Taking vs Trading

[Xerographica]

Wikkiwallana, you think pragmatarianism is a stupid idea. Fine...maybe you're right. Except, I'm sure you would also think it would be pretty stupid if I forced you to help me promote it. Yet, that's how our public sector operates. Liberals pay for stupid conservative ideas and conservatives pay for stupid liberal ideas. Yet, you don't think it's a stupid system.

However, you think it's stupid that the private sector committed one of the most massive thefts in history when we gave them more liberty a few years ago. Therefore, you think it's a good idea to give more people less control of their own money and give less people more control of other people's money. How does that make any sense? We're all fallible...therefore let's give a small group of people more control of other people's money?

It follows, then, that a less centralized society has the advantage of a greater diversification of its performance across a larger number of preceptors. This is because diversification here dilutes the impact of the ability, or the lack thereof, of each preceptor on the aggregate societal performance. - Raaj K. Sah, Fallibility in Human Organizations and Political Systems

Yet, you say that, "7 billion semi-independent priorities can waste resources almost as well as 1 bad mega-priority." But all the mega human-caused disasters throughout history beg to differ with you. Those were all mega priorities of blind men that failed to appreciate just how blind they were. We all have limited perspectives...which is why we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. Allowing 538 congresspeople to spend 1/4 of our nation's revenue is putting way too many eggs in one basket.

We're all going to disagree on things because we have different perspectives. But given that we all have different perspectives...allowing people to spend their taxes in the public sector automatically hedges our bets and promotes heterogeneous activity. Of course, it does make it less likely that we will be able to fund mega projects...but if you can't persuade enough taxpayers of the proposed mega benefits...then you have to acknowledge your limited perspective and accept that maybe they see other projects that offer greater benefits.

I clearly see the mega benefits of pragmatarianism...but if I can't show you the mega benefits...then I have to accept the fact that perhaps those benefits are just a figment of my imagination...which is why I wouldn't force you to spend your limited resources on something that could quite possibly be a mirage. So if you want to force other taxpayers to fund your projects...if you don't want to solely rely on persuasion...then you're just another blind man who thinks he can see.

[Sociobiology]

If aliens arrived on our planet...would they want to trade with us or would they just take whatever resources they wanted? It's my firm belief that they would want to trade with us. Here's my logic...

In order for an alien civilization to advance to the point that it could actually visit us...they would already have learned that progress depends on trading rather than taking. This is because taking destroys individual foresight and if you destroy individual foresight then you hinder progress.

In very simple terms...two heads are better than one. We all have unique perspectives so we can see numerous uses of the same exact resource. Trading integrates perspectives which allows resources to be put to their most productive uses...while taking does the opposite. It seems highly unlikely that an alien civilization could efficiently allocate all the resources necessary to visit out planet...yet fail to appreciate that their progress was a direct result of integrating everybody's unique perspectives.

Here on planet Earth we still haven't figured out that our progress depends on integrating people's perspectives. If we had figured this out then taxpayers would be able to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to...aka pragmatarianism. Once we understand why people's perspectives should matter...then we'll allow taxpayers to trade their taxes for public goods that they value...our rate of progress will increase...and visiting inhabited planets will happen sooner rather than later. With the understanding of progress under our belts...we would see the value in trading with the aliens rather than taking their resources by force.

This concept was the point of Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window...

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. - Bastiat, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen

Right now we allow 538 congresspeople to spend around $4 trillion dollars. Did they labor to earn that money? No...they did not. Taxpayers did. When we allow congress to spend money that they did not earn...the perspectives of millions and millions of taxpayers are blocked from determining how their money should be distributed in the public sector. As a result...progress is severely hindered. Yet, people see roads and schools...so they see their tax dollars at work. But they are simply seeing the SEEN...anybody can do that. The challenge is to try and see the UNSEEN. The unseen is the outcome of applying millions and millions of our most productive perspectives to the public sector.

The next time you watch a movie in which the aliens take the resources they want by force...or vice versa...hopefully you'll understand that what you're watching is merely a reflection of our society's lack of understanding regarding the correlation between perspectives and progress.

The most likely thing an alien would want would be biological data and samples, cultural products (books, movies, music, art, ect.) and conversation with a species with a different evolutionary perspective.
all of that can be acquired much easier through trade.

there really is not anything else earth has that would not be easier to get elsewhere.

look they have a plant that makes Ech' [click]sheben, we need seeds lots of seeds, ask them what the growing conditions are.

[Wikkiwallana]

Wikkiwallana, you think pragmatarianism is a stupid idea. Fine...maybe you're right. Except, I'm sure you would also think it would be pretty stupid if I forced you to help me promote it. Yet, that's how our public sector operates. Liberals pay for stupid conservative ideas and conservatives pay for stupid liberal ideas. Yet, you don't think it's a stupid system.

Actually, I do think it's a stupid system, as it doesn't do a good enough job of stopping stupid ideas from being implemented. However, I also feel that as systems go, it's on the less stupid end, most of the time, and I am aware of very few systems that are less, and not aware of any that are stupid free.

However, you think it's stupid that the private sector committed one of the most massive thefts in history when we gave them more liberty a few years ago.

No, it was very smart, a group of stupid people could never have pulled that off. It was just horribly unethical.

Therefore, you think it's a good idea to give more people less control of their own money and give less people more control of other people's money. How does that make any sense?

Given that it appears to be random babble unconnected to what I have said I want and don't want, I'm not sure why you expect it to make sense.

We're all fallible...therefore let's give a small group of people more control of other people's money?

See, I never said anything even close to that.

It follows, then, that a less centralized society has the advantage of a greater diversification of its performance across a larger number of preceptors. This is because diversification here dilutes the impact of the ability, or the lack thereof, of each preceptor on the aggregate societal performance. - Raaj K. Sah, Fallibility in Human Organizations and Political Systems

Follows from what? Without context, this doesn't prove shit. Also, "less centralized" does not necessarily mean "totally decentralized". Comparatives are only useful if you know what they are being compared to.

Yet, you say that, "7 billion semi-independent priorities can waste resources almost as well as 1 bad mega-priority."

And I stand by that. Look up economies of scale.

But all the mega human-caused disasters throughout history beg to differ with you. Those were all mega priorities of blind men that failed to appreciate just how blind they were.

Not really. Again, on their own, they prove nothing. If you want to prove me wrong, do some work on the amount of waste generated if everyone has total financial autonomy and all centralized collaboration is eliminated, then compare it with the waste in a totalitarian system. I'm guessing they are going to be very similar numbers.

We all have limited perspectives...which is why we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket.

Nor should we put each egg in its own basket.

Allowing 538 congresspeople to spend 1/4 of our nation's revenue is putting way too many eggs in one basket.

I disagree.

We're all going to disagree on things because we have different perspectives.

Duh.

But given that we all have different perspectives...allowing people to spend their taxes in the public sector automatically hedges our bets and promotes heterogeneous activity.

Uh, no, it may promote mixed activity, but it doesn't hedge our bets because it bets the same on everything. It's like putting one chip on every number on a roulette table: you may have money on the winner every time, but you are still losing far more than you get back.

Of course, it does make it less likely that we will be able to fund mega projects...but if you can't persuade enough taxpayers of the proposed mega benefits...then you have to acknowledge your limited perspective and accept that maybe they see other projects that offer greater benefits.

Only if I assume that all perspectives have equal value, and everyone is going to act unselfishly. Take away either of those and the conclusion does not follow. And since I assume neither…

I clearly see the mega benefits of pragmatarianism...but if I can't show you the mega benefits...then I have to accept the fact that perhaps those benefits are just a figment of my imagination...which is why I wouldn't force you to spend your limited resources on something that could quite possibly be a mirage. So if you want to force other taxpayers to fund your projects...if you don't want to solely rely on persuasion...then you're just another blind man who thinks he can see.

It's really impressive to be able to say "I might be wrong, that's why I'm right", with a straight face. Please, teach me how to do it.

[Risottia]

Risottia, my argument is that your perspective should matter.

The IDEAL about my (and many other people's) perspective deserving attention - an ideal to whom, by the way, I concur to - does not change the POSSIBILITY that other people may think otherwise, because:
a) they are selfish
b) they think it's useless
c) they think they're being threatened.

In short: it takes two for peace and trade - it takes only one for war.

[Xerographica]

Wikkiwallana, I didn't have to look up economies of scale because I'm already familiar with the concept. Let's efficiently produce something that nobody wants? Or...let's produce a gazillion widgets when people only want 1000? Great...you really lowered the production costs...but failed to understand or appreciate the opportunity costs. Either the demand for public goods determines the supply...or it doesn't.

Of course, if you think taxpayers are all idiots...then you probably wouldn't want the demand for public goods to determine the supply. It certainly wouldn't be so great if, as you argued, allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would be the equivalent of putting one chip on every number at the roulette table. It also would be terrible if, as you argued, we ended up with...

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.

The problem with thinking that taxpayers are all idiots is the fact that we voted for them. Well...we didn't literally vote for them. We figuratively voted for them each time that we voluntarily gave them our money for the goods/services we want/need/value. The amount of money we give them reflects how much of our interests they protect. On the other hand...it only costs you a few hours a year to vote for congress. Therefore, congresspeople are our pseudo-representatives while taxpayers are our true representatives.

What will our true representatives spend their taxes on? The department of puppies and blowjobs? Naw, they will spend their taxes on the public goods that are essential to ensuring that they are able to efficiently and effectively continue to profit from our interests. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If they perceive that roads are cutting into their profits...then given that they have to pay taxes anyways...it would benefit them to spend their taxes on roads. If a small supply of educated workers is cutting into their profits then it would benefit them to spend their taxes on public education. If a shortage of public transportation is limiting consumer access to their businesses...then it would benefit them to spend their taxes on public transportation.

People respond to shortages of the things that they value. Given the opportunity, taxpayers would respond to shortages of the public goods that they value. What they value are all the factors necessary to continue to successfully serve our interests. And nobody knows better than millions and millions of taxpayers...doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, business owners, scientists, etc...the amount of public goods necessary to continue to successfully serve our interests.

And if you're not happy with how your true representatives are spending their taxes...then simply give them less taxes to spend. How? By purchasing their competitors products/services instead.

[Xerographica]

Risottia, my argument is that your perspective should matter.

The IDEAL about my (and many other people's) perspective deserving attention - an ideal to whom, by the way, I concur to - does not change the POSSIBILITY that other people may think otherwise, because:
a) they are selfish
b) they think it's useless
c) they think they're being threatened.

In short: it takes two for peace and trade - it takes only one for war.

But it should never only take one for war. If we allowed taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes then we would be able to guarantee that war would only be a possibility IF enough taxpayers thought that they were being threatened...AND they were willing to put their own taxes where their mouths were.

As I've said, we're all just blind men touching different parts of an elephant. Your perspective should matter...but only in terms of your own individual resources. If you and I perceived that Canada was a threat...then we would give our taxes to the Dept of Defense. But the Dept of Defense wouldn't be able to attack Canada with just the taxes that we gave to it. It would cost X amount to attack Canada...and in order to reach X amount...millions of other taxpayers would also have to perceive that Canada was a threat and give enough of their taxes to reach X amount.

If even liberals gave their taxes to the Dept of Defense...then we could be relatively certain that the evidence was reasonably solid. In other words...if liberals gave their taxes to the Dept of Defense...then we could be relatively certain that there actually was a clear and present danger. And when pacifists start giving their taxes to the Dept of Defense...then we'd really know that the shit has hit the fan.

Of course, it's rare and perhaps impossible that violence is the only answer. Allowing millions of taxpayers with unique perspective to directly allocate their taxes would help ensure that we would tackle problems from multiple angles. For example...what's the best way to deal with crime? Is the best way to spend more taxes on police, courts and jails? Or is an ounce of prevention worth two of cure? It's a given that some taxpayers would try and tackle crime by funding after school programs for at risk youth. Liberty gives people the freedom to test out different approaches. The most successful approaches will gain funding and the least successful will lose funding.

That's why, if an alien civilization has progressed to the point it can build a spaceship capable of reaching us...they would have understood the value of perspectives. Which is why they would value trading with us more than they would taking from us.

[Imsogone]

Risottia, my argument is that your perspective should matter.

The IDEAL about my (and many other people's) perspective deserving attention - an ideal to whom, by the way, I concur to - does not change the POSSIBILITY that other people may think otherwise, because:
a) they are selfish
b) they think it's useless
c) they think they're being threatened.

In short: it takes two for peace and trade - it takes only one for war.

For it to be an actual war, it takes two or more.

If it's just one, it's slaughter.

[Trotskylvania]

The IDEAL about my (and many other people's) perspective deserving attention - an ideal to whom, by the way, I concur to - does not change the POSSIBILITY that other people may think otherwise, because:
a) they are selfish
b) they think it's useless
c) they think they're being threatened.

In short: it takes two for peace and trade - it takes only one for war.

For it to be an actual war, it takes two or more.

If it's just one, it's slaughter.

Regardless, it takes two cooperating to initiate trade. It only takes one aggressor to initiate a war.

[Wikkiwallana]

Wikkiwallana, I didn't have to look up economies of scale because I'm already familiar with the concept. Let's efficiently produce something that nobody wants? Or...let's produce a gazillion widgets when people only want 1000? Great...you really lowered the production costs...but failed to understand or appreciate the opportunity costs. Either the demand for public goods determines the supply...or it doesn't.

Given the number of times you have misrepresented what I have said, I'm beginning to think you are doing it on purpose.

What I'm talking about is the free rider problem, people want all sorts of things but don't want to pay for them, or don't understand the costs. Therefore, everyone who can pay has to be forced to, or shit simply won't get done.

Of course, if you think taxpayers are all idiots...

Not idiots, simply jerks and/or not educated in economics.

then you probably wouldn't want the demand for public goods to determine the supply.

No, I certainly want demand to determine supply, but the only way to accurate gauge and meet demand for such things is to centralize them.

It certainly wouldn't be so great if, as you argued, allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would be the equivalent of putting one chip on every number at the roulette table.

Actually, you are interpreting that metaphor too narrowly. It was a actually a criticism of the whole idea of backing every single person's point of view exactly equally.

It also would be terrible if, as you argued, we ended up with...

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.

And it would happen, under your system.

The problem with thinking that taxpayers are all idiots is the fact that we voted for them.

What?

Well...we didn't literally vote for them.

No seriously, it doesn't make sense even figuratively.

We figuratively voted for them each time that we voluntarily gave them our money for the goods/services we want/need/value.

Please stop, you are just making it worse.

The amount of money we give them reflects how much of our interests they protect. On the other hand...it only costs you a few hours a year to vote for congress. Therefore, congresspeople are our pseudo-representatives while taxpayers are our true representatives.

The only "taxpayer" that represents me is me, and I don't have the time or ability to get the information I need to properly distribute my tax payments, therefore, I delegate the job to someone who does, with the understanding that if they fuck up, they can be replaced.

What will our true representatives spend their taxes on?

That depends, given that we disagree on who actually represents us.

The department of puppies and blowjobs?

If each individual is selecting where their every cent goes? Yes.

Naw, they will spend their taxes on the public goods that are essential to ensuring that they are able to efficiently and effectively continue to profit from our interests.

I'm sorry, you expect Tom up the street, Dick downtown, and Harry across the country to give to think thy can invest their tax dollars in the public and so a profit? What kind of people live in your world, and how exactly does government spending work there?

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Oh yay, out of place adages.

If they perceive that roads are cutting into their profits...

What fucking profits? That's not how things work.

then given that they have to pay taxes anyways...it would benefit them to spend their taxes on roads.

Or they might rationalize that "Well, as shitty as they are, someone else will certainly take care of it, so I think I'd rather have another BJ every month." Seriously, read those links I gave you, relying on crowds to voluntarily fix problems is a losing proposition in the long run.

If a small supply of educated workers is cutting into their profits then it would benefit them to spend their taxes on public education.

Very few citizens run businesses that need skilled labor, as a portion of the whole. That's not going to happen.

If a shortage of public transportation is limiting consumer access to their businesses...then it would benefit them to spend their taxes on public transportation.

Seriously, why do you think business owners are the majority here?

People respond to shortages of the things that they value.

They respond, yes, but nothing says they all, or even mostly, respond in the best, or even a productive, manner.

Given the opportunity, taxpayers would respond to shortages of the public goods that they value.

In myriad different ways, many at cross purposes, when the way to fix it would be a unified response. They could easily end up making the situation worse.

What they value are all the factors necessary to continue to successfully serve our interests.

No, most people are only aware of a few factors in their immediate environment, and often give no thought to even highly critical ones right in front of them unless they break. Then there are the things that are completely invisible unless you specifically go looking for them, such as farm runoff regulation, traffic light timing, fire codes, etc. And finally, there's the things that take place so far from most people that even if they think about them, they don't see them, like food production, weather monitoring, and mining. They aren't going to know how much money to allocate to such things even if they want to pay for them, because they have no clue what the costs are.

And nobody knows better than millions and millions of taxpayers...doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, business owners, scientists, etc...the amount of public goods necessary to continue to successfully serve our interests.

No, because they, just like most everyone else, are not informed about what happens outside their little sphere of interaction. On the other hand, there are people in the government whose sole job it is to track how much money gets spent on various projects, which ones are getting more than they need, and which are getting too much. They have the information, they can put it all together, and they are the ones who should be deciding where tax revenues go.

Oh, and before you start talking about the free market being superior, companies do the exact same thing with their money, it's called an accounting department. Or did you think every employee gets to pick where a bit of the profits they make for the company gets spent?

And if you're not happy with how your true representatives are spending their taxes...then simply give them less taxes to spend. How? By purchasing their competitors products/services instead.

Either you are suggesting we set up competing governments with jurisdiction over the same area, which is ludicrous, or you have confused taxes with shopping, which is almost as bad.

Edits: typos

[Kilobugya]

Regardless, it takes two cooperating to initiate trade. It only takes one aggressor to initiate a war.

Cooperating ? No. It takes one needed something the other has, there is no cooperation involved. I'm dying from thirst in the desert, you've water, you can impose me whatever condition you want so I can drink your water. That's what trade is about. Not cooperation, but abusing a temporary or permanent situation of power to wrestle whatever is possible from the other. It's less directly violent than war, but at the end it's the same. Cooperation starts when you help someone because you share a common goal, or because you've a vague hope he'll help you later on, but without it being a direct "this for that". Trade is not cooperation.

[Xerographica]

Wikkiwallana, I was responding to what you had written about economies of scale. Your response to my response was that you were actually talking about the free-rider problem. If you were actually talking about the free-rider problem then why did you say economies of scale?

If I failed to understand the free-rider problem then I would be a libertarian. The thing is...I'm not a libertarian...I'm a pragmatarian. You know why? Because I long ago accepted the possibility of the free-rider problem. The solution to the free-rider problem is to force people to pay taxes. Have you once heard me argue that people shouldn't pay taxes? Have you once heard me argue that the tax rate should decrease?

My argument, in case you missed it, is that taxpayers should be able to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. Therefore, the free-rider problem is not applicable. Given that you think the free-rider problem is applicable...then...it might help to review the basics. Here's a good overview of the two main problems...

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

Problem #1 - The free-rider problem
Solution - Force people to pay taxes

Problem #2 - The opportunity cost problem
Solution - Allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes

In the future...if you ever doubt that I understand a concept from econ 101...then just search within my blog for that concept. That way you wont waste our time.

Or they might rationalize that "Well, as shitty as they are, someone else will certainly take care of it, so I think I'd rather have another BJ every month." Seriously, read those links I gave you, relying on crowds to voluntarily fix problems is a losing proposition in the long run.

Again, those links have absolutely no bearing on my argument given that I'm not arguing that we should eliminate or lower taxes. Your arguments are applicable to libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. And again, I'm a pragmatarian precisely because I took your arguments into account when I was a libertarian.

Here's the actual argument which you have thus far failed to address. If taxpayers have to pay taxes anyways...and their livelihoods depends on adequate levels of public goods...then why wouldn't they choose to give their taxes to those public goods?

If we apply your argument to the private sector...then business owners would just choose to spend all their revenue on prostitutes. You know what happens to business owners that spend all their revenue on prostitutes? They go out of business. There are negative consequences for eliminating essential factors of production. If there aren't...then obviously those factors were not essential.

For some reason you think that business owners could give all their taxes to the Dept of BJs and not have their productivity adversely effected by the absence of what most reasonable people consider to be essential public goods. If the business owner's productivity would not be adversely affected by the absence of those public goods...then obviously those public goods were not truly essential.

It's kind of like the game Jenga. If you remove the wrong piece then the entire structure crumbles. Socialism failed because you gave a small group of government planners discretion over which pieces were removed and where they were added. But that's the basis of our public sector. We allow 538 congresspeople to control 1/4 of our nation's revenue. They decide which government organizations receive more...or less...revenue. But we all shout at them when they make their moves. Why? Because we're certain that removing funds from essential government organizations will cause the structure to collapse.

But in a pragmatarian system...the power would be dispersed and decentralized among millions and millions of our most productive citizens. No individual taxpayer can remove enough funds from an organization to cause the system to collapse. If enough taxpayers remove enough funds from a government organization to cause the structure to wobble...then whoever observes the wobble will be motivated to give their funds to that government organization.

Taxpayers are the citizens that are most effective at responding to wobbles. If they aren't effective at responding to wobbles...then their productivity would crash and they would no longer have any taxes to pay.

Oh, and before you start talking about the free market being superior, companies do the exact same thing with their money, it's called an accounting department. Or did you think every employee gets to pick where a bit of the profits they make for the company gets spent?

Really? Companies do the exact thing with their money? The auto industry determines how much revenue the computer industry will receive? Uhhh...not even close. Consumers determine how much revenue a company receives...and how a company spends its revenue will determine how much money consumers will give to it in the future. And that's exactly how it should work in the public sector. Taxpayers should determine how much revenue a government organization receives...and how a government organization spends its revenue would determine how much money taxpayers gave to it in the future.

The only "taxpayer" that represents me is me, and I don't have the time or ability to get the information I need to properly distribute my tax payments, therefore, I delegate the job to someone who does, with the understanding that if they fuck up, they can be replaced.

What do you think the ratio is between private and public goods? Do you it's a one to one ratio? Do you think there's one private good for every public good? Or do you think it's a 100 to 1 ratio? Or perhaps a 1,000 to 1 ratio? Obviously there are far far far more private goods than public goods. Yet, despite that there are a gazillion private goods...somehow you have the time and ability to get the information you need to properly distribute your income in the private sector.

If you can figure out why it would be a stupid idea to apply the personal shopping method to the private sector...then perhaps you'll be able to understand why it's a stupid idea to allow a small group of personal shoppers (aka congress) to determine how our money is spent in the public sector. There's actually a name for it...and it's called the invisible hand. Unfortunately, you haven't allocated enough of your time to understanding how it works. But I have. And that's how the invisible hand works. We all, as a society, benefit when people have the liberty to invest their time/energy in the things they feel will benefit them. Many people will be wrong...but their mistakes shift their resources to the people who are right. Companies rise and fall because being right once is easy...even a broken clock is right twice a day. But being right over the long term is a matter of individual foresight. Taxpayers have the individual foresight to rightly understand what products/services we want/need/value. That's why we will all benefit if they are given the liberty to apply their individual foresight to which government organizations they give their taxes to.

[Wikkiwallana]

Wikkiwallana, I was responding to what you had written about economies of scale. Your response to my response was that you were actually talking about the free-rider problem. If you were actually talking about the free-rider problem then why did you say economies of scale?

Because I was talking about both at the same time. They're connected. Certain things, mostly infrastructure, are absolutely necessary, but cannot be funded properly unless people are forced to pay. To paraphrase another member on this site, one cannot buy 1/3,000,000th of a interstate system.

If I failed to understand the free-rider problem then I would be a libertarian. The thing is...I'm not a libertarian...I'm a pragmatarian. You know why? Because I long ago accepted the possibility of the free-rider problem. The solution to the free-rider problem is to force people to pay taxes. Have you once heard me argue that people shouldn't pay taxes? Have you once heard me argue that the tax rate should decrease?

No, I've heard you argue people should get to send their tax payments wherever their whims dictate, which would still lead to the free rider problem as too many people would send them to areas that gave them luxuries while expecting someone else to pay for the necessities.

My argument, in case you missed it, is that taxpayers should be able to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. Therefore, the free-rider problem is not applicable.

Wrong.

Given that you think the free-rider problem is applicable...then...it might help to review the basics. Here's a good overview of the two main problems...

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

And I should just take her word for it? Not bloody likely.

Problem #1 - The free-rider problem
Solution - Force people to pay taxes

Yes…

Problem #2 - The opportunity cost problem
Solution - Allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes

Hell no. AS I keep saying, that will end up with a bloated department devoted to unnecessary but pleasant things, and a bunch of half funded departments for necessities, quite likely many of which will be redundant and working at cross purposes as people disagree over how to get things done.

In the future...if you ever doubt that I understand a concept from econ 101...then just search within my blog for that concept. That way you wont waste our time.

This time is already wasted, and I'm certainly not reading your blog. Either make a good case here, on the forum, or expect to get called on all the problems I see with your suggestions.

Or they might rationalize that "Well, as shitty as they are, someone else will certainly take care of it, so I think I'd rather have another BJ every month." Seriously, read those links I gave you, relying on crowds to voluntarily fix problems is a losing proposition in the long run.

Again, those links have absolutely no bearing on my argument given that I'm not arguing that we should eliminate or lower taxes.

Except they do apply, if people choose where the money goes, no matter how much they are forced to give. They are going to be supremely selfish with it's allocation while expecting someone else to foot the bill for the basic necessities.

Your arguments are applicable to libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. And again, I'm a pragmatarian precisely because I took your arguments into account when I was a libertarian.

Given that you don't seem to even grasp my arguments, I highly doubt that.

As I side note, I'd like to repeat that that is one of the least applicable ideology names out there.

Here's the actual argument which you have thus far failed to address. If taxpayers have to pay taxes anyways...and their livelihoods depends on adequate levels of public goods...then why wouldn't they choose to give their taxes to those public goods?

Because human psychology is not built around using resources to run a communal dwelling of this magnitude, they are built around helping self and tribe survive the Savanna, and fuck everyone else if there is any chance they might endanger that.

If we apply your argument to the private sector...then business owners would just choose to spend all their revenue on prostitutes. You know what happens to business owners that spend all their revenue on prostitutes? They go out of business. There are negative consequences for eliminating essential factors of production. If there aren't...then obviously those factors were not essential.

For some reason you think that business owners could give all their taxes to the Dept of BJs and not have their productivity adversely effected by the absence of what most reasonable people consider to be essential public goods.

No, I think business workers outnumber business owners many times over, and don't really give a damn about their bosses' bottom lines.

If the business owner's productivity would not be adversely affected by the absence of those public goods...then obviously those public goods were not truly essential.

Which is totally irrelevant to my point.

It's kind of like the game Jenga. If you remove the wrong piece then the entire structure crumbles.

And you are advocating everyone remove whichever piece they want, all at the same time. That tower is going to fall and never get built again.

Socialism failed because you gave a small group of government planners discretion over which pieces were removed and where they were added.

When and where did Socialism fail?

But that's the basis of our public sector. We allow 538 congresspeople to control 1/4 of our nation's revenue. They decide which government organizations receive more...or less...revenue.

And that's fine, because they have access to aggregate information that we do not. Or do you hate the idea of specialization?

But we all shout at them when they make their moves. Why? Because we're certain that removing funds from essential government organizations will cause the structure to collapse.

And their job is to compare those shouts to what their info gatherers tell them and make an informed decision, rather than the uninformed decisions of the masses.

But in a pragmatarian system...the power would be dispersed and decentralized among millions and millions of our most productive citizens. No individual taxpayer can remove enough funds from an organization to cause the system to collapse. If enough taxpayers remove enough funds from a government organization to cause the structure to wobble...then whoever observes the wobble will be motivated to give their funds to that government organization.

And most people are going to be too busy going about their day to day routine to notice that wobble until it is a quake, and then they are going to panic and do something rash. A bunch of panicking people just makes a crisis worse, ask any crisis management specialist.

Taxpayers are the citizens that are most effective at responding to wobbles.

Why? What qualifies the average Joe to run the country? Or are you, as I now suspect, vastly underestimating how many people pay taxes/

If they aren't effective at responding to wobbles...then their productivity would crash and they would no longer have any taxes to pay.

That's not how this works at all. People's income is only partially tied to their individual effectiveness, at best, and most people don't face the kind of "wobbles" that could knock their income out that hard.

Oh, and before you start talking about the free market being superior, companies do the exact same thing with their money, it's called an accounting department. Or did you think every employee gets to pick where a bit of the profits they make for the company gets spent?

Really? Companies do the exact thing with their money? The auto industry determines how much revenue the computer industry will receive?

See, you have to be doing this deliberately, no one could unintentionally twist words like that. No, the accounting department of one company decides how much money R&D gets, how much goes to sales, how much goes to production, how much goes to customer service, etc. Just like how the government partitions its revenues out to its various departments.

Uhhh...not even close. Consumers determine how much revenue a company receives...

Which has nothing to do with what I said, unless you want to somehow take back that "I'm not suggesting changing tax rates" statement from earlier.

and how a company spends its revenue will determine how much money consumers will give to it in the future.

No, it's one of many, many factors, not the sole determinant.

And that's exactly how it should work in the public sector.

Oh fuck no!

Taxpayers should determine how much revenue a government organization receives...and how a government organization spends its revenue would determine how much money taxpayers gave to it in the future.

You really have limitless optimism, don't you?

The only "taxpayer" that represents me is me, and I don't have the time or ability to get the information I need to properly distribute my tax payments, therefore, I delegate the job to someone who does, with the understanding that if they fuck up, they can be replaced.

What do you think the ratio is between private and public goods? Do you it's a one to one ratio? Do you think there's one private good for every public good? Or do you think it's a 100 to 1 ratio? Or perhaps a 1,000 to 1 ratio? Obviously there are far far far more private goods than public goods. Yet, despite that there are a gazillion private goods...somehow you have the time and ability to get the information you need to properly distribute your income in the private sector.

Not really. I take a look at my limited data, make a few snap judgements and hope I do okay. I pick wrong quite often. Luckily, that just means I get a nasty tasting cereal, or a video game that sucks ass. When it's the government backing the wrong horse, the consequences are rather more severe.

If you can figure out why it would be a stupid idea to apply the personal shopping method to the private sector...

I take you mean a "personal shopper" as in someone hired to shop for you so you don't have to? From what I understand, it works really well if you have the spare cash for it.

then perhaps you'll be able to understand why it's a stupid idea to allow a small group of personal shoppers (aka congress) to determine how our money is spent in the public sector.

No, in both cases their whole job is to get more in depth information than I can, because they aren't having to spend hours every day making sandwiches for college students, but instead are being paid to spend that same amount of time reviewing data. It's a very, very good idea, although rather ridiculously extravagant to apply to groceries.

There's actually a name for it...and it's called the invisible hand. Unfortunately, you haven't allocated enough of your time to understanding how it works.

Enough to know that the invisible hand is baloney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Criticisms

But I have. And that's how the invisible hand works. We all, as a society, benefit when people have the liberty to invest their time/energy in the things they feel will benefit them.

But not without bound or qualification. Infinite liberty does not produce infinite benefit.

Many people will be wrong...but their mistakes shift their resources to the people who are right.

Or simply destroy those resources, and if they are wrong enough, several other people's as well.

Companies rise and fall because being right once is easy...even a broken clock is right twice a day. But being right over the long term is a matter of individual foresight.

Or beating your competition senseless. Monopolies, oligarchies, and cartels happen, and they aren't pretty.

Taxpayers have the individual foresight to rightly understand what products/services we want/need/value.

No, sending money in to the government does not give one magical future prediction abilities.

That's why we will all benefit if they are given the liberty to apply their individual foresight to which government organizations they give their taxes to.

No.

[Xerographica]

See, you have to be doing this deliberately, no one could unintentionally twist words like that. No, the accounting department of one company decides how much money R&D gets, how much goes to sales, how much goes to production, how much goes to customer service, etc. Just like how the government partitions its revenues out to its various departments.

That's within the same company. We don't have the equivalent of congresspeople in the private sector. We don't elect representatives to decide how much revenue computer game companies receive. We have consumers who decide how they divide their money between food and computer games.

No, I've heard you argue people should get to send their tax payments wherever their whims dictate, which would still lead to the free rider problem as too many people would send them to areas that gave them luxuries while expecting someone else to pay for the necessities.

Wherever their whims dictate? Again, I'm promoting pragmatarianism...not anarcho-capitalism. Do you really not understand the difference? In a pragmatarian system people would still have to pay taxes. And when I say "taxes" I'm referring to a portion of your income that can only be spent in the public sector. And by the public sector I'm referring to all the government organizations.

As I side note, I'd like to repeat that that is one of the least applicable ideology names out there.

Chairman Mao allowed government planners, not markets, to determine which organizations received which resources. As a result...20-30 million died because of state-caused famine. The person who replaced Mao was Deng Xiaoping. Over and over he argued that it doesn't matter if the cat was black or white...what matters is whether it catches mice. In other words...results are more important than ideology. Xiaoping allowed markets to determine how resources were allocated...and as a result...China is where it is today.

Deng Xiaoping was a pragmatic consequentialist...which is where the word "pragmatarianism" comes from. The long standing debate here in America...in cased you missed it...is regarding the proper scope of government. But most Americans are pragmatic...they could care less whether an organization is public or private...they just care about results. If we allow them to spend their taxes in the public sector...then how they distribute their taxes will reflect which government organizations give them the most bang for their buck.

And that's fine, because they have access to aggregate information that we do not. Or do you hate the idea of specialization?

And their job is to compare those shouts to what their info gatherers tell them and make an informed decision, rather than the uninformed decisions of the masses.

The "uninformed" decisions of the masses were responsible for producing the ocean of products that you're swimming in. Just because you don't see all the information that went into their production...you think it doesn't exist? Resources are efficiently allocated on the basis of partial information...not perfect information...

The problem is thus in no way solved if we can show that all the facts, if they were known to a single mind (as we hypothetically assume them to be given to the observing economist), would uniquely determine the solution; instead we must show how a solution is produced by the interactions of people each of whom possesses only partial knowledge. To assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind in the same manner in which we assume it to be given to us as the explaining economists is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world. - Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

[Sociobiology]

See, you have to be doing this deliberately, no one could unintentionally twist words like that. No, the accounting department of one company decides how much money R&D gets, how much goes to sales, how much goes to production, how much goes to customer service, etc. Just like how the government partitions its revenues out to its various departments.

That's within the same company. We don't have the equivalent of congresspeople in the private sector. We don't elect representatives to decide how much revenue computer game companies receive. We have consumers who decide how they divide their money between food and computer games.

many places have tried this it turns out people don't want to pay for roads or school while complaining about how crappy their roads a schools are. the pay off is too far removed from the cost, and there is way to much assumption that they can get away with free riding.
Is far better and fairer to ask them what quality they want and then split the cost between everyone who will use said program.

Chairman Mao allowed government planners, not markets, to determine which organizations received which resources. As a result...20-30 million died because of state-caused famine. The person who replaced Mao was Deng Xiaoping. Over and over he argued that it doesn't matter if the cat was black or white...what matters is whether it catches mice. In other words...results are more important than ideology. Xiaoping allowed markets to determine how resources were allocated...and as a result...China is where it is today.

and Norman Borlaug had nothing to do with it. letting the market decide might work if you let someone else pay to develop the surplus resources.

And their job is to compare those shouts to what their info gatherers tell them and make an informed decision, rather than the uninformed decisions of the masses.

The "uninformed" decisions of the masses were responsible for producing the ocean of products that you're swimming in.

except for roads, the microchip, water purification, medicine, a great deal of technology and other things that had and required direct government support.

[Wikkiwallana]

See, you have to be doing this deliberately, no one could unintentionally twist words like that. No, the accounting department of one company decides how much money R&D gets, how much goes to sales, how much goes to production, how much goes to customer service, etc. Just like how the government partitions its revenues out to its various departments.

That's within the same company. We don't have the equivalent of congresspeople in the private sector.

Board of Directors.

We don't elect representatives to decide how much revenue computer game companies receive. We have consumers who decide how they divide their money between food and computer games.

It's patently ridiculous to treat federal governmental agencies as if they were separate industries rather than different departments of the same comapny.

No, I've heard you argue people should get to send their tax payments wherever their whims dictate, which would still lead to the free rider problem as too many people would send them to areas that gave them luxuries while expecting someone else to pay for the necessities.

Wherever their whims dictate? Again, I'm promoting pragmatarianism...not anarcho-capitalism. Do you really not understand the difference? In a pragmatarian system people would still have to pay taxes. And when I say "taxes" I'm referring to a portion of your income that can only be spent in the public sector. And by the public sector I'm referring to all the government organizations.

And you are saying they should put those taxes only in the agencies that tickle their fancies. I have made it clear I understand this over and over, please stop acting like I'm saying otherwise. I don't see it possibly being anything other than willful ignorance or outright strawmaning at this point.

As I side note, I'd like to repeat that that is one of the least applicable ideology names out there.

Chairman Mao allowed government planners, not markets, to determine which organizations received which resources.

No, he personally made certain things get funds and implemented programs based on his preconceived notions, data be damned.

As a result...20-30 million died because of state-caused famine. The person who replaced Mao was Deng Xiaoping. Over and over he argued that it doesn't matter if the cat was black or white...what matters is whether it catches mice. In other words...results are more important than ideology.

Which is why I keep talking about data gathering. Are you even paying attention?

Xiaoping allowed markets to determine how resources were allocated...and as a result...China is where it is today.

In a massive bubble that's going to explode in a decade or two.

Deng Xiaoping was a pragmatic consequentialist...which is where the word "pragmatarianism" comes from. The long standing debate here in America...in cased you missed it...is regarding the proper scope of government. But most Americans are pragmatic...they could care less whether an organization is public or private...they just care about results. If we allow them to spend their taxes in the public sector...then how they distribute their taxes will reflect which government organizations give them the most bang for their buck.

No, it will reflect which ones fit their pet ideology. We aren't big on critical thinking skills in this country, sadly.

And that's fine, because they have access to aggregate information that we do not. Or do you hate the idea of specialization?

And their job is to compare those shouts to what their info gatherers tell them and make an informed decision, rather than the uninformed decisions of the masses.

The "uninformed" decisions of the masses were responsible for producing the ocean of products that you're swimming in.

At the cost of countless others going belly up. Which is fine when it's the private sector. In the public sector, countless departments going belly up ruins people's lives.

Just because you don't see all the information that went into their production...you think it doesn't exist? Resources are efficiently allocated on the basis of partial information...not perfect information...

See, now this is telling. You don't see all the resources that are going into projects and companies that end up going nowhere, so you assume they don't exist. Efficiency doesn't leave a trail littered waist deep in failures.

The problem is thus in no way solved if we can show that all the facts, if they were known to a single mind (as we hypothetically assume them to be given to the observing economist), would uniquely determine the solution; instead we must show how a solution is produced by the interactions of people each of whom possesses only partial knowledge. To assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind in the same manner in which we assume it to be given to us as the explaining economists is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world. - Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

Hayek is a horrible source. For one, he personally said the social sciences, such as economics, could "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." Secondly, if you want to quote someone to support your views, it probably shouldn't be someone who said this:

A limited democracy might indeed be the best protector of individual liberty and be better than any other form of limited government, but an unlimited democracy is probably worse than any other form of unlimited government, because its government loses the power even to do what it thinks right if any group on which its majority depends thinks otherwise. If Mrs. Thatcher said that free choice is to be exercised more in the market place than in the ballot box, she has merely uttered the truism that the first is indispensable for individual freedom, while the second is not: free choice can at least exist under a dictatorship that can limit itself but not under the government of an unlimited democracy which cannot.

Edit: fixed tag

[Xerographica]

many places have tried this it turns out people don't want to pay for roads or school while complaining about how crappy their roads a schools are. the pay off is too far removed from the cost, and there is way to much assumption that they can get away with free riding.
Is far better and fairer to ask them what quality they want and then split the cost between everyone who will use said program.

My argument is that taxpayers should be able to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. If they don't want to pay for roads or schools...then they would pay for public healthcare or environmental protection. They would pay for whichever government organizations they believe to offer the greatest benefits. When consumers have the freedom to choose which goods they consume...then we all end up with more of what we want to consume. It's simple supply and demand.

and Norman Borlaug had nothing to do with it. letting the market decide might work if you let someone else pay to develop the surplus resources.

In a pragmatarian system...if you, a taxpayer, believed that somebody like Norman Borlaug was responsible for awesomeness...then you would have the freedom to give your taxes to whichever government organization had the foresight to employ somebody like Norman Borlaug. I refer to this as awesomeness spotting.

The fact of the matter is that I can only spot so much awesomeness. The awesomeness that I have spotted is the idea of giving you the freedom to spend your taxes on the awesomeness that you spot. We will have an abundance of awesomeness when we allow taxpayers to shift their individual taxes away from the absurd and towards the awesome.

except for roads, the microchip, water purification, medicine, a great deal of technology and other things that had and required direct government support.

Again, we would all benefit from your freedom to spend your taxes on the awesome public goods that you spot.

[Xerographica]

It's patently ridiculous to treat federal governmental agencies as if they were separate industries rather than different departments of the same comapny.

It would be patently ridiculous if donors to PETA and donors to the NRA were forced to pool their donations and elect representatives to divvy the donations between both organizations.

See, now this is telling. You don't see all the resources that are going into projects and companies that end up going nowhere, so you assume they don't exist. Efficiency doesn't leave a trail littered waist deep in failures.

And you don't see all the resources that are going into programs and government organizations that should be going nowhere...but continue to exist indefinitely because taxpayers are not given the opportunity to withhold their taxes from them. Why would taxpayers want to withhold their taxes from a government organization? Why would you not want to spend your money on a product?

Not only that...but you don't see all the resources that should be going into programs and government organizations that should exist...but don't...because taxpayers don't have the freedom to spend their taxes in the public sector.

If we applied the current public sector system to the private sector...what do you think would happen to the diversity and range of available private goods, products and services? If we applied the private sector system to the public sector...what do you think would happen to the diversity and range of available public goods, products and services?

The stuff that we, as individuals, can't see, is infinite. But if you combine what I can see...with what you can see...with what millions of other individuals with unique perspectives can see...then we can begin to see where there's room for progress. That was the point of Buddha's parable of the blind men touching different parts of an elephant.

Is there room for progress in the public sector? Of course...how could there not be. So we allow millions of taxpayers to spend their taxes on the government organizations that are making the most progress.

Hayek is a horrible source. For one, he personally said the social sciences, such as economics, could "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." Secondly, if you want to quote someone to support your views, it probably shouldn't be someone who said this:

You ever read the Peanuts comic strip? The most intelligent member of the entire group, by far, was Linus. The "minor" detail was that he believed in the existence of the Great Pumpkin. Does that "minor" detail mean that I should discount everything else he believed? Just because you believe that it's acceptable to discount everything Hayek believed on the basis of one of his beliefs...does that mean that I should discount all of your beliefs?

Probably the most extreme example that I can think of would be Hitler. Even he believed that people desire balance...

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!

That's what he wrote in 1936. Given that people desire balance...if German taxpayers had been given the freedom to directly allocate their taxes...would WWII still have occurred? No, simply because people who spend all their resources tilting at windmills...generally do not earn a lot of money.

[Trotskylvania]

Regardless, it takes two cooperating to initiate trade. It only takes one aggressor to initiate a war.

Cooperating ? No. It takes one needed something the other has, there is no cooperation involved. I'm dying from thirst in the desert, you've water, you can impose me whatever condition you want so I can drink your water. That's what trade is about. Not cooperation, but abusing a temporary or permanent situation of power to wrestle whatever is possible from the other. It's less directly violent than war, but at the end it's the same. Cooperation starts when you help someone because you share a common goal, or because you've a vague hope he'll help you later on, but without it being a direct "this for that". Trade is not cooperation.

Coerced cooperation is still cooperation.

[Sociobiology]

many places have tried this it turns out people don't want to pay for roads or school while complaining about how crappy their roads a schools are. the pay off is too far removed from the cost, and there is way to much assumption that they can get away with free riding.
Is far better and fairer to ask them what quality they want and then split the cost between everyone who will use said program.

My argument is that taxpayers should be able to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. If they don't want to pay for roads or schools...then they would pay for public healthcare or environmental protection. They would pay for whichever government organizations they believe to offer the greatest benefits. When consumers have the freedom to choose which goods they consume...then we all end up with more of what we want to consume. It's simple supply and demand.

should is all well and good until you ask if such a system will work, in case you missed it the same people who complain about schools and roads are the same people who vote not to pay to improve them.

As for supply and demand, you do realize supply and demand does not work in a broken market? Things like law enforcement, healthcare, emergency services, and roads, cannot not be broken markets.

and Norman Borlaug had nothing to do with it. letting the market decide might work if you let someone else pay to develop the surplus resources.

In a pragmatarian system...if you, a taxpayer, believed that somebody like Norman Borlaug was responsible for awesomeness...then you would have the freedom to give your taxes to whichever government organization had the foresight to employ somebody like Norman Borlaug. I refer to this as awesomeness spotting.

The fact of the matter is that I can only spot so much awesomeness. The awesomeness that I have spotted is the idea of giving you the freedom to spend your taxes on the awesomeness that you spot. We will have an abundance of awesomeness when we allow taxpayers to shift their individual taxes away from the absurd and towards the awesome.

or we have a heavily funded NASA and military while bridges collapse all over the country due to lack of maintenance.
flash and wow are not the things that make society work.

except for roads, the microchip, water purification, medicine, a great deal of technology and other things that had and required direct government support.

Again, we would all benefit from your freedom to spend your taxes on the awesome public goods that you spot.

Then do what my state does create a discretionary portion of taxes that goes to programs you want, you can donate up to $50 to any of several programs removed directly from your tax refund or added to your taxes owed, while at the same time normal taxes pay for the things you actually use.

How many people even know what NIST is more less what it does?
What do you do when social security receives too little funding this year?
what happens when the next Katrina hits but FEMA has no funding?

Show me a study that shows people can on average even predict how much money is spent on each of the 40 or so service NOW, even just as a percentage, And I will agree they might be trustworthy with such highly specialized decisions as which agencies need the most money.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

I think we may not even be worth doing either with if they are already advance enough to travel throughout the universe.

[The Remote Islands]

I think we may not even be worth doing either with if they are already advance enough to travel throughout the universe.

If they were of lesser moral fiber, they might be looking for slaves, new food sources, or just the thrill of dominating an 'inferior' species. Theoretically.

[Sociobiology]

It's patently ridiculous to treat federal governmental agencies as if they were separate industries rather than different departments of the same comapny.

It would be patently ridiculous if donors to PETA and donors to the NRA were forced to pool their donations and elect representatives to divvy the donations between both organizations.[

because they are activist organizations not service providers.

See, now this is telling. You don't see all the resources that are going into projects and companies that end up going nowhere, so you assume they don't exist. Efficiency doesn't leave a trail littered waist deep in failures.

And you don't see all the resources that are going into programs and government organizations that should be going nowhere...but continue to exist indefinitely because taxpayers are not given the opportunity to withhold their taxes from them.

such as?

If we applied the current public sector system to the private sector...what do you think would happen to the diversity and range of available private goods, products and services?

we would see a crash in diversity of products, less innovation, and a lack in choice for nonessentials.

If we applied the private sector system to the public sector...what do you think would happen to the diversity and range of available public goods, products and services?

they would not have things like cheap high penetration roads, healthcare at need, or unbiased law enforcement, which are necessary to make society run, because there is no profit to make from them.

which would be why I support mixed economies, use approaches where they work and not where they do not. Supply in demand works in normal markets but not abnormal (AKA broken by their very nature) ones.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

I think we may not even be worth doing either with if they are already advance enough to travel throughout the universe.

If they were of lesser moral fiber, they might be looking for slaves, new food sources, or just the thrill of dominating an 'inferior' species. Theoretically.

These may be possible but I have a lot of doubts, especially the more advance they are. Using resources to invade for those could be very well just a waste. Robotic labor may every likely be one a scale that makes slave labor of life forms such as ourselves unnecessary and possibly more trouble than it is worth. Food sources I would hope they have by than been able to tackle the issue and could have already entire moons, planets, for the every cause of feeding their people, depending on just how large their civilization has grown. The thrill of dominating an 'inferior' species may actually be more likely, for they their governing system may use it as a way to help keep support for it's self if it is in a somewhat unstable position or whatever.

[The Remote Islands]

If they were of lesser moral fiber, they might be looking for slaves, new food sources, or just the thrill of dominating an 'inferior' species. Theoretically.

These may be possible but I have a lot of doubts, especially the more advance they are. Using resources to invade for those could be very well just a waste. Robotic labor may every likely be one a scale that makes slave labor of life forms such as ourselves unnecessary and possibly more trouble than it is worth. Food sources I would hope they have by than been able to tackle the issue and could have already entire moons, planets, for the every cause of feeding their people, depending on just how large their civilization has grown. The thrill of dominating an 'inferior' species may actually be more likely, for they their governing system may use it as a way to help keep support for it's self if it is in a somewhat unstable position or whatever.

The pathological need to dominate the universe and/or all other life forms is alive and well in fiction; from the Daleks to the Combine. 'Course, that's just the same kind of fiction (mostly) that also shows friendly aliens. It's possible that they might do it for some 'greater good' which probably isn't all that good.

[Xerographica]

should is all well and good until you ask if such a system will work, in case you missed it the same people who complain about schools and roads are the same people who vote not to pay to improve them.

In a pragmatarian system people would have to pay taxes. If taxpayers complained about schools and roads...but did not allocate any of their taxes to schools and roads...then what could we deduce? Obviously they were more concerned with other public goods. If you complain about your crappy laptop...but then buy a new TV...then what can I deduce? Obviously you were more concerned with a new TV than you were with your crappy laptop.

As for supply and demand, you do realize supply and demand does not work in a broken market? Things like law enforcement, healthcare, emergency services, and roads, cannot not be broken markets.

There are private security agencies and private healthcare companies and private emergency services like the Red Cross and private roads. When you say that the market is broken you're saying that the market does not supply adequate levels of those goods. Therefore, the problem has absolutely nothing to do with demand. Because surely you wouldn't advocate that the government spend our taxes supplying things that we do not demand? So...given that the problem has nothing to do with demand...and everything to do with supply...allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would reveal exactly where the supply problems exist.

For example...if you spend your taxes on public education...then this will reveal that the private sector does not supply an adequate amount of education. Because...if the private sector truly did supply an adequate amount of education...then you would have absolutely no reason to spend any of your hard earned taxes on public education.

or we have a heavily funded NASA and military while bridges collapse all over the country due to lack of maintenance.
flash and wow are not the things that make society work.

And maybe a heavily funded NASA and military would come up with an innovation that would make bridges seem as quaint as horse drawn buggies. Or maybe they wouldn't. If businesses are losing revenue because of poorly maintained bridges...and they have to pay taxes anyways...then why wouldn't they allocate their taxes to maintaining the bridges?

How many people even know what NIST is more less what it does?
What do you do when social security receives too little funding this year?
what happens when the next Katrina hits but FEMA has no funding?

I added this response of yours to this page...Unglamorous but Important Things. You can find it by searching the page for "FEMA". There are 77 such responses on that page that reveal people's specific anxiety regarding the thought of allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. Will the people who critiqued pragmatarianism...such as yourself...allocate their taxes according to their specific concerns? Again and again...if they don't allocate their taxes to address Anxiety "A"...then it means that Anxiety "B" is greater than Anxiety "A".

Do you know why taxpayers are taxpayers? Because they spend their limited resources in such a way that it relieves the anxiety of other people. This is the source of their income. And that is the justification for giving them the freedom to decide which government organizations are the most effective at relieving their own anxieties. What are the actual anxieties of 150 million of our most anxiety relieving citizens? It would behoove us to find that out.

When I first thought of allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes...I didn't take it seriously...but I enjoyed posing the question to others. But each person who shared their anxiety with me...reduced my own anxiety. And after I asked enough people...I began to feel more and more anxiety at the thought of not giving taxpayers the opportunity to use their taxes to try and relieve their anxiety. So now I actively promote pragmatarianism.

Show me a study that shows people can on average even predict how much money is spent on each of the 40 or so service NOW, even just as a percentage, And I will agree they might be trustworthy with such highly specialized decisions as which agencies need the most money.

But you're assuming that we want to reduplicate the guesses of congress. There's just no way that congress could possibly know what your priorities are when your priorities can only be revealed by your spending decisions. Our goal is not to reduplicate the priorities of congress...our goal is to allow the priorities of taxpayers to determine the supply of public goods. You feel anxiety at the thought of this...so what do you do? You spend your time trying to point out why this is a bad idea. You do so because you want to relieve your anxiety. We all want to spend our money/time to relieve our anxiety...so we would benefit by applying this basic concept to the public sector.

If the actions of our government cause anxiety for taxpayers...then they'll directly allocate their taxes. If the actions of our government do not cause anxiety for taxpayers...they they'll just give their taxes to congress as normal. The more people who are given the freedom to spend their time/money in order to try and relieve their anxiety...the better.