seen so far suggests that a large group of diverse individuals will come up with better and more robust forecasts and make more intelligent decisions than even the most skilled "decision maker." - James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that judges are any better than ordinary citizens at deciding the key elements of a typical civil dispute ─ for example, who is telling the truth or how much personal or economic harm has occurred ─ than a schoolteacher, a warehouse foreman, or a nurse. Similarly, why should we believe that a judge is better able to understand a complex or sophisticated issue than an ordinary citizen? Because they have a degree and more education? That strikes me as either elitism or intellectual snobbery. It is also anti-democratic. - Tom Melsheimer

Furthermore, your solution will merely result in having people allocate money, but that doesn't determine how the money is spent. You can do welfare in many ways with the same amount of tax money. I don't see how your solution gets citizens to tackle problems, unless you want to decide all choice by referendum, which goes way further than choosing how to allocate tax money.

Maybe there's such a thing as too much tax allocation specificity. But we're so far from that point that it's kind of a moot point. It would be amazing progress if taxpayers were even only given two allocation options...

1. Guns
2. Other

So better solutions would be found in less time. Society would make a lot more progress in a lot less time if people could choose where their taxes go.

And people would shit caviar and piss champagne....after all, if you are going to be a hopeless Utopian, why not go all the way.

It's not hopelessly Utopian to believe that progress is a function of difference. Sexual reproduction is all about difference and voila! Here we are! If you can understand how evolution works then you should be able to easily see the benefits of fully and directly subjecting government organizations to taxpayer selection.