Taking vs Trading

[Xerographica]

By removing paypal from the equation, the perspective becomes irrelevant in your example.

I'm destroying your perspective. What's left of your assertion that perspective determines use?

In summary, your assertion that perspective determines use has been disproven.

With that, your theory is reduced to a bunch of 'should'-statements, hanging in the air, standing on nothing.

If you destroy my perspective...then it's your perspective that determines how my resources are used. How does that disprove anything? I wanted to spend my $1000 on promoting pragmatarianism but you forced me to spend my $1000 on porn. Maybe that doesn't sound like a big deal. But what if you forced everybody to spend $1000 on porn once a month? The porn industry would get a lot more revenue. But that revenue would obviously have to be taken from other industries. As a result you've given people too much of one thing and not enough of all the other things they would have spent their $1000 on.

Economics is the study of scarcity. Resources are limited. If you create inefficient allocations of limited resources then our rate of progress will decrease. Our society fails to understand this concept which is why we allow 538 congresspeople to destroy the perspectives of 150 million+ taxpayers.

[Norsklow]

By removing paypal from the equation, the perspective becomes irrelevant in your example.

I'm destroying your perspective. What's left of your assertion that perspective determines use?

In summary, your assertion that perspective determines use has been disproven.

With that, your theory is reduced to a bunch of 'should'-statements, hanging in the air, standing on nothing.

If you destroy my perspective...then it's your perspective that determines how my resources are used. How does that disprove anything? I wanted to spend my $1000 on promoting pragmatarianism but you forced me to spend my $1000 on porn. Maybe that doesn't sound like a big deal. But what if you forced everybody to spend $1000 on porn once a month? The porn industry would get a lot more revenue. But that revenue would obviously have to be taken from other industries. As a result you've given people too much of one thing and not enough of all the other things they would have spent their $1000 on.

Economics is the study of scarcity. Resources are limited. If you create inefficient allocations of limited resources then our rate of progress will decrease. Our society fails to understand this concept which is why we allow 538 congresspeople to destroy the perspectives of 150 million+ taxpayers.

The whole of history of humanity living in fixed settlements is the narrative on involuntary appropriations of resources ( most often farming ) and big shots - or classes of big shots - deciding what to do with them.

I wanted to spend my $1000 on promoting pragmatarianism but you forced me to spend my $1000 on porn.

Therefore, YOUR perspective on how you should spend your money is irrelevant. Therefore, your perspective has no bearing on what is done. QED.

Egypt did not become Egypt because of individual perspectives of its 30 million people. Progress is made through the ruthless application of the Lash and the Whip - noting else raises taxes in the long run.

Before Egypt, what progress was made? How long did it take?

[Xerographica]

None. If they have the technology to travel to us, our resources will be useless for them (they can just take resources away from the Moon or Mars or Venus or whatever if they really need some), and we would have nothing to trade for them, except maybe cultural items and knowledge about our history.

My argument was that if we have any resources they want...then they will trade for them...not take them by force. Obviously if we don't have any resources they want then we don't have to worry about them taking them by force.

More exactly, that cooperation is more efficient than selfishness, yes. Trading itself is just a "civilized" form of selfishness, it's just a first step towards cooperation. If aliens survived space-faring technology without blowing themselves (like we almost did a few times) they'll probably understand the value of cooperation and altruism, and will help us, without asking anything in return - not trade, but cooperation.

Who decides whether cooperation is more efficient than competition? Let me guess...government planners? I could care less whether a public/private organization is democratically organized...as long as consumers have the freedom to choose which organizations they give their money to. If your cooperatives are truly more efficient then you should have no problem allowing consumers to be the judge of that.

Progress comes from teams more than from individuals, and we can't know much about how an alien specie will be organized (they could have a hivemind in a form or another, ...) and if they'll have the same "individual" notion than we do.

Again, then you should have no problem giving consumers/taxpayers the freedom to choose which organizations they give their money to.

You need the ability to "jump out of the box" to design new things - ie, not improve the candle but invent the light bulb - that doesn't mean all viewpoints are valid and equivalent. And usually, there are a few efficient ways to use a resource, not "integrating perspectives", but finding with the scientific method how things work, and then designing the most efficient use. A single entity, rational enough and with enough "jumping out of the box" ability could discover all of it alone. And many of "unique perspectives", like astrology or homeopathy, are just junk we should throw in the garbage bins of history and moves on.

Again, if you're correct that a single entity could have all the answers...then you should have no problem giving people the freedom to choose who they give their money to.

That's not pragmatic at all, that means wasting resources in many conflicting projects, and not having the ones needed to perform big projects. You can't deduce what is good for the common good from a sum of individual choices, there is Arrow's impossibility theorem, and all of game theory against you.

If you want to perform a big project...you'll either take the resources...or you'll trade for them. If you can't persuade consumers/taxpayers to give you their resources to complete your big project...then guess what? You shouldn't do it. Why is that such a difficult concept? Are you really not familiar with Buddha's parable of the blind men and the elephant? We're all blind...we all have extremely limited perspectives...we're all fallible...which is why we should solely rely on persuasion if we want other people to spend their time/money a certain way.

The US democracy is pretty sick, but that aside, the point of taking decisions together, pooling resources, and all going in the same directions is that it's much more efficient. We need to decide together the broad priorities for a stable period of time, and then have resources pooled to fulfill them.

If I can't persuade you that pragmatarianism is valuable...then how would it be efficient for me to spend your money to promote pragmatarianism? There's nothing efficient about spending our money on things we do not need, want or value.

[Xerographica]

The Romans did. And it's not like by destroying Carthage they hindered the progress of Rome. Quite the opposite, actually.

You simply fail to see the contributions that Carthage might have made if it hadn't been destroyed. It's the same concept with the millions of Jews that Hitler killed and the millions of Chinese that Mao killed. You can't see all the Einsteins and Deng Xiaopings that might have been among those whose perspectives were destroyed.

But planets are. Analogy fail!

Planets are islands? Therefore...there's no harm in destroying everybody's perspectives but your own? That doesn't even make sense.

Assuming "progress", however you want to define it, is potentially infinite and not limitated by any factor, such as resources, time, and enthropy. Which would be quite an assumption.
That's why it's not a self-evident truth. It's not even a truth, actually.

Of course resources are scarce...that's the point of economics. Given that resources are scarce...what we do with them determines our rate of progress. And what we do with them depends on our perspectives. Therefore...the more perspectives we integrate...the more likely we are to discover new and innovative uses of limited resources...and the faster we will progress.

...Unsure about what you're arguing in favour, but I suspect some romneyite more-loopholes-for-fatcats scheme.
There's a thread for that, and it's not this one.

It's called pragmatarianism and that's what this thread is for.

I assume you have proof thereof.

Sure, just go around and ignore everybody's perspectives and see how much progress you make in life. Ignore your doctor's perspective...ignore your lawyer's perspective...ignore your accountant's perspective...ignore your plumber's perspective...and so on. There's your proof.

[Kilobugya]

More exactly, that cooperation is more efficient than selfishness, yes. Trading itself is just a "civilized" form of selfishness, it's just a first step towards cooperation. If aliens survived space-faring technology without blowing themselves (like we almost did a few times) they'll probably understand the value of cooperation and altruism, and will help us, without asking anything in return - not trade, but cooperation.

Who decides whether cooperation is more efficient than competition?

Game theory.

Let me guess...government planners? I could care less whether a public/private organization is democratically organized...as long as consumers have the freedom to choose which organizations they give their money to. If your cooperatives are truly more efficient then you should have no problem allowing consumers to be the judge of that.

That's not how it works, because of side-effects and economies of scale. Consider a single example : a company can produce two cars. Car A costs $50k to produce, car B costs $100k to produce. But car A pollutes much more. For every people choosing car A over car B, everyone in the city ends up having to pay, in average, $0.1 more in health expenses due to the pollution. There are one million of drivers in the city. If people decide for themselves what to buy, unless they are very altruistic, they'll chose car A. So you've one million of people buying car A. So you've $100k paid by everyone, in average, in additional health costs. So they spend $150k in total. If people decide together (via a referendum) which model of car to produce, they'll vote for car B, and just spend $100k in total.

There are many fields which work that way, infrastructure, health-related issues, environment-related issues, research issues, ... and in all those fields, if you make the sum of individual decisions, you've a worst outcome for everyone than if you make a common decision (through a referendum for example) and then everyone follows the decision that was commonly taken.

I'm not saying that **everything** from the color of the car to the music you listen at should be decided this way, definitely not. But everything which have large-scale consequences, and that include most of what the governments do, must be decided collectively and then enforced to everyone. There is no opting out of pollution, and there is no opting out from the benefits of research.

Also, there are things which just don't make things if they are half-done. A half-built LHC makes no meaning. A half-built launch loop is useless. So for those kind of big projects, we have to decide together if we want to do them or not, and if we decide we do, makes everyone contribute so it'll be done. Or we'll have lots of half-done, useless, projects.

Again, then you should have no problem giving consumers/taxpayers the freedom to choose which organizations they give their money to.

There is no freedom in economics. Freedom is the right to do what doesn't significantly affect others. Economics, and especially the big subjects we are speaking about, affect everyone, or least millions of people, at once. They are not subject of "freedom", but of collective decision-making.

That's not pragmatic at all, that means wasting resources in many conflicting projects, and not having the ones needed to perform big projects. You can't deduce what is good for the common good from a sum of individual choices, there is Arrow's impossibility theorem, and all of game theory against you.

If you want to perform a big project...you'll either take the resources...or you'll trade for them. If you can't persuade consumers/taxpayers to give you their resources to complete your big project...then guess what? You shouldn't do it.

With that logic, we wouldn't have half of the science we have now. Not half of the infrastructure we have now. And twice the pollution we do.

Because for all those things which have mass-effects, the most efficient strategy from a personal decision point of view is to not contribute, wait for others to contribute, but then still gather the outcome.

Why is that such a difficult concept? Are you really not familiar with Buddha's parable of the blind men and the elephant? We're all blind...we all have extremely limited perspectives...we're all fallible...which is why we should solely rely on persuasion if we want other people to spend their time/money a certain way.

First, since Buddha, we have the scientific method. We are not as blind as we were at that time. But that apart, yes, we should rely on persuasion and do things people want to do - not have an autocrat deciding of the common good. Where we disagree is between collective decision making and individual decision making. You think "everyone for his own", I think "let's decide together and then all work together". Game theory says it's more efficient to do it my way, as you can see in the examples I gave above.

If I can't persuade you that pragmatarianism is valuable...then how would it be efficient for me to spend your money to promote pragmatarianism? There's nothing efficient about spending our money on things we do not need, want or value.

I'm not speaking of doing propaganda on public fund, some amount of it (like drug-danger or road-safety awareness campaigns) are fine, but it's not the main kind of things I'm thinking about. What I'm thinking about is running big projects, infrastructures or systems (security, roads and trains, education and healthcare, LHC and Appolo project) which require coordination and everyone working together. That's more or less what the governments do, and governments (but yes, I would like more democratic ones) are the only efficient way to run them : we decide collectively and then we all contribute to the collective decision.

[Xerographica]

The whole of history of humanity living in fixed settlements is the narrative on involuntary appropriations of resources ( most often farming ) and big shots - or classes of big shots - deciding what to do with them.

I wanted to spend my $1000 on promoting pragmatarianism but you forced me to spend my $1000 on porn.

Therefore, YOUR perspective on how you should spend your money is irrelevant. Therefore, your perspective has no bearing on what is done. QED.

Egypt did not become Egypt because of individual perspectives of its 30 million people. Progress is made through the ruthless application of the Lash and the Whip - noting else raises taxes in the long run.

Before Egypt, what progress was made? How long did it take?

Progress is made by lashing and whipping people into building pyramids...which are lasting testaments to how great a ruler you were?

A contradiction in my argument...which nobody has pointed out...is that I don't argue against taxes. In a pragmatarian system...people would still have to pay taxes...but they would be able to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to. Perhaps the best description is soft-paternalism. Given the choice...people might not pay taxes...aka the free-rider problem. Fine...so we take that choice away from them. But there's no need to go any further than that. It's still their money...we're just nudging them to spend it on the public goods that they value.

The contradiction pretty much revolves itself because it's the taxpayers who will decide what the scope of government should be. Their opportunity cost decisions will reveal what, if anything, the government has a comparative advantage in producing/supplying. If taxpayers want to fund the IRS so that the IRS can nudge them to pay taxes...then so be it. It's entirely possible that once taxpayers don't have to pay for ideas they believe to be idiotic...then they will be inclined to contribute more money and the IRS would be made completely redundant.

[Xerographica]

Kilobugya, here's a blog entry that I typed just for you...Pragma-socialism.

[Risottia]

The Romans did. And it's not like by destroying Carthage they hindered the progress of Rome. Quite the opposite, actually.

You simply fail to see the contributions that Carthage might have made if it hadn't been destroyed.

Which ones? Do tell.
Afaik, Rome went on pretty well. Quite better than having Carthaginians attacking them through the Alps.

It's the same concept with the millions of Jews that Hitler killed and the millions of Chinese that Mao killed. You can't see all the Einsteins and Deng Xiaopings that might have been among those whose perspectives were destroyed.

Hohoho Godwin's Law. I won.

But planets are. Analogy fail!

Planets are islands? Therefore...there's no harm in destroying everybody's perspectives but your own? That doesn't even make sense.

And a strawman.
YOU postulated that "no man is an island (that is, can live alone) hence clearly whatever alien comes here will just want to trade and cooperate". I showed that your analogy was inappropriate, making your argument void.
Then you come back with a strawman: where exactly did I claim there's no harm in destroying everybody else's "perspectives"?
Nice logical jump. Seesh.

Assuming "progress", however you want to define it, is potentially infinite and not limitated by any factor, such as resources, time, and enthropy. Which would be quite an assumption.
That's why it's not a self-evident truth. It's not even a truth, actually.

Of course resources are scarce...that's the point of economics. Given that resources are scarce...what we do with them determines our rate of progress. And what we do with them depends on our perspectives. Therefore...the more perspectives we integrate...the more likely we are to discover new and innovative uses of limited resources...and the faster we will progress.

Assuming that the people you want to integrate with do actually want to integrate with you. They might just say "you're useless but your planet is cool. Move or die, fuckers".
Again you fail to prove the necessity of your conclusions.

...Unsure about what you're arguing in favour, but I suspect some romneyite more-loopholes-for-fatcats scheme.
There's a thread for that, and it's not this one.

It's called pragmatarianism and that's what this thread is for.

Not quite. It's just about a futurible scenery with aliens visiting Earth and an OP using it to jumping to far-fetched conclusions.
But if you want to ground your political ideology on this argument, I assume you just fucked it up big time.

I assume you have proof thereof.

Sure, just go around and ignore everybody's perspectives and see how much progress you make in life. Ignore your doctor's perspective...ignore your lawyer's perspective...ignore your accountant's perspective...ignore your plumber's perspective...and so on. There's your proof.

So, no proof: just appeals at authority and strawmen.
Lame argument, as expected.

[Xerographica]

Risottia, my argument is that your perspective should matter. If you have the freedom to spend your time/money then your perspective matters. Why should your perspective matter? Well...certainly there are moral arguments that have been made for liberty. But more importantly there are consequentialist arguments that can be made for liberty. We benefit as a society when people...completely irrespective of their race or planet of origin...have the freedom to choose how they spend their time/money.

Now, you're welcome to try and debunk my argument. Which is funny because, as I mentioned, my argument is that your perspective should matter. I'm arguing that society benefits by allowing you to have the freedom to choose how you spend your time/money. So go ahead and choose to spend your time trying to debunk my argument that you should have the freedom to choose how you spend your time/money. It makes me laugh.

That being said, I'll be the first to admit that I struggle to offer a very strong consequentialist defense of liberty. The thing is...nobody has offered a strong consequentialist defense of liberty. If somebody had already done so then taxpayers would already be able to directly allocate their taxes.

It's often said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. But if you don't have the freedom to choose how you spend your time/money...then does your mind matter? No...it doesn't. Therefore, it's a terrible waste of epic proportion when we prevent taxpayers from choosing how they spend their taxes in the public sector. But we can't see what we've wasted. That's the UNSEEN. How can I show you the UNSEEN? How can I show you the outcome of giving millions and millions of our most productive citizens the freedom to choose how their taxes are used in the public sector? What's the product of multiplying the public sector and 150 million of our most productive perspectives? I don't know...but the product just has to be greater than multiplying the public sector and 538 congresspeople.

[Norsklow]

The whole of history of humanity living in fixed settlements is the narrative on involuntary appropriations of resources ( most often farming ) and big shots - or classes of big shots - deciding what to do with them.


Therefore, YOUR perspective on how you should spend your money is irrelevant. Therefore, your perspective has no bearing on what is done. QED.

Egypt did not become Egypt because of individual perspectives of its 30 million people. Progress is made through the ruthless application of the Lash and the Whip - noting else raises taxes in the long run.

Before Egypt, what progress was made? How long did it take?

Progress is made by lashing and whipping people into building pyramids...which are lasting testaments to how great a ruler you were?

SNIP

and lashing and whipping them into rendering 30% of their harvests. Which pay for anything from decorating the great house to paying the scribes and even developing the metal-industry. Or inventing papyrus. And so forth and so forth. It all depends on the whim of the Great.

It hasn't changed since Grawp stayed home from the hunt.

Inequality of power is like inequality of income - a necessity, and its detractors are best given regular whippings without a hearing.

[Wikkiwallana]

Because "liberty" as you define it is not the only way that allows scientific progress. Ancient civilizations, such as Classical Greece and Imperial China, often did it by the ruler taking aside a well known inventor/philosopher/engineer/whatever, and saying "build me something that can accomplish X". In Enlightenment-era Europe, nobles and other wealthy families sent their sons off to be educated, and they then spent their lives tinkering around in various scientific fields; prominent ones would get retainers from royalty or be invited to join various societies, and every now and then some ruler would offer a reward to whoever found them the best method off accomplishing some goal of theirs. In both types of society, the common folk had jack shit in the way of the freedoms you say are necessary for progress, and yet both achieved remarkable amounts of it.

Therefore -snip missing the point and more evangelism-

Yeah, don't even try to take that as a suggestion of how things ought be done, as I said nothing about that. The only "therefore" that can be drawn from that is "therefore, the OP's premise that only total individual liberty leads to progress is untrue", I make no claims whatsoever about the best way to achieve progress, or even on the scope of methods useable, except to say that there are more than one.

[Wikkiwallana]

If you can't persuade consumers/taxpayers to give you their resources to complete your big project...then guess what? You shouldn't do it. Why is that such a difficult concept?

Because most people aren't just going to give up their stuff for R&D that they don't understand or care about, no matter how much it might benefit them in the long run to do so. If we had had 70 million five dollar attempts to get to the moon instead of one giant space program, Neil Armstrong would never have gotten higher than his front porch.

[Wikkiwallana]

It's called pragmatarianism

Then it's almost as badly named as Objectivism and Scientology.

[Nidaria]

If you can't persuade consumers/taxpayers to give you their resources to complete your big project...then guess what? You shouldn't do it. Why is that such a difficult concept?

Because most people aren't just going to give up their stuff for R&D that they don't understand or care about, no matter how much it might benefit them in the long run to do so. If we had had 70 million five dollar attempts to get to the moon instead of one giant space program, Neil Armstrong would never have gotten higher than his front porch.

This reminds me of a flash game where one has to launch a hedgehog into space, oddly enough.

[Wikkiwallana]

In a pragmatarian system...people would still have to pay taxes...but they would be able to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to. Perhaps the best description is soft-paternalism. Given the choice...people might not pay taxes...aka the free-rider problem. Fine...so we take that choice away from them. But there's no need to go any further than that. It's still their money...we're just nudging them to spend it on the public goods that they value.

The contradiction pretty much revolves itself because it's the taxpayers who will decide what the scope of government should be. Their opportunity cost decisions will reveal what, if anything, the government has a comparative advantage in producing/supplying. If taxpayers want to fund the IRS so that the IRS can nudge them to pay taxes...then so be it. It's entirely possible that once taxpayers don't have to pay for ideas they believe to be idiotic...then they will be inclined to contribute more money and the IRS would be made completely redundant.

Or, more likely we'll have an enormous, bloated "Department of Puppies and Blowjobs" and perpetually bankrupt law enforcement, transportation, health, and environmental departments. Plus roads that look they've taken mortar shellings, untreated water filled with cholera and dysentery (Oregon Trail, ho!), and schools run by whatever local fundamentalist religion does the best job of conning parents.

[Xerographica]

and lashing and whipping them into rendering 30% of their harvests. Which pay for anything from decorating the great house to paying the scribes and even developing the metal-industry. Or inventing papyrus. And so forth and so forth. It all depends on the whim of the Great.

It hasn't changed since Grawp stayed home from the hunt.

Inequality of power is like inequality of income - a necessity, and its detractors are best given regular whippings without a hearing.

For some reason you don't seem to understand who the "Great" are in our society. Here's how you can figure it out. For an entire month keep track of what products/services you spend your money on. Those are the people that produce the products/services that you value. Those are the "Great". Another word for "Great" is "Taxpayer".

Do you think all taxpayers pay the same amount of taxes? Of course not. There's your inequality. Some people are more productive than others. The more productive that a person is...the higher their income...and the more taxes they will pay.

In other words...show me your receipts and I'll show you your Gods. You sacrifice your labor in exchange for their blessings. The earned your worship...which is why they earned the right to spend their taxes in the public sector. How will they spend their taxes? They'll spend their taxes on the public goods that are most beneficial to them. And what's beneficial to our Gods is beneficial to us.

[Norsklow]

and lashing and whipping them into rendering 30% of their harvests. Which pay for anything from decorating the great house to paying the scribes and even developing the metal-industry. Or inventing papyrus. And so forth and so forth. It all depends on the whim of the Great.

It hasn't changed since Grawp stayed home from the hunt.

Inequality of power is like inequality of income - a necessity, and its detractors are best given regular whippings without a hearing.

For some reason you don't seem to understand who the "Great" are in our society. Here's how you can figure it out. For an entire month keep track of what products/services you spend your money on. Those are the people that produce the products/services that you value. Those are the "Great". Another word for "Great" is "Taxpayer".

Do you think all taxpayers pay the same amount of taxes? Of course not. There's your inequality. Some people are more productive than others. The more productive that a person is...the higher their income...and the more taxes they will pay.

In other words...show me your receipts and I'll show you your Gods. You sacrifice your labor in exchange for their blessings. The earned your worship...which is why they earned the right to spend their taxes in the public sector. How will they spend their taxes? They'll spend their taxes on the public goods that are most beneficial to them. And what's beneficial to our Gods is beneficial to us.

Wrong. The Great is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth - God Bless Her!
And I'll happily decapitate anyone who argues otherwise at her command.

[Xerographica]

Yeah, don't even try to take that as a suggestion of how things ought be done, as I said nothing about that. The only "therefore" that can be drawn from that is "therefore, the OP's premise that only total individual liberty leads to progress is untrue", I make no claims whatsoever about the best way to achieve progress, or even on the scope of methods useable, except to say that there are more than one.

Only total individual liberty leads to progress? Really? I said that? I said that despite the fact that it's painfully obvious that we have progressed without having total individual liberty?

Progress can be fast...or it can be slow. My argument is that the rate of progress depends on how much liberty people have to come up with new and innovative uses for resources. But just because Americans invent the phone...or the light bulb...or planes...or vaccines...it doesn't mean that only we progress as a result. The entire world progresses. Right now in other countries people are thinking of new and innovative uses for resources that will benefit us here in America. We benefit from their liberty and they benefit from our liberty. But this concept doesn't just apply to countries...it applies to planets as well. And it doesn't just apply to disparities in location...it also applies to disparities in development. Just because an alien civilization might be more advanced than we are now...does not mean that they won't benefit from something that we might discover or create in the future. And the alien civilization will be aware of this fact by the time they have advanced to the point they are capable of visiting our planet. You know why they will be aware of this fact? Because it's not rocket science. It's basic economics. And basic economics is applicable to any planets that are constrained by limited resources and all planets are constrained by limited resources.

[Xerographica]

If you can't persuade consumers/taxpayers to give you their resources to complete your big project...then guess what? You shouldn't do it. Why is that such a difficult concept?

Because most people aren't just going to give up their stuff for R&D that they don't understand or care about, no matter how much it might benefit them in the long run to do so. If we had had 70 million five dollar attempts to get to the moon instead of one giant space program, Neil Armstrong would never have gotten higher than his front porch.

If I want your money...then it's my responsibility to help you understand how you will benefit from giving me your money. In a pragmatarian system taxpayers will have to pay taxes. It will be up to government organizations to convince taxpayers that they will benefit from funding their organization. Taxpayers did not earn their money by ignoring experts. Our society is based on the division of labor concept...which means most of us have very narrow fields of expertise. This forces us to consult and listen to experts.

This fact of life would not change if taxpayers were given the freedom to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to. They didn't earn that money just to waste it. They earned that money so that they could benefit. And believe you me...they understand that maximizing benefit requires due diligence. And we're far far far better off relying on 150 million+ taxpayers to conduct due diligence with the money that they labored to earn...than we are relying on 538 congresspeople to conduct due diligence with money that they did not labor to earn.

Regarding getting to the moon...again...you're seeing the SEEN. Anybody can do that. What you struggle appreciating is what the actual priorities of 150 million taxpayers would have been. Maybe curing cancer or ending poverty. Who knows? That's the UNSEEN. None of the blind men touching the elephant can see the entire elephant. All we can know is that the more perspectives we incorporate...the closer we come to the actual truth...and the greater our rate of progress.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yeah, don't even try to take that as a suggestion of how things ought be done, as I said nothing about that. The only "therefore" that can be drawn from that is "therefore, the OP's premise that only total individual liberty leads to progress is untrue", I make no claims whatsoever about the best way to achieve progress, or even on the scope of methods useable, except to say that there are more than one.

Only total individual liberty leads to progress? Really? I said that? I said that despite the fact that it's painfully obvious that we have progressed without having total individual liberty?

Progress can be fast...or it can be slow. My argument is that the rate of progress depends on how much liberty people have to come up with new and innovative uses for resources. But just because Americans invent the phone...or the light bulb...or planes...or vaccines...it doesn't mean that only we progress as a result. The entire world progresses. Right now in other countries people are thinking of new and innovative uses for resources that will benefit us here in America. We benefit from their liberty and they benefit from our liberty.

But innovation can be completely divorced from liberty. You could theoretically take a bunch of experts in a field, and lock them in a compound, and tell them to solve some problem from that field or they never get to leave/you kill them/you hurt their families/whatever threat you want to make. They are going to innovate despite having no liberty and strictly controlled resources.

But this concept doesn't just apply to countries...it applies to planets as well. And it doesn't just apply to disparities in location...it also applies to disparities in development. Just because an alien civilization might be more advanced than we are now...does not mean that they won't benefit from something that we might discover or create in the future. And the alien civilization will be aware of this fact by the time they have advanced to the point they are capable of visiting our planet.

Or maybe they won't. You have no idea how alien psychology might work, and yet you continue to assume that your beliefs are some grand universal gospel.

You know why they will be aware of this fact? Because it's not rocket science. It's basic economics. And basic economics is applicable to any planets that are constrained by limited resources and all planets are constrained by limited resources.

Except it isn't basic economics, no matter how hard you wish it was.

[Xerographica]

Or, more likely we'll have an enormous, bloated "Department of Puppies and Blowjobs" and perpetually bankrupt law enforcement, transportation, health, and environmental departments. Plus roads that look they've taken mortar shellings, untreated water filled with cholera and dysentery (Oregon Trail, ho!), and schools run by whatever local fundamentalist religion does the best job of conning parents.

Hmmm...I wonder if you're the only reasonable taxpayer out there. Are you the exception or the rule? Good thing I started asking people this question a while ago...Unglamorous but Important Things. Just search for "water" to find your response on that page.

You're not the exception...you're the rule. And just like everybody else...you think you're exceptionally reasonable. And just like everybody else...you have no idea how resources are efficiently allocated. But why should you know that? Like I mentioned earlier...our society is based on the division of labor of concept so it's not unreasonable that you don't understand economic concepts such as partial knowledge or opportunity cost.

[Wikkiwallana]

Because most people aren't just going to give up their stuff for R&D that they don't understand or care about, no matter how much it might benefit them in the long run to do so. If we had had 70 million five dollar attempts to get to the moon instead of one giant space program, Neil Armstrong would never have gotten higher than his front porch.

If I want your money...then it's my responsibility to help you understand how you will benefit from giving me your money. In a pragmatarian system taxpayers will have to pay taxes. It will be up to government organizations to convince taxpayers that they will benefit from funding their organization. Taxpayers did not earn their money by ignoring experts. Our society is based on the division of labor concept...which means most of us have very narrow fields of expertise. This forces us to consult and listen to experts.

This fact of life would not change if taxpayers were given the freedom to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to. They didn't earn that money just to waste it. They earned that money so that they could benefit. And believe you me...they understand that maximizing benefit requires due diligence. And we're far far far better off relying on 150 million+ taxpayers to conduct due diligence with the money that they labored to earn...than we are relying on 538 congresspeople to conduct due diligence with money that they did not labor to earn.

See earlier post about the Department of Puppies and Blowjobs.

Regarding getting to the moon...again...you're seeing the SEEN. Anybody can do that. What you struggle appreciating is what the actual priorities of 150 million taxpayers would have been. Maybe curing cancer or ending poverty.

You are making two major assumptions: all things are possible with enough resources, and mass individualism would give such a large scale project enough resources to be successfully completed when there are several other equally large projects all going on, all funded exclusively by people's interest in them. The first is wrong, the second is highly unlikely at best.

Who knows? That's the UNSEEN. None of the blind men touching the elephant can see the entire elephant. All we can know is that the more perspectives we incorporate...the closer we come to the actual truth...and the greater our rate of progress.

You assume every has a piece of the elephant and is interpreting it as close to the truth as possible given the limits of their information. Neither is true. You are further assuming that everyone is interested in examining reality and understanding it, and no one wants to simply get by and live their life. That's also not true. You talk about the wonders of multiple perspectives, and yet you continually shut out any that disagree with your own. When asked to back up what you are saying, you rely on nothing but the assertions of one man, and a single metaphor by another. Sorry, but until you fix all these faulty assumptions and hypocrisy, your perspective is not only worthless, but would actually hinder progress if it were to become widespread.

Interestingly, that makes your opening premise of "more acceptance of alternate perspectives is automatically an improvement" inherently self contradictory, and thus null.

[Wikkiwallana]

Or, more likely we'll have an enormous, bloated "Department of Puppies and Blowjobs" and perpetually bankrupt law enforcement, transportation, health, and environmental departments. Plus roads that look they've taken mortar shellings, untreated water filled with cholera and dysentery (Oregon Trail, ho!), and schools run by whatever local fundamentalist religion does the best job of conning parents.

Hmmm...I wonder if you're the only reasonable taxpayer out there. Are you the exception or the rule? Good thing I started asking people this question a while ago...Unglamorous but Important Things. Just search for "water" to find your response on that page.

You're not the exception...you're the rule. And just like everybody else...you think you're exceptionally reasonable. And just like everybody else...you have no idea how resources are efficiently allocated. But why should you know that? Like I mentioned earlier...our society is based on the division of labor of concept so it's not unreasonable that you don't understand economic concepts such as partial knowledge or opportunity cost.

I was already skeptical when you considered an informal poll valid data. When you started talking about the Invisible Hand, I couldn't take you seriously at all anymore. Speaking of things not understood, check out Somebody Else's Problem, Not In My Backyard, and Diffusion of Responsibility, for why I expect all the "Unglamorous but Important Things" as you called them to be chronically and critically underfunded in your proposed system.

[Xerographica]

But innovation can be completely divorced from liberty. You could theoretically take a bunch of experts in a field, and lock them in a compound, and tell them to solve some problem from that field or they never get to leave/you kill them/you hurt their families/whatever threat you want to make. They are going to innovate despite having no liberty and strictly controlled resources.

Or maybe they won't. You have no idea how alien psychology might work, and yet you continue to assume that your beliefs are some grand universal gospel.

Except it isn't basic economics, no matter how hard you wish it was.

But it's a given that you can force individuals to innovate. That's not my argument. My argument is that many countries have tried this method but it did not produce ENOUGH innovation to sustain an entire country. If you want your entire country to make significant progress...then you have to give your citizens enough liberty to make significant individual progress. In economic terms this idea is known as the invisible hand. It forms the basis of our private sector...and it should form the basis of our public sector as well.

How is it not basic economics that all planets are constrained by scarcity? Or do you not agree that economics is the study of scarcity? Free trade...people's opportunity cost decisions...is how we prioritize the use of limited resources. Without the prioritization of limited resources...we end up wasting limited resources and hindering our progress.

I don't care how different an alien civilization is...they'll hinder their progress if they waste their limited resources. And if they fail to understand that free-trade is necessary to ensure the efficient allocation of limited resources...then it's extremely unlikely that they will ever advance to the point that they are capable of building a spaceship that can visit our planet.

[Wikkiwallana]

But innovation can be completely divorced from liberty. You could theoretically take a bunch of experts in a field, and lock them in a compound, and tell them to solve some problem from that field or they never get to leave/you kill them/you hurt their families/whatever threat you want to make. They are going to innovate despite having no liberty and strictly controlled resources.

Or maybe they won't. You have no idea how alien psychology might work, and yet you continue to assume that your beliefs are some grand universal gospel.

Except it isn't basic economics, no matter how hard you wish it was.

But it's a given that you can force individuals to innovate. That's not my argument. My argument is that many countries have tried this method but it did not produce ENOUGH innovation to sustain an entire country. If you want your entire country to make significant progress...then you have to give your citizens enough liberty to make significant individual progress. In economic terms this idea is known as the invisible hand. It forms the basis of our private sector...and it should form the basis of our public sector as well.

You mean the private sector that just a few years ago used the extra liberty we gave it to commit one of the most massive thefts in history? That private sector? I'll pass on giving it more liberty, and I'll double pass on having the public sector emulate it.

How is it not basic economics that all planets are constrained by scarcity? Or do you not agree that economics is the study of scarcity?

I do indeed disagree. Economics is the study of trade. There are plenty of possible situations where there is scarcity but no trade, and these are not the focus of economics.

Free trade...people's opportunity cost decisions...is how we prioritize the use of limited resources. Without the prioritization of limited resources...we end up wasting limited resources and hindering our progress.

7 billion semi-independent priorities can waste resources almost as well as 1 bad mega-priority.

I don't care how different an alien civilization is...they'll hinder their progress if they waste their limited resources.

Hinder does not mean stop.

And if they fail to understand that free-trade is necessary to ensure the efficient allocation of limited resources...

It isn't.

then it's extremely unlikely that they will ever advance to the point that they are capable of building a spaceship that can visit our planet.

So you assume, but you have yet to prove it.