Diversity VS Biodiversity

[Xerographica]

Errrr what? Let's say that Samantha lives in the US right next to the Canadian border. According to you she's benefiting from the EPA's public good. However, according to you, if Samantha moved a mile across the border... then she would stop benefiting from the EPA's public good. What is it, exactly, that prevents the EPA's public good from crossing the Canadian border? Do the guards prevent the EPA's public good from crossing the border? Is there some sort of invisible shield that the EPA's public good cannot penetrate?

Let's be specific and say that the public good is clean air. So the Canadian guards block America's clean air from going into Canada? Or they have an invisible force field that prevents America's clean air from infiltrating into Canada?

I think it would make more sense for the guards and/or force field to block any polluted air from going into Canada. But then this might explain why Samantha wanted to boycott the EPA in the first place. Of course it doesn't explain why you want to make it so hard and costly for Samantha to boycott the EPA.

Obviously you want Samantha to have the freedom to boycott the EPA. But you sure do want her to pay dearly for this freedom. Why, exactly, is it so important to you that Samantha pay dearly for her freedom to boycott the EPA?

You know, I have seen the light.

Canada, we're sending you a bill for your clean air. It's the only equitable thing to do.

Point being, the reason we don't charge Canadians for clean air and Canadians don't charge us for clean air is because we don't have the legal authority, and since we both have a clean air agency with similar ends, the balance of payments would probably roughly equal out. Otherwise, we probably would.

So try again...

By giving Samantha the freedom to move to Canada...you're already giving her the option to boycott the EPA. The difference is... if she moves to Canada... then she wouldn't just be boycotting the EPA... she'd be boycotting her favorite restaurant and a gazillion other organizations that she really doesn't want to boycott. Why force her to throw the baby out with the bath water?

[Galloism]

You know, I have seen the light.

Canada, we're sending you a bill for your clean air. It's the only equitable thing to do.

Point being, the reason we don't charge Canadians for clean air and Canadians don't charge us for clean air is because we don't have the legal authority, and since we both have a clean air agency with similar ends, the balance of payments would probably roughly equal out. Otherwise, we probably would.

So try again...

By giving Samantha the freedom to move to Canada...you're already giving her the option to boycott the EPA. The difference is... if she moves to Canada... then she wouldn't just be boycotting the EPA... she'd be boycotting her favorite restaurant and a gazillion other organizations that she really doesn't want to boycott. Why force her to throw the baby out with the bath water?

Why let her throw out the bath water at all when I have to be the one to make up that bath water? Why should she get to force me to subsidize her choices?

That's what you don't get. Getting out of funding public goods should be hard, or people will not fund them.

Your system encourages free riding. Full stop. You're asking WHY Samantha is not allowed to be a free rider.

Free riding is bad. Full stop. Free riding results in critical services being underfunded.

Your system encourages critical services being underfunded. Full stop. You're plaintively asking WHY Samantha should not be able to do bad things without significant sacrifice.

The reason is simple: We don't like it when people do bad things.

[Xerographica]

So try again...

Why let her throw out the bath water at all when I have to be the one to make up that bath water? Why should she get to force me to subsidize her choices?

That's what you don't get. Getting out of funding public goods should be hard, or people will not fund them.

Your system encourages free riding. Full stop. You're asking WHY Samantha is not allowed to be a free rider.

Free riding is bad. Full stop. Free riding results in critical services being underfunded.

Your system encourages critical services being underfunded. Full stop. You're plaintively asking WHY Samantha should not be able to do bad things without significant sacrifice.

The reason is simple: We don't like it when people do bad things.

Let's break it down...

1. It's a bad thing for Samantha to boycott the EPA
2. Moving to Canada and boycotting the EPA are the same thing
3. It's a bad thing for Samantha to move to Canada

If it's a bad thing for Samantha to move to Canada (= boycotting the EPA) ... then why give her the freedom to do so?

[Alvecia]

Why let her throw out the bath water at all when I have to be the one to make up that bath water? Why should she get to force me to subsidize her choices?

That's what you don't get. Getting out of funding public goods should be hard, or people will not fund them.

Your system encourages free riding. Full stop. You're asking WHY Samantha is not allowed to be a free rider.

Free riding is bad. Full stop. Free riding results in critical services being underfunded.

Your system encourages critical services being underfunded. Full stop. You're plaintively asking WHY Samantha should not be able to do bad things without significant sacrifice.

The reason is simple: We don't like it when people do bad things.

Let's break it down...

1. It's a bad thing for Samantha to boycott the EPA
2. Moving to Canada and boycotting the EPA are the same thing
3. It's a bad thing for Samantha to move to Canada

If it's a bad thing for Samantha to move to Canada (= boycotting the EPA) ... then why give her the freedom to do so?

Are you now arguing "Why should people have rights?".

[Galloism]

Why let her throw out the bath water at all when I have to be the one to make up that bath water? Why should she get to force me to subsidize her choices?

That's what you don't get. Getting out of funding public goods should be hard, or people will not fund them.

Your system encourages free riding. Full stop. You're asking WHY Samantha is not allowed to be a free rider.

Free riding is bad. Full stop. Free riding results in critical services being underfunded.

Your system encourages critical services being underfunded. Full stop. You're plaintively asking WHY Samantha should not be able to do bad things without significant sacrifice.

The reason is simple: We don't like it when people do bad things.

Let's break it down...

1. It's a bad thing for Samantha to boycott the EPA

If she's using the EPA's services, then using those services and refusing to pay for them would be bad, yes, in the same way that if I put on a concert, and you listen to it without paying when I've demanded payment it would be bad.

2. Moving to Canada and boycotting the EPA are the same thing

Eh, not really. I mean, I guess you could move to another country to boycott one particular agency's actions, but that would be silly.

3. It's a bad thing for Samantha to move to Canada

Not necessarily. I hear tell that Canada has a nice environmental record. She's still funding an environmental agency somewhere (and may continue funding the US one, depending on her income in Canada. US Citizens are taxed on their worldwide income, no matter where they reside).

If it's a bad thing for Samantha to move to Canada (= boycotting the EPA) ... then why give her the freedom to do so?

Because freedom of travel is a bit of a cornerstone of our modern economic system, also good for freedom and all that jazz, and more important than some small slice of tax revenue. It won't impact the overall picture by any significant margin, and when she gets to Canada, she'll also be funding environmental protection while she's there. She doesn't get to boycott environmental protection even if she (like a silly person) moves to Canada to avoid the EPA. She's just funding it in a different place.

[Xerographica]

Let's break it down...

1. It's a bad thing for Samantha to boycott the EPA
2. Moving to Canada and boycotting the EPA are the same thing
3. It's a bad thing for Samantha to move to Canada

If it's a bad thing for Samantha to move to Canada (= boycotting the EPA) ... then why give her the freedom to do so?

Are you now arguing "Why should people have rights?".

I'm arguing that if Samantha should have the right to relocate her taxes from America's EPA to Canada's EPA.... then she should have the right to relocate her taxes from America's EPA to America's NASA.

[Alvecia]

Are you now arguing "Why should people have rights?".

I'm arguing that if Samantha should have the right to relocate her taxes from America's EPA to Canada's EPA.... then she should have the right to relocate her taxes from America's EPA to America's NASA.

That's two different types of relocation. Importantly so.

[Xerographica]

and when she gets to Canada, she'll also be funding environmental protection while she's there. She doesn't get to boycott environmental protection even if she (like a silly person) moves to Canada to avoid the EPA. She's just funding it in a different place.

It's pretty sad how quickly you forgot why, exactly, Samantha wanted to boycott America's EPA...

Samantha is an environmentalist. She notices that the EPA has implemented a new policy that harms, rather than protects, biodiversity. She really doesn't like the direction that the EPA is heading in.

Samantha is an environmentalist. So by definition, she really does not want to boycott environmental protection. She wants to boycott America's EPA because its new policy harms, rather than protects, biodiversity.

Clearly you think that Samantha should have the freedom to boycott America's EPA by moving to Canada. But what you've consistently failed to logically explain is why it's beneficial for this freedom to be so costly.

[Galloism]

and when she gets to Canada, she'll also be funding environmental protection while she's there. She doesn't get to boycott environmental protection even if she (like a silly person) moves to Canada to avoid the EPA. She's just funding it in a different place.

It's pretty sad how quickly you forgot why, exactly, Samantha wanted to boycott America's EPA...

Samantha is an environmentalist. She notices that the EPA has implemented a new policy that harms, rather than protects, biodiversity. She really doesn't like the direction that the EPA is heading in.

Samantha is an environmentalist. So by definition, she really does not want to boycott environmental protection. She wants to boycott America's EPA because its new policy harms, rather than protects, biodiversity.

Clearly you think that Samantha should have the freedom to boycott America's EPA by moving to Canada. But what you've consistently failed to logically explain is why it's beneficial for this freedom to be so costly.

To avoid the free rider problem.

Duh.

[Xerographica]

It's pretty sad how quickly you forgot why, exactly, Samantha wanted to boycott America's EPA...


Samantha is an environmentalist. So by definition, she really does not want to boycott environmental protection. She wants to boycott America's EPA because its new policy harms, rather than protects, biodiversity.

Clearly you think that Samantha should have the freedom to boycott America's EPA by moving to Canada. But what you've consistently failed to logically explain is why it's beneficial for this freedom to be so costly.

To avoid the free rider problem.

Duh.

How does requiring Samantha to move to Canada in order to boycott the EPA avoid the free-rider problem? If Samantha stayed in the US then she'd be paying the EPA to implement policies that harm biodiversity. Because Samantha values biodiversity... forcing her to pay for policies that harm biodiversity is a textbook example of the forced-rider problem. If she could easily boycott the EPA by giving her taxes to another government organization then we'd be easily solving the forced-rider problem.

[Galloism]

To avoid the free rider problem.

Duh.

How does requiring Samantha to move to Canada in order to boycott the EPA avoid the free-rider problem?

Because she's still paying for environmental protection if she moves to Canada IN Canada, where she now lives, and therefore not free-riding on the services of environmental protection agencies.

If she allocates to NASA, then she's not funding environmental protection, and is therefore free-riding on the services of environmental protection agencies.

This is really simple stuff.

As Alvecia said:

I'm arguing that if Samantha should have the right to relocate her taxes from America's EPA to Canada's EPA.... then she should have the right to relocate her taxes from America's EPA to America's NASA.

That's two different types of relocation. Importantly so.

[Xerographica]

If she allocates to NASA, then she's not funding environmental protection, and is therefore free-riding on the services of environmental protection agencies.

Given that Samantha is an environmentalist... she'd only relocate her taxes from the EPA to NASA because the EPA is NOT protecting the environment. The EPA would be doing the opposite. The EPA would be harming the environment. If Samantha the environmentalist was forced to pay for the environment to be harmed... then she would be a forced-rider.

If you struggle with the concept of the forced-rider problem... then just think of the epitome of this problem... forcing the Jews to pay for their extermination. If the Jews did NOT pay for their extermination... would they have been free-riders? If not, then why not?

[Galloism]

If she allocates to NASA, then she's not funding environmental protection, and is therefore free-riding on the services of environmental protection agencies.

Given that Samantha is an environmentalist... she'd only relocate her taxes from the EPA to NASA because the EPA is NOT protecting the environment. The EPA would be doing the opposite. The EPA would be harming the environment. If Samantha the environmentalist was forced to pay for the environment to be harmed... then she would be a forced-rider.

If you struggle with the concept of the forced-rider problem... then just think of the epitome of this problem... forcing the Jews to pay for their extermination. If the Jews did NOT pay for their extermination... would they have been free-riders? If not, then why not?

You invented the forced rider problem as a problem - at least I had never heard of it until I saw the wikipedia article you created (and then fixed for you).

In any case, NASA is not protecting the environment. That's not their job. They don't have the authority to do so. The EPA is protecting the environment - that's their mission in life. They may not be be doing so in a way that Samantha prefers, but they are STILL protecting the environment. That's their reason for existence. So, Samantha would be free riding on all the environmental protection work that the EPA does. YOU want Samantha to be a free rider. Why do you think encouraging free riding is a good idea? WHY do you want to exacerbate the free rider problem?

[-Fahrong-]

Anyone who actually believes a modern states primary focus should be space colonization clearly hasnt experienced the real world.

Personally im a bit of a radical and would say it should be restoring the monarchy and undoing secularism. From a non radical point of view, defense considering the rapidly deteriorating situation the world is in.

[Xerographica]

Given that Samantha is an environmentalist... she'd only relocate her taxes from the EPA to NASA because the EPA is NOT protecting the environment. The EPA would be doing the opposite. The EPA would be harming the environment. If Samantha the environmentalist was forced to pay for the environment to be harmed... then she would be a forced-rider.

If you struggle with the concept of the forced-rider problem... then just think of the epitome of this problem... forcing the Jews to pay for their extermination. If the Jews did NOT pay for their extermination... would they have been free-riders? If not, then why not?

You invented the forced rider problem as a problem - at least I had never heard of it until I saw the wikipedia article you created (and then fixed for you).

I asked you whether or not the Jews would have been free-riders if they hadn't paid for their extermination. Why didn't you answer the question?

[Galloism]

You invented the forced rider problem as a problem - at least I had never heard of it until I saw the wikipedia article you created (and then fixed for you).

I asked you whether or not the Jews would have been free-riders if they hadn't paid for their extermination. Why didn't you answer the question?

Because it was a stupid question.

All their stuff was taken by the government and added to the government treasury anyway. It was an obvious outgrowth of the extermination.

When are you going to answer the question on why you want more free riders?

[Xerographica]

I asked you whether or not the Jews would have been free-riders if they hadn't paid for their extermination. Why didn't you answer the question?

Because it was a stupid question.

All their stuff was taken by the government and added to the government treasury anyway. It was an obvious outgrowth of the extermination.

When are you going to answer the question on why you want more free riders?

I already explained that I don't want more free-riders... I want less forced-riders. But you don't even seem able to recognize or acknowledge that forced-riding is even a real thing.

1. The Jews were forced to pay for their own extermination.
2. The Jews derived the most negative value possible from their extermination
3. Therefore, the Jews were forced-riders

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree... then please explain. If you agree... then why argue that Samantha, the environmentalist, is a free-rider when she boycotts the EPA because they've enacted a policy that is detrimental to biodiversity?

The Titanic proved that it's possible for ships to go in the wrong direction. Do you want to argue that it's impossible for the EPA to go in the wrong direction? That would be a really stupid argument. I think you're smart enough to understand that it's possible for every organization to go in the wrong direction. Then the issue is determining who gets to decide whether the EPA is going in the wrong direction. Clearly you don't trust that environmentalists are capable of deciding for themselves whether the EPA is going in the wrong direction. But if you don't trust environmentalists to gauge the wrongness of the EPA's direction... then who should be in charge of gauging the wrongness of the EPA's direction? The only people who are left are the people who don't care about the environment! Hopefully it should be abundantly clear how massively stupid it would be to allow people who don't care at all about the environment to be responsible for gauging the wrongness of the EPA's direction.

[Galloism]

Because it was a stupid question.

All their stuff was taken by the government and added to the government treasury anyway. It was an obvious outgrowth of the extermination.

When are you going to answer the question on why you want more free riders?

I already explained that I don't want more free-riders...

Then don't design a system that encourages free riding.

I want less forced-riders. But you don't even seem able to recognize or acknowledge that forced-riding is even a real thing.

I get that sometimes there are government programs a person doesn't want to fund for whatever reason. I don't think "forced-riding" is a real big concern that deserves a lot of attention. Regardless of whether or not you want to pay for X government agency providing public goods, you ARE benefitting from those public goods, and therefore you should pay for them.

Public goods are a hard subject because you can benefit from a good you don't necessarily even approve of, and you can't physically stop getting the benefits of those goods.

1. The Jews were forced to pay for their own extermination.
2. The Jews derived the most negative value possible from their extermination
3. Therefore, the Jews were forced-riders

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree...

I'll agree that, as you've personally defined it, they were forced riders. However, I don't think they particularly cared whose money was used to exterminate them. They'd probably rather have had some sort of structured constitution that prevented their extermination period. Keep in mind, the final solution was broadly supported in Germany.

It's akin to living through global thermonuclear war, followed by nuclear winter and permanent night, realizing that you are doomed to die from the radiation poisoning, the eventual extermination of all plant life, then animal life, then human life, and your number one problem is that you can't see The North Star anymore.

If you agree... then why argue that Samantha, the environmentalist, is a free-rider when she boycotts the EPA because they've enacted a policy that is detrimental to biodiversity?

Because she's still benefitting from the EPA's regulation of pollution and fuel economy. As long as she is benefitting for a good, she should pay for it.

If she doesn't like the policy, she should elect people who will pass legislation overriding the policy, or write to her congressman or legislator or EPA director.

The Titanic proved that it's possible for ships to go in the wrong direction. Do you want to argue that it's impossible for the EPA to go in the wrong direction? That would be a really stupid argument. I think you're smart enough to understand that it's possible for every organization to go in the wrong direction. Then the issue is determining who gets to decide whether the EPA is going in the wrong direction. Clearly you don't trust that environmentalists are capable of deciding for themselves whether the EPA is going in the wrong direction. But if you don't trust environmentalists to gauge the wrongness of the EPA's direction... then who should be in charge of gauging the wrongness of the EPA's direction? The only people who are left are the people who don't care about the environment! Hopefully it should be abundantly clear how massively stupid it would be to allow people who don't care at all about the environment to be responsible for gauging the wrongness of the EPA's direction.

I'm saying when you use someone's services, you should pay them for those services.

It's a really basic economic principle.

If you think the EPA is going in the wrong direction, you should do the same thing you do when you feel your electric company is going in the wrong direction - namely, write in and complain, and lobby the oversight committee to get things changed. You don't just keep using the electricity and then refuse to pay for it because you don't like the way they generated it.

[Xerographica]

Then don't design a system that encourages free riding.

The free-rider problem is only a problem when it results in shortages.

I'm saying when you use someone's services, you should pay them for those services. It's a really basic economic principle.

You've participated in nearly all my threads yet you've never even paid me a penny. Let's say that I stop posting threads. Are you going to perceive a shortage of my threads? Are you going to miss my threads? No? Then it's not a free-rider problem.

Because she's still benefitting from the EPA's regulation of pollution and fuel economy. As long as she is benefitting for a good, she should pay for it.

If the EPA does X, Y and Z... and Samantha perceives that X and Y are beneficial but Z is detrimental... then the solution is to unbundle the EPA. I definitely don't want to force Samantha to throw the baby out with the bath water.

So let's say that we unbundle the EPA. Does Samantha allocate her taxes to X and Y? Does she perceive a shortage of X and Y? Maybe. But what if, rather than giving her taxes to X and Y... she gives her taxes to NASA instead? We can conclude that she perceives...

1. a shortage of space colonization (we shouldn't have ALL our biodiversity on one planet)
2. that the shortage of space colonization is greater than the shortage of X and Y

I think you're smart enough to understand that...

A. Samantha can perceive shortages of multiple public goods
B. Samantha can perceive that some shortages are greater than other shortages

What I perceive is that I'll benefit when millions and millions of people A. try and decide which shortages of public goods are the greatest and B. allocate their taxes in order to eliminate the greatest shortages.

Right now there are lots of private goods that I want to buy and am able to buy. In other words... I perceive shortages of lots of different private goods. But just because I perceive all these shortages... do I immediately spend my money to eliminate all the shortages? No. I endeavor to eliminate the greatest shortages. I prioritize. Everybody prioritizes. Some are a lot better at it than others.

Would taxpayers prioritize in the public sector? Of course. Every taxpayer would perceive countless shortages of public goods but they would only have a limited amount of tax dollars to spend. So they would be forced to prioritize. And everybody would benefit from everybody prioritizing how they spent their tax dollars.

Moreover, men's desires when left to achieve their own satisfactions, follow the order of decreasing intensity and importance: the essential ones being satisfied first. But when, instead of aggregates of desires spontaneously working for their ends, we get the judgments of governments, there is no guarantee that the order of relative importance will be followed, and there is abundant proof that it is not followed. - Herbert Spencer, An Autobiography

[Galloism]

Then don't design a system that encourages free riding.

The free-rider problem is only a problem when it results in shortages.

As I said:

Then don't design a system that encourages free riding.

I'm saying when you use someone's services, you should pay them for those services. It's a really basic economic principle.

You've participated in nearly all my threads yet you've never even paid me a penny.

You vomiting word salad onto nationstates with interspersed bible versus does not constitute a 'service' by any reasonable person. In fact, you should compensate Maqo and myself for pointing out all the obvious flaws in your system. Maqo for approaching the problem from an economics standpoint where it fails hard, and me for approaching it from a government structure standpoint where it fails even harder than that.

You might have said something to an economics teacher and caused him or her to projectile vomit onto your clothing. Your clothing thanks us.

Let's say that I stop posting threads.

Are you going to perceive a shortage of my threads? Are you going to miss my threads? No? Then it's not a free-rider problem.

It's not a service to start with.

Because she's still benefitting from the EPA's regulation of pollution and fuel economy. As long as she is benefitting for a good, she should pay for it.

If the EPA does X, Y and Z... and Samantha perceives that X and Y are beneficial but Z is detrimental... then the solution is to unbundle the EPA. I definitely don't want to force Samantha to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In that case, you should unbundle Wal-Mart and make each product line its own corporation. The payroll systems will be complex as all hell, but at least we won't have an entity doing more than one thing at a time.

So let's say that we unbundle the EPA.

No. That way leads more waste, as you require more middle and upper management to cover all the management that was being done by one group.

Does Samantha allocate her taxes to X and Y? Does she perceive a shortage of X and Y? Maybe. But what if, rather than giving her taxes to X and Y... she gives her taxes to NASA instead? We can conclude that she perceives...

1. a shortage of space colonization (we shouldn't have ALL our biodiversity on one planet)
2. that the shortage of space colonization is greater than the shortage of X and Y

I think you're smart enough to understand that...

A. Samantha can perceive shortages of multiple public goods
B. Samantha can perceive that some shortages are greater than other shortages

What I perceive is that I'll benefit when millions and millions of people A. try and decide which shortages of public goods are the greatest and B. allocate their taxes in order to eliminate the greatest shortages.

Most likely it will crash and burn. The average person doesn't spend the 60+ hours per week it takes to know what's needed in each public goods area, nor do they have the time to do so. Your system will be about as effective as blindfolded darts - you're putting the decision making for budgets on people who have no knowledge about the decisions being made.

It's like making it so Wal-Mart directors CANNOT create a budget, and only the customers put where they think the money they spend at Wal-Mart should go, which incidentally I still think you should encourage Wal-Mart to do. I see no way I lose on that.

No entity in the WORLD operates under your system as far as I can tell. I've asked multiple times and you haven't produced even one single example. Why do you think that is?

Right now there are lots of private goods that I want to buy and am able to buy. In other words... I perceive shortages of lots of different private goods. But just because I perceive all these shortages... do I immediately spend my money to eliminate all the shortages? No. I endeavor to eliminate the greatest shortages. I prioritize. Everybody prioritizes. Some are a lot better at it than others.

Would taxpayers prioritize in the public sector? Of course. Every taxpayer would perceive countless shortages of public goods but they would only have a limited amount of tax dollars to spend. So they would be forced to prioritize. And everybody would benefit from everybody prioritizing how they spent their tax dollars.

Except, as a priori in economics, people will prioritize the least broadly beneficial public good that they benefit from. This is most efficient for them.

This is even true if it would be MORE beneficial from a societal standpoint to take the most broadly beneficial good. There's a conflict of interest when it comes to public goods. Those goods most broadly beneficial get the least funding, while those least broadly beneficial get the most funding.

You've agreed to this when presented with logical examples.

For greatest efficiency in public goods however, we should focus more towards the most broadly beneficial goods and away from the least broadly beneficial.

So, my question to you is thus:

If you had to choose between a system that may have some margins of error, and one you KNOW will be flat out wrong all the time, which would you choose? Imagine you have a compass that's not a very good compass, and it sometimes drifts 5 or 6 degrees. Now imagine you have a compass that doesn't point in any particular direction. It's purely random. Which would you prefer to use?

[Xerographica]

If you had to choose between a system that may have some margins of error, and one you KNOW will be flat out wrong all the time, which would you choose? Imagine you have a compass that's not a very good compass, and it sometimes drifts 5 or 6 degrees. Now imagine you have a compass that doesn't point in any particular direction. It's purely random. Which would you prefer to use?

Of course I'd prefer the less flawed compass. But it's beyond ridiculous to argue that taxpayers would randomly allocate their taxes. And it's even more ridiculous to argue that some representative who I've never even met and definitely would never vote for is going to allocate my taxes closer to my own preferences than I would.

[Galloism]

If you had to choose between a system that may have some margins of error, and one you KNOW will be flat out wrong all the time, which would you choose? Imagine you have a compass that's not a very good compass, and it sometimes drifts 5 or 6 degrees. Now imagine you have a compass that doesn't point in any particular direction. It's purely random. Which would you prefer to use?

Of course I'd prefer the less flawed compass. But it's beyond ridiculous to argue that taxpayers would randomly allocate their taxes.

Sufficiently complex systems seem random to an outside observer.

And it's even more ridiculous to argue that some representative who I've never even met and definitely would never vote for is going to allocate my taxes closer to my own preferences than I would.

It's not about your preferences. It's about efficiency. You see "preference" as some sort of end-all-be-all of existence, and it's certainly important, but representatives can certainly make more efficient choices than you would, just as a professional pilot would make more efficient choices than a passenger.

There's knowledge, experience, and of course training and the ability to research at great length - even if that research takes hours, days, weeks, or even months, something the average person does not have.

Can they meet your exact preferences? No. Can they beat you on efficiency?

Damn straight - especially given all the waste we've previously discussed that you've argued is not truly 'waste', but is truly waste.

[Lesser Tofu]

I already explained that I don't want more free-riders... I want less forced-riders. But you don't even seem able to recognize or acknowledge that forced-riding is even a real thing.

1. The Jews were forced to pay for their own extermination.
2. The Jews derived the most negative value possible from their extermination
3. Therefore, the Jews were forced-riders

I don't see how the Holocaust would be less reprehensible if it were funded purely by non-Jewish Germans.

I don't think that 'forced riding' is an issue per se. In the examples you have furnished, the cases where I would see issue at all, the issue isn't in people being forced to pay for actions they disagree with, it's in the actions being taken. Removing the ability of governments to enact coherent policy, establishing a plutocracy where the richest have the most say on what the government does, and encouraging people to fund only the things that directly benefit themselves, doesn't seem like it would give better results than the current system.

Beyond that, some people are guaranteed to either be free riders or 'forced riders'. If you don't wish to fund some public good that you still benefit from, then either you don't pay (free-riding on those who do) or you do ('forced riding', in your terminology). You will always have one or the other.

[Mefpan]

Space imperialism is the way to go.

[Xerographica]

I already explained that I don't want more free-riders... I want less forced-riders. But you don't even seem able to recognize or acknowledge that forced-riding is even a real thing.

1. The Jews were forced to pay for their own extermination.
2. The Jews derived the most negative value possible from their extermination
3. Therefore, the Jews were forced-riders

I don't see how the Holocaust would be less reprehensible if it were funded purely by non-Jewish Germans.

Let's consider three different possible cases of Holocaust funding...

Case VOLUNTARY

In this case, funding for the Holocaust would have been entirely voluntary. Germans would have had the opportunity to make donations to whichever non-profit was responsible for murdering Jews. If we assume that the free-rider problem is a real problem... then we can assume that Germans' donations/funding to the Holocaust would have been less than their valuations of the Holocaust. How much less? That depends on the size of the free-rider problem.

Case PRAGMATARIAN

In this case, German taxpayers would have had the option to allocate their taxes to the Holocaust. Jews and other sane people would have had the option to boycott the Holocaust. What percentage of the budget would have been controlled by sane people? A large percentage? A small percentage? According to Galloism, the free-rider problem is applicable to broadly beneficial public goods. Not sure if he would classify the Holocaust as narrowly or broadly beneficial.

Case COMMAND

In this case, which was the actual case, German taxpayers did not have the option to allocate their taxes to the Holocaust. Jews and other sane people did not have the option to boycott the Holocaust. The government determined how much funding the Holocaust received. According to Galloism, the free-rider problem would not be a problem in this case. If Galloism is correct then, the funding that the Holocaust actually received accurately reflected Germany's valuation of the Holocaust.

I don't think that 'forced riding' is an issue per se. In the examples you have furnished, the cases where I would see issue at all, the issue isn't in people being forced to pay for actions they disagree with, it's in the actions being taken. Removing the ability of governments to enact coherent policy, establishing a plutocracy where the richest have the most say on what the government does, and encouraging people to fund only the things that directly benefit themselves, doesn't seem like it would give better results than the current system.

With the current system, voters aren't required to put their own money where their opinions are...

As was noted in Chapter 3, expressions of malice and/or envy no less than expressions of altruism are cheaper in the voting booth than in the market. A German voter who in 1933 cast a ballot for Hitler was able to indulge his antisemitic sentiments at much less cost than she would have borne by organizing a pogrom. - Loren Lomasky, Democracy and Decision

As a result, the budget doesn't reflect people's values... it reflects their opinions.

Beyond that, some people are guaranteed to either be free riders or 'forced riders'. If you don't wish to fund some public good that you still benefit from, then either you don't pay (free-riding on those who do) or you do ('forced riding', in your terminology). You will always have one or the other.

According to the poll attached to this thread, space colonization should be our number one priority. Personally, I voted for diversity. I'm definitely in the minority.

Here's what Hitler wrote in 1936...

However well balanced the general pattern of a nation's life ought to be, there must at particular times be certain disturbances of the balance at the expense of other less vital tasks. If we do not succeed in bringing the German army as rapidly as possible to the rank of premier army in the world...then Germany will be lost!

It's a perfect example of why it's problematic to allow one person to determine how to allocate a country's funding. The optimal balance can only be determined by taxpayers spending their own tax dollars. Maybe it's not the perfect way... but it's vastly superior to the current system.

It's one thing for people to simply say that space colonization should be our number one priority. It's another thing for people to spend most of their own tax dollars on space colonization. The former is interesting. The latter is meaningful and trustworthy.