Diversity VS Biodiversity

[Xerographica]

You seem to understand my question... so why didn't you answer it? Maybe you need actual numbers? Ok.

According to Wikipedia... approximately 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. If the Holocaust had been funded entirely by donations... how would this have changed the number of Jews killed?

A. 10 million Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government really unnecessary)
B. 6 million Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government unnecessary)
C. 4 million Jews would have been killed (small free-rider problem, taxes/government a little necessary)
D. 1 million Jews would have been killed (big free-rider problem, taxes/government really necessary)
E. Zero Jews would have been killed (huge free-rider problem, taxes/government super necessary)

It's really rude to move the goalposts to another planet.

You're the one who argues that the free-rider problem is applicable to pragmatarianism. Yet, you really don't seem to be capable of answering a straightforward question regarding the free-rider problem's applicability to the Holocaust.

[Galloism]

It's really rude to move the goalposts to another planet.

You're the one who argues that the free-rider problem is applicable to pragmatarianism. Yet, you really don't seem to be capable of answering a straightforward question regarding the free-rider problem's applicability to the Holocaust.

Using YOUR system, where taxes MUST be allocated to public goods provided by the government, the holocaust would have happened just as easily, because it was publicly approved of, and generally part of the military/police budget anyway, so you could not defund the holocaust without defunding the police/military. Also, it's not likely to have been defunded anyway - because it was popular.

In a PURE private system, where people would have to donate to the holocaust, it's hard to say. People donate to distasteful causes all the time, but it's hard to say if that distasteful cause would get voluntary private donations.

Ever heard of The Lord's Resistance Army?

They're funded by US Christians, mostly, via voluntary donations.

[Lesser Tofu]

You seem to understand my question... so why didn't you answer it? Maybe you need actual numbers? Ok.

I'm not interested in answering that question because it has nothing to do with the claim I was originally contesting, which was that tax choice would render the Holocaust ineffective.

[Xerographica]

You seem to understand my question... so why didn't you answer it? Maybe you need actual numbers? Ok.

I'm not interested in answering that question because it has nothing to do with the claim I was originally contesting, which was that tax choice would render the Holocaust ineffective.

Gertrude hates Jews. Let's consider her spending decisions in two cases...

Case VOLUNTARY

How much money does Gertrude donate to People for the Unethical Treatment of Jews (PUTJ)? Does she donate $500 dollars to PUTJ? Well... if she's interested in maximizing her benefit... her decision depends on the size of the opportunity cost. If she could get a lot more benefit from buying a new washing machine... then she'd probably do so rather than donate the money to PUTJ.

Case PRAGMATARIAN

How many tax dollars does Gertrude allocate to the Holocaust? Does she allocate $500 tax dollars to the Holocaust? If she's interested in maximizing her benefit... her decision depends on the size of the opportunity cost. However, unlike in the previous case, she doesn't have the option to allocate her $500 dollars to a washing machine. She can only allocate her taxes to goods that are in the public sector. If the Holocaust is the public good that will benefit her the most, then she'll allocate her taxes accordingly. So the question is... what are the chances that the public good that will benefit her the most is the Holocaust?

Gallosim argues that since he's an accountant, he'd allocate his taxes to the IRS. He also argues that since I'm a veteran, that I'd allocate my taxes to the VA. If we follow this simplistic line of reasoning then teachers would allocate their taxes to public education, nurses and doctors would allocate their taxes to public healthcare and lawyers and judges would allocate their taxes to the courts. What about blue collar workers? Well... according to Galloism, they have a monopoly on morality. We definitely wouldn't have to worry about them allocating their taxes to the Holocaust. So perhaps we need to figure out Gertrude's occupation in order to determine whether she'd allocate her taxes to the Holocaust?

[Galloism]

What about blue collar workers? Well... according to Galloism, they have a monopoly on morality.

Let's not strawman me, shall we?

[Lesser Tofu]

(... same song, third verse ...)

Once again, the goalposts have shifted. If we're going by the system you were advocating previously, Gertrude doesn't have 'Holocaust' on the budget list she's allocating taxes to -- she just has the regular departments: transportation, law, military, agriculture, and so on. And there's a war on, so it's not like she'd not support the troops, is it?

I mean, if we're going for program-by-program choice, I'll happily argue against that on completely different grounds (it is, miraculously, an even worse idea then the one you were presenting before). But please stick to one position, rather than just picking whatever seems most convenient.

[Xerographica]

(... same song, third verse ...)

Once again, the goalposts have shifted. If we're going by the system you were advocating previously, Gertrude doesn't have 'Holocaust' on the budget list she's allocating taxes to -- she just has the regular departments: transportation, law, military, agriculture, and so on. And there's a war on, so it's not like she'd not support the troops, is it?

I mean, if we're going for program-by-program choice, I'll happily argue against that on completely different grounds (it is, miraculously, an even worse idea then the one you were presenting before). But please stick to one position, rather than just picking whatever seems most convenient.

The issue is whether taxpayers would have allocated more, the same, or less money to the Holocaust than was actually allocated. Clearly we can't figure this out in a scenario where it's not the taxpayers themselves directly deciding how much money is allocated to the Holocaust.

In economic terms... we're trying to figure out the actual demand for the Holocaust. And demand, in economics, is generally the amount of money that consumers are actually willing to spend on a good or service.

Right now, with the current system, what's the demand for defense? We don't know. We've never known. We'll never know... unless taxpayers are given the option to decide exactly how many tax dollars they are willing to allocate to defense. Then, and only then, will we know the demand for defense.

Clearly, as the poll attached to this thread indicates, we can know the popularity of defense. But the popularity of defense in no way, shape, or form tells us anything about people's willingness to pay for defense.

So if we're trying to figure out what the actual demand was for the Holocaust... then it's all about directly measuring people's willingness to pay for the Holocaust. And it's very helpful to compare the two different ways of paying...

1. voluntarily (people making donations to the PUTJ)
2. pragmatarily (people allocating taxes to the Holocaust)

[Fartsniffage]

Once again, the goalposts have shifted. If we're going by the system you were advocating previously, Gertrude doesn't have 'Holocaust' on the budget list she's allocating taxes to -- she just has the regular departments: transportation, law, military, agriculture, and so on. And there's a war on, so it's not like she'd not support the troops, is it?

I mean, if we're going for program-by-program choice, I'll happily argue against that on completely different grounds (it is, miraculously, an even worse idea then the one you were presenting before). But please stick to one position, rather than just picking whatever seems most convenient.

The issue is whether taxpayers would have allocated more, the same, or less money to the Holocaust than was actually allocated. Clearly we can't figure this out in a scenario where it's not the taxpayers themselves directly deciding how much money is allocated to the Holocaust.

In economic terms... we're trying to figure out the actual demand for the Holocaust. And demand, in economics, is generally the amount of money that consumers are actually willing to spend on a good or service.

Right now, with the current system, what's the demand for defense? We don't know. We've never known. We'll never know... unless taxpayers are given the option to decide exactly how many tax dollars they are willing to allocate to defense. Then, and only then, will we know the demand for defense.

Clearly, as the poll attached to this thread indicates, we can know the popularity of defense. But the popularity of defense in no way, shape, or form tells us anything about people's willingness to pay for defense.

So if we're trying to figure out what the actual demand was for the Holocaust... then it's all about directly measuring people's willingness to pay for the Holocaust. And it's very helpful to compare the two different ways of paying...

1. voluntarily (people making donations to the PUTJ)
2. pragmatarily (people allocating taxes to the Holocaust)

Do you support the F-35 program? If you do or do not then please supply your reasoning as if you were allocating your personal resources to it.

[Xerographica]

The issue is whether taxpayers would have allocated more, the same, or less money to the Holocaust than was actually allocated. Clearly we can't figure this out in a scenario where it's not the taxpayers themselves directly deciding how much money is allocated to the Holocaust.

In economic terms... we're trying to figure out the actual demand for the Holocaust. And demand, in economics, is generally the amount of money that consumers are actually willing to spend on a good or service.

Right now, with the current system, what's the demand for defense? We don't know. We've never known. We'll never know... unless taxpayers are given the option to decide exactly how many tax dollars they are willing to allocate to defense. Then, and only then, will we know the demand for defense.

Clearly, as the poll attached to this thread indicates, we can know the popularity of defense. But the popularity of defense in no way, shape, or form tells us anything about people's willingness to pay for defense.

So if we're trying to figure out what the actual demand was for the Holocaust... then it's all about directly measuring people's willingness to pay for the Holocaust. And it's very helpful to compare the two different ways of paying...

1. voluntarily (people making donations to the PUTJ)
2. pragmatarily (people allocating taxes to the Holocaust)

Do you support the F-35 program? If you do or do not then please supply your reasoning as if you were allocating your personal resources to it.

I don't know about the F-35 program... and I'm probably not going to make the effort or take the time to learn about it. What good would it do? Let's say that I take a lot of time and make a lot of effort to study the heck out of the program. Let's say that I learn the program is extremely defective. Then what? It's not like I can boycott it. Sure, I can write my congressperson. And he's going to scrap the program based on the feedback of some random constituent? Nope. What if I learn the program is extremely effective. Then what? It's not like I can allocate more of my taxes to it.

So I don't know about the F-35 program... but I do know about rational ignorance. I know that we can eliminate rational ignorance simply by giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes. Then, and only then, will it pay to be informed.

[Lesser Tofu]

The issue is whether taxpayers would have allocated more, the same, or less money to the Holocaust than was actually allocated. Clearly we can't figure this out in a scenario where it's not the taxpayers themselves directly deciding how much money is allocated to the Holocaust.

But that's how your system works.

You claimed that tax choice would in some way prevent the Holocaust. Despite the fact that the system you propose doesn't give people any actual say over the Holocaust, since under the umbrella of the military. This whole argument is pretty much equivalent to the earlier argument you were having about an environmentalist not funding the EPA because they didn't like some specific program -- no direct ability to control how the tentacles of government actually operate, just the ability to starve or feed them.

Decide, please, whether taxpayers fund branches or programs. Stop trying to have it both ways.

[Quokkastan]

The issue is whether taxpayers would have allocated more, the same, or less money to the Holocaust than was actually allocated. Clearly we can't figure this out in a scenario where it's not the taxpayers themselves directly deciding how much money is allocated to the Holocaust.

But that's how your system works.

You claimed that tax choice would in some way prevent the Holocaust. Despite the fact that the system you propose doesn't give people any actual say over the Holocaust, since under the umbrella of the military. This whole argument is pretty much equivalent to the earlier argument you were having about an environmentalist not funding the EPA because they didn't like some specific program -- no direct ability to control how the tentacles of government actually operate, just the ability to starve or feed them.

Decide, please, whether taxpayers fund branches or programs. Stop trying to have it both ways.

Given this, whether or not to fund the Holocaust actually becomes a difficult question.

Oh boy, that would not look good taken out of context... but if your choices are "contribute to genocide" and "cripple the agency trying to prevent bombs from falling on your home" I'd have a hard time blaming someone for choosing the former.

[Xerographica]

The issue is whether taxpayers would have allocated more, the same, or less money to the Holocaust than was actually allocated. Clearly we can't figure this out in a scenario where it's not the taxpayers themselves directly deciding how much money is allocated to the Holocaust.

But that's how your system works.

You claimed that tax choice would in some way prevent the Holocaust. Despite the fact that the system you propose doesn't give people any actual say over the Holocaust, since under the umbrella of the military. This whole argument is pretty much equivalent to the earlier argument you were having about an environmentalist not funding the EPA because they didn't like some specific program -- no direct ability to control how the tentacles of government actually operate, just the ability to starve or feed them.

Decide, please, whether taxpayers fund branches or programs. Stop trying to have it both ways.

From my pragmatarianism FAQ...

How specifically could taxpayers allocate their taxes?

The granularity would be determined by the EPA and its supporters. The greater the granularity, the less control the EPA would have, but the greater its knowledge of taxpayers' environmental priorities. Any disparity in environmental priorities would reflect disparities in information. Taxpayer choice would increase information intercourse.

Like I've already explained... in order to correctly guesstimate the demand for the Holocaust... we have to imagine a scenario with adequate granularity.

As Quokkastan pointed out and understands... if the scenario bundles...

1. The Holocaust
2. National defense/offense

... together, then Germans who weren't anti-semites might have ended up funding the Holocaust simply because they wanted to try and protect their homes from being blown up. Of course, if the Germans had wanted to avoid the risk of having their homes blown up in the first place ... then they would have started boycotting the military as soon as national defense turned into national offense. People who are risk averse generally avoid poking hornets' nests.

In your bundling scenario... it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine some generals wondering whether their funding might be greater if they weren't tied together with the Holocaust. How many Germans cared more about winning the war than murdering Jews? How many Germans would have decided that neither national defense/offense nor the Holocaust should be Germany's number one priority?

As I've argued before... humans are diverse. This means that demand is diverse. If the US created a market in its public sector... then, in a relatively short time, the supply of public goods would reflect the diversity of the demand for public goods. Do we want public goods to reflect human diversity? Do we want private goods to reflect human diversity?

If people want to argue that the Holocaust was broadly supported by the German public... then couldn't it be reasonably argued that the true cause of the Holocaust was a lack of diversity?

Of course, my argument is that Germany's supply of public goods did not accurately reflect the diversity of the demand for public goods. Therefore, the actual diversity, or lack thereof, of the German public was unknown... at least in terms of public goods. Unlike some people, I really don't assume that the German people's opinions accurately reflected the diversity of their public goods valuations.

Economists have attempted to assign economic values (based on the principle of substitutability at the margin) to noncommodity items by methods such as shadow pricing and contingent valuation surveys. These methods are plagued with problems of accuracy and legitimacy. - Paul M. Wood, Biodiversity and Democracy

[Lesser Tofu]

From my pragmatarianism FAQ...

How specifically could taxpayers allocate their taxes?

The granularity would be determined by the EPA and its supporters. The greater the granularity, the less control the EPA would have, but the greater its knowledge of taxpayers' environmental priorities. Any disparity in environmental priorities would reflect disparities in information. Taxpayer choice would increase information intercourse.

Like I've already explained... in order to correctly guesstimate the demand for the Holocaust... we have to imagine a scenario with adequate granularity.

Why would the military provide that, though? From the perspective of military leaders who wish to conduct the Holocaust, better to simply do it under their own authority and rely on the fact that people aren't likely to defund the military during a war. That it wouldn't accurately estimate the value of the Holocaust to taxpayers is irrelevant, because no-one in the government at the time had any interest in doing so -- your economic system does not magically solve social problems.

In general, the more granular the choice, the harder it is for the agency to operate, so it is firmly within each agency's interest -- at least at an administrative level -- to offer as little granularity as possible. This gives them the most freedom to operate, and reduces the chances of having programs that are not funded enough to be effective, or are overfunded beyond what is efficient.

(This is, in fact, a continuation of the general argument that putting your internal budget into the hands of the taxpayer makes it harder to run, at any level.)

Also, much as I shudder to actually ask for you to expand on details of your system, how would the supporters of (insert department here) control its granularity?

As Quokkastan pointed out and understands... if the scenario bundles...

1. The Holocaust
2. National defense/offense

... together, then Germans who weren't anti-semites might have ended up funding the Holocaust simply because they wanted to try and protect their homes from being blown up. Of course, if the Germans had wanted to avoid the risk of having their homes blown up in the first place ... then they would have started boycotting the military as soon as national defense turned into national offense. People who are risk averse generally avoid poking hornets' nests.

In your bundling scenario... it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine some generals wondering whether their funding might be greater if they weren't tied together with the Holocaust. How many Germans cared more about winning the war than murdering Jews? How many Germans would have decided that neither national defense/offense nor the Holocaust should be Germany's number one priority?

As mentioned earlier, anti-Semitism was fairly common in Germany at the time, so it's not likely that the mistreatment of Jews would weigh heavily on the minds of many of the voters. But, more compellingly, it's not in the interest of (anti-Semitic) military leaders to give that choice to the populace.

As I've argued before... humans are diverse. This means that demand is diverse. If the US created a market in its public sector... then, in a relatively short time, the supply of public goods would reflect the diversity of the demand for public goods. Do we want public goods to reflect human diversity? Do we want private goods to reflect human diversity?

There's an unsupported assertion hiding in the middle of that that you seem to be trying to smuggle through.

If people want to argue that the Holocaust was broadly supported by the German public... then couldn't it be reasonably argued that the true cause of the Holocaust was a lack of diversity?

Of course, my argument is that Germany's supply of public goods did not accurately reflect the diversity of the demand for public goods. Therefore, the actual diversity, or lack thereof, of the German public was unknown... at least in terms of public goods. Unlike some people, I really don't assume that the German people's opinions accurately reflected the diversity of their public goods valuations.

Economists have attempted to assign economic values (based on the principle of substitutability at the margin) to noncommodity items by methods such as shadow pricing and contingent valuation surveys. These methods are plagued with problems of accuracy and legitimacy. - Paul M. Wood, Biodiversity and Democracy

The true cause of the Holocaust is probably getting a bit too far off-topic here, but I think it suffices to say that it's a little more complicated than just "lack of diversity". However I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that a fairly anti-Semitic public of a country engaged in war would provide funds for a military that promises to defend them from Jewish traitors as well as external enemies.

---

I do find it entertaining how we've gone off on this tangent as a result of me complaining about you simply dropping and ignoring points you don't want to argue, since you've used this as an excuse to quit discussing any other aspect of your system... we've long since left the forced rider problem (you know, the thing that you claimed was the issue with the Holocaust?) behind, not to mention all of the practical objections your system.

[Quokkastan]

But that's how your system works.

You claimed that tax choice would in some way prevent the Holocaust. Despite the fact that the system you propose doesn't give people any actual say over the Holocaust, since under the umbrella of the military. This whole argument is pretty much equivalent to the earlier argument you were having about an environmentalist not funding the EPA because they didn't like some specific program -- no direct ability to control how the tentacles of government actually operate, just the ability to starve or feed them.

Decide, please, whether taxpayers fund branches or programs. Stop trying to have it both ways.

From my pragmatarianism FAQ...

How specifically could taxpayers allocate their taxes?

The granularity would be determined by the EPA and its supporters. The greater the granularity, the less control the EPA would have, but the greater its knowledge of taxpayers' environmental priorities. Any disparity in environmental priorities would reflect disparities in information. Taxpayer choice would increase information intercourse.

Like I've already explained... in order to correctly guesstimate the demand for the Holocaust... we have to imagine a scenario with adequate granularity.

As Quokkastan pointed out and understands... if the scenario bundles...

1. The Holocaust
2. National defense/offense

... together, then Germans who weren't anti-semites might have ended up funding the Holocaust simply because they wanted to try and protect their homes from being blown up. Of course, if the Germans had wanted to avoid the risk of having their homes blown up in the first place ... then they would have started boycotting the military as soon as national defense turned into national offense. People who are risk averse generally avoid poking hornets' nests.

In your bundling scenario... it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine some generals wondering whether their funding might be greater if they weren't tied together with the Holocaust. How many Germans cared more about winning the war than murdering Jews? How many Germans would have decided that neither national defense/offense nor the Holocaust should be Germany's number one priority?

As I've argued before... humans are diverse. This means that demand is diverse. If the US created a market in its public sector... then, in a relatively short time, the supply of public goods would reflect the diversity of the demand for public goods. Do we want public goods to reflect human diversity? Do we want private goods to reflect human diversity?

If people want to argue that the Holocaust was broadly supported by the German public... then couldn't it be reasonably argued that the true cause of the Holocaust was a lack of diversity?

Of course, my argument is that Germany's supply of public goods did not accurately reflect the diversity of the demand for public goods. Therefore, the actual diversity, or lack thereof, of the German public was unknown... at least in terms of public goods. Unlike some people, I really don't assume that the German people's opinions accurately reflected the diversity of their public goods valuations.

Economists have attempted to assign economic values (based on the principle of substitutability at the margin) to noncommodity items by methods such as shadow pricing and contingent valuation surveys. These methods are plagued with problems of accuracy and legitimacy. - Paul M. Wood, Biodiversity and Democracy

This creates a large number of perverse incentives. In the scenario you describe, a military's best reaction to unpopular policies or negative press might be to start a war.

[Xerographica]

In general, the more granular the choice, the harder it is for the agency to operate, so it is firmly within each agency's interest -- at least at an administrative level -- to offer as little granularity as possible. This gives them the most freedom to operate, and reduces the chances of having programs that are not funded enough to be effective, or are overfunded beyond what is efficient.

Minimizing granularity maximizes the chances that taxpayers would have no choice but to throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's say that we implemented pragmatarianism here in the US. Taxpayers would have the option to choose where their taxes go. Would any taxpayers not want this option? Your answer should be "yes" if you believe that congress isn't absolutely worthless. The taxpayers who didn't want to directly allocate their taxes could continue having congress allocate their taxes for them. However, congress consists of republicans and democrats. If you're a liberal who doesn't want to directly allocate your taxes... you'll understand that if you give your taxes to congress... republicans will have a say over how your tax dollars are spent. Do you want republicans to have a say on how your tax dollars are spent? Of course not. You're a liberal. So... you'll be stuck between a rock and a hard place. You don't want to directly allocate your taxes... but you don't want stupid republicans influencing how your tax dollars are spent.

If congresspeople aren't totally brain-dead... then they might strongly suspect that they'd get a lot more money if conservative and liberal congresspeople weren't bundled together. So, as far as the budget is concerned, it would be logical for congress to split into two separate organizations... one that was more liberal and one that was more conservative. But just because you're a liberal... does this mean that you value all liberal congresspeople equally? Of course not. And I'm pretty sure that at least a few congresspeople would realize this. So it wouldn't be surprising if you were given the opportunity to give your tax dollars to your preferred congressperson. And your preferred congressperson would have 100% control over how your tax dollars were spent.

Of course congress doesn't just do the budget... they also make laws and determine the tax rate. What if you like the laws but hate the tax rate? Again, you might be forced to throw the baby out with the bath water. So it wouldn't be surprising if congress was unbundled accordingly.

This would increase the accuracy and specificity of communication between the government and its citizens. As a result, the relationship between citizens and their government would be much healthier and functional.

Imagine if I told you that I hate you. What can you do with this? Not much. It certainly counts as feedback... but it's so vague as to be absolutely useless. Imagine if I told you that I hate how you chew your food with your mouth open. It's far more specific feedback. It's actionable feedback. You know which behavior of yours that I hate and you can choose to change it... or not.

Right now the government does a lot of things. Do you value everything that the government does equally? Of course not. Does it matter whether or not you have the opportunity to provide the government with specific feedback? Of course. This should be painfully obvious. It should be blindingly obvious. Unfortunately, it really isn't. Somehow people are really confident that the government operates wonderfully in the absence of everybody's specific feedback. Well... lobbyists provide specific feedback. Which is only problematic because the rest of us aren't able, or allowed, to do so. Just like it would be problematic if only the wealthy were allowed to shop in the private sector.

The true cause of the Holocaust is probably getting a bit too far off-topic here, but I think it suffices to say that it's a little more complicated than just "lack of diversity". However I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that a fairly anti-Semitic public of a country engaged in war would provide funds for a military that promises to defend them from Jewish traitors as well as external enemies.

We both see it as tilting at windmills... barking up the wrong tree. And I don't think that I would be such a strong supporter of pragmatarianism if I didn't perceive that, in the private sector, when individuals tilt at windmills... they generally lose economic influence. It's a different story with democracy. Democracy doesn't care how many windmills you've tilted at. Democracy doesn't care how many wrong trees you've barked up. Democracy doesn't care how many mistakes you've made. As long as you're not in jail... you get the same influence as somebody who's consistently barked up the right trees.

In a market... if you spend your money, buy an acre of land and start farming poison oak... then I have the freedom to boycott you. Well... I have the freedom not to buy your poison oak. Everybody else has the same freedom. Your income, or lack thereof, is a function of everybody's freedom to valuate how well you are using society's limited resources. Your income, or lack thereof, is a function of everybody's freedom to valuate your sanity. Your income, or lack thereof, is a function of everybody's freedom to valuate your grasp on reality.

And this system makes so much sense to me. God it makes so much sense. We really don't want people with a really poor grasp of reality to have lots of influence over how society's limited resources are used. Ok, you bought an acre of land and used it to grow poison oak. You wasted your money. Chances are good you'll sell the land to somebody who will put it to a more valuable use. The damage caused by your mistake was very localized and limited. But what if you bought millions and millions of acres of prime farm land and replaced the valuable crops with poison oak? Then there'd be a lot less food for the rest of us to eat. The damage caused by your mistake would have hugely detrimental consequences. So it's really beneficial for consumers to avoid putting their money into the wrong hands. And this is pretty much what most of us endeavor to do. Most of us don't buy poison oak. Most of us do buy food.

To argue that lots of German taxpayers would have spent significant amounts of their tax dollars tilting at windmills is really far-fetched. To argue that lots of German voters would have cast their votes for tilting at windmills is not at all far-fetched. Democracy is super stupid. It would be super smart to replace voting with spending (coaseianism) and allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go (pragmatarianism).

---

I do find it entertaining how we've gone off on this tangent as a result of me complaining about you simply dropping and ignoring points you don't want to argue, since you've used this as an excuse to quit discussing any other aspect of your system... we've long since left the forced rider problem (you know, the thing that you claimed was the issue with the Holocaust?) behind, not to mention all of the practical objections your system.

Well... I brought the forced-rider problem back into play. Like I said, I think it's pretty far-fetched to argue that a significant amount of German taxpayers had any real financial interest in tilting at windmills. Most German taxpayers were forced riders. Given the opportunity, they would have exited the crazy train and spent their tax dollars on more sane endeavors. The alternative is to argue that most taxpayers consistently tilt at windmills. The problem with this argument is that, if most taxpayers consistently tilted at windmills.... then they wouldn't be taxpayers. They would be broke-ass poison-oak farmers. Broke-ass poison-oak farmers don't pay a lot of taxes.

[Lesser Tofu]

Minimizing granularity maximizes the chances that taxpayers would have no choice but to throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's say that we implemented pragmatarianism here in the US. (... and so forth, on granularity ...)

For politicians/parties, granularity is probably in their interest, yes, but doesn't necessarily mean it's in the interest of everyone else. Having multiple opposing parties allocate the budget could easily lead to waste -- if one party pledges to better enforce environmental regulation, whereas the other pledges to dismantle it, you could have a company that faces sanctions from one agency and subsidies from another for the same action. Individual politicians, meanwhile, are incentivised to give the money assigned to them -- as subsidies -- to the companies that help fund them (allowing the rich to, in essence, mostly pay their taxes back to themselves). Even if they act in the interest of their constituents, this encourages parochialism at the expense of larger scale programs.

For departments/projects, granularity is very much a double-edged sword -- in cases where the department does multiple things, such that many voters like some aspects and dislike others, separating those could increase funding, but in general the more restrictive the earmarks on their income, the harder it will be for them to operate. In addition, you face inefficiency if a program is funded only slightly (so that it has essentially no effect), or too much (beyond the level that gives any effect), without the ability to redistribute the money to fix things.

Yes, discretionary budget (that's assigned to the department (unless it's funding is too low or too high) or the government as a whole) can fix these to some extent, but arguing that your system wont break because people can ignore it and continue to operate in the old manner is hardly the most glowing of recommendations.

This would increase the accuracy and specificity of communication between the government and its citizens. As a result, the relationship between citizens and their government would be much healthier and functional.

You keep saying this, but I still don't see any reason to believe it.

Right now the government does a lot of things. Do you value everything that the government does equally? Of course not. Does it matter whether or not you have the opportunity to provide the government with specific feedback? Of course. This should be painfully obvious. It should be blindingly obvious. Unfortunately, it really isn't. Somehow people are really confident that the government operates wonderfully in the absence of everybody's specific feedback. Well... lobbyists provide specific feedback. Which is only problematic because the rest of us aren't able, or allowed, to do so. Just like it would be problematic if only the wealthy were allowed to shop in the private sector.

If you think that, then why advocate an inherently -- and deliberately, per an earlier post -- plutocratic system? You said it's a good thing that the wealthy are given more say by your system when I asked why it was based on tax paid, rather than just giving people the ability to directly vote on the government budget. Who do you think the politicians will listen to -- me who pays a pittance in tax each year, or a millionaire who pays far more in tax than my family's total income.

We both see it as tilting at windmills... barking up the wrong tree. And I don't think that I would be such a strong supporter of pragmatarianism if I didn't perceive that, in the private sector, when individuals tilt at windmills... they generally lose economic influence. It's a different story with democracy. Democracy doesn't care how many windmills you've tilted at. Democracy doesn't care how many wrong trees you've barked up. Democracy doesn't care how many mistakes you've made. As long as you're not in jail... you get the same influence as somebody who's consistently barked up the right trees. (... et cetera ...)

I don't see any reason to assume that people who are economically successful are any more fit to decide how the country should operate than those who aren't -- again, the world isn't a cute place where the intelligent flourish and the stupid flounder -- success depends on a myriad of things, many of which don't imply any effort or ability on the part of the rich. It has previously been pointed out that the rich are generally less ethical than others, so your repeated assertion that putting them in charge of the bulk of the budget would improve things remains unconvincing.

To argue that lots of German taxpayers would have spent significant amounts of their tax dollars tilting at windmills is really far-fetched. To argue that lots of German voters would have cast their votes for tilting at windmills is not at all far-fetched. Democracy is super stupid. It would be super smart to replace voting with spending (coaseianism) and allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go (pragmatarianism).

...so which one of us is going to tell Xerographica that Nazi Germany wasn't the liberal democracy they seem to think it was?

Besides, as previously pointed out:

• The Holocaust was conducted by the military, an organisation one would probably not starve during a war.
• Germany was generally anti-Semitic at the time, so promises to solve the Jewish problem likely wouldn't be seen as as bad.
• Organisations aiming to persecute particular groups (e.g. the KKK, many terrorist groups) are able to function without government assistance out here in the real world, where the donations are purely voluntary (rather than part of a block of money you must pay somewhere).
• Seriously? You think the issue was who paid?

The problem with this argument is that, if most taxpayers consistently tilted at windmills.... then they wouldn't be taxpayers. They would be broke-ass poison-oak farmers. Broke-ass poison-oak farmers don't pay a lot of taxes.

I get that you believe that the rich are a group of super-intelligent super-rational Übermensch who deserve to rule over us plebs, but I don't see how that connects to the real world.

[Galloism]

Besides, as previously pointed out:

• The Holocaust was conducted by the military, an organisation one would probably not starve during a war.
• Germany was generally anti-Semitic at the time, so promises to solve the Jewish problem likely wouldn't be seen as as bad.
• Organisations aiming to persecute particular groups (e.g. the KKK, many terrorist groups) are able to function without government assistance out here in the real world, where the donations are purely voluntary (rather than part of a block of money you must pay somewhere).
• Seriously? You think the issue was who paid?

It's also worth noting that, at the time, the major narrative and belief regarding the Jews is that they crashed the German economy for personal profit and were continuing to depress the German economy for financial gain.

It wasn't true of course (the factors were much more complex, but the Treaty of Versailles had a lot to do with it), but a majority of people in Germany at the time DID believe it. Economically, based on that belief, the rational thing to do was to get rid of the Jews. This would improve the economy and therefore was the most rational action for taxpayers to take for personal gain.

[Xerographica]

For politicians/parties, granularity is probably in their interest, yes, but doesn't necessarily mean it's in the interest of everyone else. Having multiple opposing parties allocate the budget could easily lead to waste -- if one party pledges to better enforce environmental regulation, whereas the other pledges to dismantle it, you could have a company that faces sanctions from one agency and subsidies from another for the same action.

The EPA enforces environmental regulation. What government agency enforces the violation of environmental regulations? It helps to be specific. Republican congresspeople functioning as personal shoppers could certainly boycott the EPA. But then again, so could taxpayers who wanted to directly allocate their taxes. And if you want to argue that everybody would boycott the EPA... then we would no longer have an EPA.

Individual politicians, meanwhile, are incentivised to give the money assigned to them -- as subsidies -- to the companies that help fund them (allowing the rich to, in essence, mostly pay their taxes back to themselves). Even if they act in the interest of their constituents, this encourages parochialism at the expense of larger scale programs.

Sugar farmers are going to want subsidies? It's called dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. Look it up. It would be a huge fucking improvement if MY tax dollars did not subsidize countless companies. If I want a company to have my money... then I'll buy their products. Pragmatarianism entirely eliminates the problem of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. And logically, the less taxpayers who allocate their taxes to some public good... the weaker the argument for that public good remaining on the "menu". If the only people who are willing to allocate their taxes to a war are a handful of companies that would benefit from the war... then the war would be removed from the menu.

For departments/projects, granularity is very much a double-edged sword -- in cases where the department does multiple things, such that many voters like some aspects and dislike others, separating those could increase funding, but in general the more restrictive the earmarks on their income, the harder it will be for them to operate. In addition, you face inefficiency if a program is funded only slightly (so that it has essentially no effect), or too much (beyond the level that gives any effect), without the ability to redistribute the money to fix things.

I don't know if all taxpayers would want to specifically allocate their taxes. Any taxpayers that didn't want to specifically allocate their taxes would have the opportunity to generally allocate their taxes. For example, I could give my taxes to the Army Civil Affairs unit and you could give your taxes to the DoD in general. The more people who give their taxes to the DoD in general... the more money the top brass would have to allocate to units and programs that they felt were underfunded.

But what you're fundamentally missing is the importance of revealing disparities in priorities. The top brass wants special forces to have more funding. However, more and more taxpayers give their tax dollars to the Civil Affairs. Clearly there's a disparity in priorities. And if we suspect that neither the top brass nor the taxpayers are randomly choosing their priorities... then a disparity in priorities means that there's a disparity in information. A disparity in priorities naturally facilitates the exchange of different information. The top brass would have an incentive to A. push its information about why special forces is so important and B. pull whatever information leads taxpayers to believe that Civil Affairs is so important. The taxpayers would have an incentive to A. push its information about why Civil Affairs is so important and B. pull whatever information leads the top brass to believe that special forces is so important.

This information intercourse is only unnecessary if you assume that the top brass will always have a monopoly on correct information. But it's entirely stupid to assume that any organization, or individual, can ever have a monopoly on correct information. Every organization and individual can and will have faulty information. Information intercourse helps more people consider more information which increases the chances that errors will be spotted. Given enough eyeballs, are bugs are shallow (Linus's Law).

Of course you can argue that this will hinder the military's effectiveness. Well... are you going to argue that it would have hindered the German military's effectiveness? Or perhaps you want to argue that the German taxpayers had all the same priorities/information as their military's leaders?

If you think that, then why advocate an inherently -- and deliberately, per an earlier post -- plutocratic system? You said it's a good thing that the wealthy are given more say by your system when I asked why it was based on tax paid, rather than just giving people the ability to directly vote on the government budget. Who do you think the politicians will listen to -- me who pays a pittance in tax each year, or a millionaire who pays far more in tax than my family's total income.

Obviously the millionaire would have more direct influence. Do you think that I'm a millionaire? Do you think that tax choice would have less than 100 likes on Facebook if I was? Do you think tax choice would have less than 100 likes on Facebook if it was clearly and obviously beneficial to rich people? Again, read up on concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

I don't see any reason to assume that people who are economically successful are any more fit to decide how the country should operate than those who aren't

You don't see any reason to assume that people who are good at allocating resources in the private sector (economically successful) are any more fit to allocate resources in the public sector than those who aren't good at allocating resources in the private sector?

-- again, the world isn't a cute place where the intelligent flourish and the stupid flounder -- success depends on a myriad of things, many of which don't imply any effort or ability on the part of the rich. It has previously been pointed out that the rich are generally less ethical than others, so your repeated assertion that putting them in charge of the bulk of the budget would improve things remains unconvincing.

You really want to argue that immorality is the only thing positively correlated with income? Great, then please fucking argue that the government shouldn't spend any money on education. Or, that the only thing that should be taught is immorality. Assuming of course that immorality isn't genetic.

The fact of the matter is, because taxpayers (people who are good at allocating resources in the private sector)... are not currently permitted to allocate their tax dollars.... it's a given that public funds are inefficiently allocated. Which logically means that many resources in the private sector are inefficiently allocated. Which logically means that many talented, hard-working, skilled and intelligent people are inefficiently allocated.

The most extreme example is the Holocaust. German taxpayers were not permitted to allocate their tax dollars... public funds were inefficiently allocated... and 6 million Jews were extremely inefficiently allocated. But millions and millions of other German citizens were inefficiently allocated as well... of course not to the same extreme.

Our government is not as defective as the German government... but it's still not nearly effective as allowing taxpayers to allocate their tax dollars. This means that plenty of Americans are inefficiently allocated. Lots of talented people are underemployed. Lots of talent is kept on the sidelines. This would quickly change if taxpayers could allocate their taxes.

...so which one of us is going to tell Xerographica that Nazi Germany wasn't the liberal democracy they seem to think it was?

The majority of German citizens never voluntarily voted for Hitler. But enough Germans voted for him to grab some power... which allowed him to grab all the power. You're welcome to argue that the majority didn't genuinely support his policies. It's a decent argument. But then why the fuck would you spend so much time arguing that pragmatarianism would not have prevented WWII and the Holocaust? The majority of voters did not support Hitler but the majority of taxpayers did? Here's what Hitler said in 1931... "The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."

The problem with this argument is that, if most taxpayers consistently tilted at windmills.... then they wouldn't be taxpayers. They would be broke-ass poison-oak farmers. Broke-ass poison-oak farmers don't pay a lot of taxes.

I get that you believe that the rich are a group of super-intelligent super-rational Übermensch who deserve to rule over us plebs, but I don't see how that connects to the real world.

The real world is all about how resources are allocated. In the private sector, if you approve of how a producer allocates resources... then you give him your money. By giving your money to the producer... you're giving him more control over how resources are allocated. The more people who give their money to the same producer... the more control he'll have over how resources are allocated. The producer's control is a function of consumer consensus.

Is this system perfect? No. Of course not. But all its significant inefficiencies stem from the fact that we really don't have this same system in the public sector. If you approve of how a producer in the public sector allocates resources... then you can't give him your tax dollars. If you disapprove of how a producer in the public sector allocates resources... then you can't boycott him.

We have consumer sovereignty in the private sector... we don't have consumer sovereignty in the public sector.

These are two extremely different ways of allocating resources. And they really can't be equally effective. Is it beneficial or desirable or valuable for you to decide for yourself using all the information at your disposal whether or not a producer deserves your approval? If it is, then it's necessary to have this system in the public sector. If it isn't, then it's unnecessary to have this system in the private sector.

In other words...

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

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

[Galloism]

The fact of the matter is, because taxpayers (people who are good at allocating resources in the private sector)... are not currently permitted to allocate their tax dollars.... it's a given that public funds are inefficiently allocated.

Why is that a given? Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

I'm a damn good pilot. I'm good at operating a flying vehicle.

Because pilots (people good at operating a vehicle in the aviation sector)... am not permitted to operate a cruise ship... it's a given that cruise ships are inefficiently operated.

Why is that a given? Use something that includes the first but excludes the second.



Still waiting for an answer to this, by the way:

As an aside Xero, why is it that Sierra Leone, with it's 96 million dollars in revenue, is too big to be considered one entity, while Wal-Mart, with its 482 billion dollars in revenue, is small enough to be one entity?

Show your work.

Also, for reference, no US state is as big of a chunk of the Economy as Wal-Mart is. The closest is California, with 112 billion revenue.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state ... -data.html

[Xerographica]

The fact of the matter is, because taxpayers (people who are good at allocating resources in the private sector)... are not currently permitted to allocate their tax dollars.... it's a given that public funds are inefficiently allocated.

Why is that a given? Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

I'm a damn good pilot. I'm good at operating a flying vehicle.

Because pilots (people good at operating a vehicle in the aviation sector)... am not permitted to operate a cruise ship... it's a given that cruise ships are inefficiently operated.

Why is that a given? Use something that includes the first but excludes the second.

Operating a plane is obviously different than operating a ship. Why do you think that allocating resources in the private sector is different than allocating resources in the public sector? Elon Musk donated donated $10M to the Future of Life Institute (FLI). What would be fundamentally different about Musk allocating $10M in taxes to the National Science Foundation (NSF)? In the first case he gave more influence to the FLI. In the second case he would give more influence to the NSF.

Maybe you don't want Musk to have so much influence to wield? Fine, then don't buy a Tesla. Encourage others not to buy Teslas. If people continue buying Teslas... then clearly they want him to wield a lot of influence. Do they specify the limits of his influence? Of course not. This is why Musk should be able to choose where his taxes go.

Still waiting for an answer to this, by the way:

As an aside Xero, why is it that Sierra Leone, with it's 96 million dollars in revenue, is too big to be considered one entity, while Wal-Mart, with its 482 billion dollars in revenue, is small enough to be one entity?

Show your work.

Also, for reference, no US state is as big of a chunk of the Economy as Wal-Mart is. The closest is California, with 112 billion revenue.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state ... -data.html

I already explained it. It's super fucking easy for people to boycott Walmart. They just stop shopping at Walmart and start shopping on Amazon instead. What do I do if I want to boycott the US government? Move to Canada. Or Mexico. Or stop making money.

Walmart is largely desirable BECAUSE people can easily boycott it. Make it hard for people to boycott Walmart and why the fuck should Walmart care about providing a large supply of affordable products?

When an audience is captive... it's absolutely necessary to give them direct control. When an audience is not captive... then direct control isn't as necessary. If they aren't happy with the show then they can just leave. Leaving a country is not nearly as easy as leaving a company. Therefore, it's absolutely necessary to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

[Galloism]

Why is that a given? Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

I'm a damn good pilot. I'm good at operating a flying vehicle.

Because pilots (people good at operating a vehicle in the aviation sector)... am not permitted to operate a cruise ship... it's a given that cruise ships are inefficiently operated.

Why is that a given? Use something that includes the first but excludes the second.

Operating a plane is obviously different than operating a ship.

No shit.

Why do you think that allocating resources in the private sector is different than allocating resources in the public sector?

Different goals, different effects, different types of goods that operate in different ways. Allocating in the public sector is fundamentally different than the private sector - it's actually further apart than the difference between ships and planes (both ships and planes are subject to fluid dynamics, similar propulsion mechanisms, delayed reactions, similar electronics - GPS, weather radar, engine gauges/electronics, a similar control surface - a rudder, and, of course, transporting people and goods long distances).

Elon Musk donated donated $10M to the Future of Life Institute (FLI). What would be fundamentally different about Musk allocating $10M in taxes to the National Science Foundation (NSF)? In the first case he gave more influence to the FLI. In the second case he would give more influence to the NSF.

Maybe you don't want Musk to have so much influence to wield? Fine, then don't buy a Tesla. Encourage others not to buy Teslas. If people continue buying Teslas... then clearly they want him to wield a lot of influence. Do they specify the limits of his influence? Of course not. This is why Musk should be able to choose where his taxes go.

Because X person produces Y product that I like does not mean I want them to be my master. This really isn't a hard concept.

As an aside Xero, why is it that Sierra Leone, with it's 96 million dollars in revenue, is too big to be considered one entity, while Wal-Mart, with its 482 billion dollars in revenue, is small enough to be one entity?

Show your work.

Also, for reference, no US state is as big of a chunk of the Economy as Wal-Mart is. The closest is California, with 112 billion revenue.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state ... -data.html

I already explained it. It's super fucking easy for people to boycott Walmart. They just stop shopping at Walmart and start shopping on Amazon instead.

That's really geographically dependent. In some places, there is no reasonable way to boycott Wal-Mart because they are quite literally the only place to buy groceries, and you cannot buy refigerated milk, pizza, or vegetables from Amazon (not at a reasonable price, anyway - a gallon of milk from Amazon is $74).

Can you reduce what you spend at Wal-Mart? Yeah, if you're willing to spend more money to get everything shipped in. However, many people do not have that option. 29% of Americans can't even shop on Amazon unless they go to Wal-Mart first and buy a prepaid card TO shop on Amazon, which Wal-Mart collects fees from. They don't have credit cards. There's nothing fundamentally different, for those people, between shopping at Wal-Mart and paying taxes to the government as far as options go.

It's just as hard to boycott Wal-Mart in some places as it is to not pay taxes.

Besides that, by fundamentally paying their workers slave wages, we ALL pay to subsidize Wal-Mart through food stamps and other state aid. You cannot effectively boycott Wal-Mart entirely - it can't be done. And even under your system, the only way to boycott Wal-Mart would be to boycott programs meant to help low income people - this means to effectively boycott Wal-Mart, people must die.

That's an unacceptable sacrifice. Ergo, we should be able to dictate, at the register, what our money to Wal-Mart is spent on.

Walmart is largely desirable BECAUSE people can easily boycott it.

Except they can't.

Make it hard for people to boycott Walmart and why the fuck should Walmart care about providing a large supply of affordable products?

It's impossible to effectively boycott Wal-Mart for a significant portion of the population.

When an audience is captive... it's absolutely necessary to give them direct control. When an audience is not captive... then direct control isn't as necessary.

Good. Pitch your idea to Wal-Mart. For a lot of people, they are no less captive to Wal-Mart than they are to the fed, and, if one considers the welfare Wal-Mart employees receive, EVERYONE is captive to Wal-Mart if they pay taxes, which is almost everyone.

[Lesser Tofu]

Why do these posts have to be so fucking long?

The EPA enforces environmental regulation. What government agency enforces the violation of environmental regulations? It helps to be specific. Republican congresspeople functioning as personal shoppers could certainly boycott the EPA. But then again, so could taxpayers who wanted to directly allocate their taxes. And if you want to argue that everybody would boycott the EPA... then we would no longer have an EPA.

Plenty of government agencies subsidise businesses for a variety of reasons, including subsidising businesses that cause major environmental damage (for instance, the oil industry).

Sugar farmers are going to want subsidies? It's called dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. Look it up. It would be a huge fucking improvement if MY tax dollars did not subsidize countless companies. If I want a company to have my money... then I'll buy their products. Pragmatarianism entirely eliminates the problem of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. And logically, the less taxpayers who allocate their taxes to some public good... the weaker the argument for that public good remaining on the "menu". If the only people who are willing to allocate their taxes to a war are a handful of companies that would benefit from the war... then the war would be removed from the menu.

Your system places incentives in place to continue or even expand those subsidies. Sure, you could argue that it's not your money that's going to them, so it's okay, but the point remains that for most of us at the bottom of the heap the programs that just help the rich will be better funded and those that help the poor will be starved.

I don't know if all taxpayers would want to specifically allocate their taxes. Any taxpayers that didn't want to specifically allocate their taxes would have the opportunity to generally allocate their taxes. For example, I could give my taxes to the Army Civil Affairs unit and you could give your taxes to the DoD in general. The more people who give their taxes to the DoD in general... the more money the top brass would have to allocate to units and programs that they felt were underfunded.

In practice this would mean that if enough people give their money to the general pot, then the department simply rebalances its budget using the discretionary funding and continues as usual, while if most people specifically allocate their money then you are likely to face underfunding or overfunding of projects. Again, you shouldn't defend your system by pointing out that in some circumstances it can be corrected back to the old one. It makes me wonder what the point of the whole exercise is.

But what you're fundamentally missing is the importance of revealing disparities in priorities. The top brass wants special forces to have more funding. However, more and more taxpayers give their tax dollars to the Civil Affairs. Clearly there's a disparity in priorities. And if we suspect that neither the top brass nor the taxpayers are randomly choosing their priorities... then a disparity in priorities means that there's a disparity in information. A disparity in priorities naturally facilitates the exchange of different information. The top brass would have an incentive to A. push its information about why special forces is so important and B. pull whatever information leads taxpayers to believe that Civil Affairs is so important. The taxpayers would have an incentive to A. push its information about why Civil Affairs is so important and B. pull whatever information leads the top brass to believe that special forces is so important.

But simply placing the budget in the hands of the public doesn't give them a straightforward way to actually influence how the military operates. You'd get much more control, without many of the issues that arise from your system, if you instead gave voters the ability to control military policy (but leaving the implementation of that policy to military experts).

This information intercourse is only unnecessary if you assume that the top brass will always have a monopoly on correct information. But it's entirely stupid to assume that any organization, or individual, can ever have a monopoly on correct information. Every organization and individual can and will have faulty information. Information intercourse helps more people consider more information which increases the chances that errors will be spotted. Given enough eyeballs, are bugs are shallow (Linus's Law).

Linus's law is cute and all, but it doesn't hold up in practice -- many pieces of open-source software, even those security-critical ones you'd expect to be fairly well audited, have had bugs that persisted for surprisingly long times. In more than a few cases, it wasn't quantity of eyes, but rather experts checking through them that revealed issues.

And that's setting aside that it is not necessarily in the interest of the people who influence or control the media to provide accurate information to the public at large. It's also setting aside that quite a lot of what the military does is restricted information for various reasons -- senior military officials genuinely do have a legally enforced monopoly on correct information regarding the military.

Obviously the millionaire would have more direct influence. Do you think that I'm a millionaire? Do you think that tax choice would have less than 100 likes on Facebook if I was? Do you think tax choice would have less than 100 likes on Facebook if it was clearly and obviously beneficial to rich people? Again, read up on concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

You haven't addressed the point!

You complained that in the current system, only the rich can directly influence government (outside of elections, at least) through lobbying.

I pointed out that your system is deeply plutocratic, disenfranchises the poor, and gives disproportionate influence to the rich and the super-rich, a fact which you earlier claimed as a good thing.

So, do you want a system where the rich have power disproportionate to their number or not?

You don't see any reason to assume that people who are good at allocating resources in the private sector (economically successful) are any more fit to allocate resources in the public sector than those who aren't good at allocating resources in the private sector?

I don't see any reason to assume that people who are good at accumulating personal wealth -- whether through some semblance of ability (which in no way implies intelligence or understanding of the economy -- witness premier footballers) or through sheer good fortune (witness many celebrities) -- will be better at allocating public sector resources than government planners. Especially when it is often in their interest to allocate selfishly.

You really want to argue that immorality is the only thing positively correlated with income? Great, then please fucking argue that the government shouldn't spend any money on education. Or, that the only thing that should be taught is immorality. Assuming of course that immorality isn't genetic.

.

The fact of the matter is, because taxpayers (people who are good at allocating resources in the private sector)... are not currently permitted to allocate their tax dollars.... it's a given that public funds are inefficiently allocated. Which logically means that many resources in the private sector are inefficiently allocated. Which logically means that many talented, hard-working, skilled and intelligent people are inefficiently allocated.

You keep on using those words, I don't think you know what they mean.

The most extreme example is the Holocaust. German taxpayers were not permitted to allocate their tax dollars... public funds were inefficiently allocated... and 6 million Jews were extremely inefficiently allocated. But millions and millions of other German citizens were inefficiently allocated as well... of course not to the same extreme.

What is this I don't even

The majority of German citizens never voluntarily voted for Hitler. But enough Germans voted for him to grab some power... which allowed him to grab all the power. You're welcome to argue that the majority didn't genuinely support his policies. It's a decent argument. But then why the fuck would you spend so much time arguing that pragmatarianism would not have prevented WWII and the Holocaust? The majority of voters did not support Hitler but the majority of taxpayers did? Here's what Hitler said in 1931... "The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."

That was a snide comment about how your wording implied the Holocaust was a failing of democracy.

And once again you've ignored the more concrete list of reasons from my post and from Gallo's that the Holocaust probably wouldn't be viewed with as much opposition by German public at the time than we view it with today, and that tax choice wouldn't have prevented it.

The real world is all about how resources are allocated. In the private sector, if you approve of how a producer allocates resources... then you give him your money. By giving your money to the producer... you're giving him more control over how resources are allocated. The more people who give their money to the same producer... the more control he'll have over how resources are allocated. The producer's control is a function of consumer consensus.

Is this system perfect? No. Of course not. But all its significant inefficiencies stem from the fact that we really don't have this same system in the public sector. If you approve of how a producer in the public sector allocates resources... then you can't give him your tax dollars. If you disapprove of how a producer in the public sector allocates resources... then you can't boycott him.

Bullshit.

I buy shit because I want it, not out of some approval for the economic competence of the producer. At most, I approve of what the producer is making, and wish to obtain it.

Notably, and this is a point you've been avoiding for pretty much the entire thread, buying things (with a few odd exceptions) covers the cost of making them. In order to use something, I have to pay for it to be made. You advocate a system where you're able to use any public good you can lay your grubby little hands on, but pay as you like to whichever ones you feel deserving. The private sector analogy would be me simply donating the disposable income I would spend on buying shit to companies I like, and taking whatever products I want from wherever they are. I could donate all my income to Canonical and nab a Surface because I thought they're kind of cool. Or donate all my income to the EPA but still drive around on public roads.

Beyond that, I don't believe that consumers can do a better job than government planners when it comes to the public sector. I honestly can't imagine that I could work out the cost (environmental & wear) of me driving on the roads, and accurately predict how much I was going to use them, or estimate the cost to me of them being in poor shape. I don't think I could work out how much pollution would impact my quality of life. I don't think I could work out how much needs to be spent on vaccinating children. I haven't the faintest clue how much the police who prevent crime from harming me cost.

I certainly don't think I could, in my spare time, calculate all of those values better than an office full of people (for each), who are better trained in statistics, public health, engineering, and various other fields than I am.

I don't think the government is perfect, by a long way. I don't think that there aren't ways it could be improved, including by further democratising its internal workings and giving voters the ability to more directly influence policy than just electing representatives.

But I think that it's a hell of a lot better than the uncoordinated plutocratic hellhole you've been proposing.

We have consumer sovereignty in the private sector... we don't have consumer sovereignty in the public sector.

These are two extremely different ways of allocating resources. And they really can't be equally effective. Is it beneficial or desirable or valuable for you to decide for yourself using all the information at your disposal whether or not a producer deserves your approval? If it is, then it's necessary to have this system in the public sector. If it isn't, then it's unnecessary to have this system in the private sector.

Why can't they? To quote Knuth, "different tasks call for different conventions". Besides, the system you are proposing bears little resemblance to how the private sector works.

[Dameth]

So your other post was locked, but I wanted to give my two cents on it. Do with it what you wish.

- Everybody's different. T/F
False. Everybody shares an insanely huge portion of their genetic legacy, and culture is by in large genetic legacy adapting to the environement. In an absolute sense, I guess everybody is different, but stating "everybody is different" while they all share 99.9% of their genetic traits is focusing on the exception, not the rule.

- Six million people represents a lot of difference. T/F
False. Not that much actually.

- The perpetrators of the Holocaust appreciated this difference. T/F
True. They overinflated the meaning of difference to the point of murderous insanity.

- You appreciate this difference. T/F
False. I don't care.

- There are around 300 million people in the US. T/F
- This represents a massive amount of difference. T/F
- You appreciate this difference. T/F

- Murder destroys difference. T/F
False.

- The murder of John Lennon destroyed difference. T/F
- The murder of John F. Kennedy destroyed difference. T/F
- The murder of Martin Luther King Jr destroyed difference. T/F
- The Holocaust destroyed difference. T/F
False. How so.

- Destroying difference impedes progress. T/F
Irrelevant. Progress is driven by adaptability, adaptability by change of environment. People get more crafty in times of war, which I assume according to your terminology "destroys difference". I'm tempted to say "False", but it's not even false. WWII saw a huge advance in technology.

- The murder of John Lennon was a loss to humanity. T/F
- The murder of John F. Kennedy was a loss to humanity. T/F
- The murder of Martin Luther King Jr was a loss to humanity. T/F
- The Holocaust was a loss to humanity. T/F
Irrelevant. You need an objective standart to evaluate losses and gains. As we already established, scientific progress is not impeded by murder so it's out of the question.

- Slavery suppresses difference. T/F
False. It actually creates difference, mind you.

- Making it illegal to read would suppress difference. T/F
- Making it illegal to write would suppress difference. T/F
- Making it illegal to talk would suppress difference. T/F
- Making it illegal to dance would suppress difference. T/F
Irrelevant. I don't know nor I care.

- Suppressing difference impedes progress. T/F
False. See above.

- Everybody's mind is different. T/F
False. Not to a large extent.

- A mind is a terrible thing to waste. T/F
Irrelevant. What mind ?

- Killing somebody is a waste of their mind. T/F
- The Holocaust was a waste of 6 million minds. T/F

- Wasting minds impedes progress. T/F
False. Progress is not made by your average joe, nor is progress driven by shopkeepers.

- Wasting 50% of 2 minds is just as bad wasting 100% of 1 mind. T/F
- Wasting 10% of 10 minds is just as bad wasting 100% of 1 mind. T/F
- Wasting 10% of 300 million minds is just as bad as wasting 100% of 30 million minds. T/F
- Wasting 10% of 300 million minds is worse than wasting 100% of 6 million minds. T/F
- Wasting 10% of 7.4 billion minds is worse than wasting 100% of 6 million minds. T/F
- Suppressing 10% of 300 million people's difference is worse than suppressing 100% of 6 million people's difference. T/F
- Suppressing 10% of 7.4 billion people's difference is worse than suppressing 100% of 6 million people's difference. T/F

Irrelevant and meaningless. You seem to operate over the assumption that all life is different - and with such a presupposition, you're trying to do math ? Come on.
Any mathematical approach to a human problem would postulate either a general equality of life which is not compatible with your pressuposition that all life is different, or at least some kind of ladder to quantify the value of lives, which is not compatible with the rest of your positions, specifically your positions on holocaust.

- Progress depends on difference. T/F
False. As we established before. Progress depends on research and changes in environment.

- The Holocaust impeded progress. T/F
False. It did a lot of things, but impeding progress it did not.

- The Holocaust was an atrocity. T/F
Appeal to emotion.But alright, true. It was an atrocity. I'll go even further, let's use the holocaust as a prime exemple of atrocity. Which makes the following questions much easier to answer :

- Preventing people from allocating their taxes impedes progress. T/F
- Preventing people from allocating their taxes is an atrocity. T/F

Is a tax issue remotely comparable to the holocaust ? No. Come back to earth.

It looks like some new age bullshit if you ask me

[Xerographica]

Your system places incentives in place to continue or even expand those subsidies. Sure, you could argue that it's not your money that's going to them, so it's okay, but the point remains that for most of us at the bottom of the heap the programs that just help the rich will be better funded and those that help the poor will be starved.

There wouldn't be any programs that just help the rich. As I explained in my FAQ... part of what determines whether or not an item is on the menu is the number of people who allocate their taxes to it. Otherwise, we might as well allow people to spend their taxes on private goods.

But simply placing the budget in the hands of the public doesn't give them a straightforward way to actually influence how the military operates. You'd get much more control, without many of the issues that arise from your system, if you instead gave voters the ability to control military policy (but leaving the implementation of that policy to military experts).

This is so vague that it's entirely useless.

You complained that in the current system, only the rich can directly influence government (outside of elections, at least) through lobbying.

I pointed out that your system is deeply plutocratic, disenfranchises the poor, and gives disproportionate influence to the rich and the super-rich, a fact which you earlier claimed as a good thing.

So, do you want a system where the rich have power disproportionate to their number or not?

I want a system where taxpayers can use the power that consumers gave to them in the private sector.

I don't see any reason to assume that people who are good at accumulating personal wealth -- whether through some semblance of ability (which in no way implies intelligence or understanding of the economy -- witness premier footballers) or through sheer good fortune (witness many celebrities) -- will be better at allocating public sector resources than government planners. Especially when it is often in their interest to allocate selfishly.

So don't give your money to celebrities or athletes.

Or donate all my income to the EPA but still drive around on public roads.

If you're willing to endure a few potholes... then all I can really figure is that you're far more concerned with global warming. I really don't think that it's irrational to be more concerned with global warming than with potholes. I wish that I could adequately describe the immensity of disregarding people's public goods priorities.

Beyond that, I don't believe that consumers can do a better job than government planners when it comes to the public sector. I honestly can't imagine that I could work out the cost (environmental & wear) of me driving on the roads, and accurately predict how much I was going to use them, or estimate the cost to me of them being in poor shape. I don't think I could work out how much pollution would impact my quality of life. I don't think I could work out how much needs to be spent on vaccinating children. I haven't the faintest clue how much the police who prevent crime from harming me cost.

I certainly don't think I could, in my spare time, calculate all of those values better than an office full of people (for each), who are better trained in statistics, public health, engineering, and various other fields than I am.

You wouldn't need to. Directly allocating your taxes would be optional. Congress would still be there. If you're confident in their competence... then you'd be more than welcome to continue allowing them to spend your tax dollars for you.

Personally, I don't shop at Bed Bath and Beyond. None of the information at my disposal leads me to believe that I'm suffering from a shortage of their products. If none of the information at your disposal leads you to believe that you're suffering from a shortage of public goods... then clearly you'd have absolutely no incentive to take the time or make the effort to shop for yourself in the public sector.

I don't think the government is perfect, by a long way. I don't think that there aren't ways it could be improved, including by further democratising its internal workings and giving voters the ability to more directly influence policy than just electing representatives.

I really don't see the benefit of giving voters more influence over policy. Voters are the problem. The idea of one person one vote is completely shit. People shouldn't have equal influence over anything even remotely or vaguely important. People aren't equally intelligent, diligent, educated, rational, sane, competent or knowledgeable. So giving them equal influence is monstrously terrible and horrible.

With markets... competence is rewarded and incompetence is punished. Are there any exceptions to this rule? Of course. But they are the exceptions... not the rule.

We have consumer sovereignty in the private sector... we don't have consumer sovereignty in the public sector.

These are two extremely different ways of allocating resources. And they really can't be equally effective. Is it beneficial or desirable or valuable for you to decide for yourself using all the information at your disposal whether or not a producer deserves your approval? If it is, then it's necessary to have this system in the public sector. If it isn't, then it's unnecessary to have this system in the private sector.

Why can't they? To quote Knuth, "different tasks call for different conventions". Besides, the system you are proposing bears little resemblance to how the private sector works.

Let's say that the government allocates more money to the DoD. As a result, the DoD would have more influence. More influence where? Just in the public sector? Of course not. The DoD would have more influence in the entire economy. The DoD wouldn't just be able to more effectively compete talented workers away from other government organizations.... it would be able to more effectively compete talented workers away from all organizations. Are talented workers the only valuable resource that the DoD would be able to more effectively compete away from other organizations? Of course not. The DoD would be able to more effectively compete all valuable resources away from other organizations.

In the private sector, when you buy a computer, you're using your cash to communicate that you want that specific company in the computer industry to have more influence to more effectively compete talented workers and other valuable resources away from other organizations... including the DoD.

If you perceive that the "conventions" are fundamentally different... then you're really fuzzy on basic economics. These two systems are very different and obviously mutually exclusive. If we want talent, and other resources, to truly be put to the most valuable uses.... then we have to decide whether this is better accomplished with, or without, consumer sovereignty.

However, as I'm sure you're aware of, there have already been significant attempts to operate entire economies without consumer sovereignty. For example China. There aren't any experts with half a brain who will argue that any of these experiments were even moderately successful. They didn't just fail for private goods... they failed for public goods as well. We know that the absence of consumer sovereignty does not work.

So what is it, exactly, about consumer sovereignty that's so essential? What's so great about consumers having the freedom to decide which companies should have more influence? Well... consumers don't want to flush their hard-earned money down the toilet. Consumers want results. Companies that provide results are rewarded accordingly. This gives companies the maximum incentive to provide results.

Is the public sector so different that taxpayers wouldn't care about results? Will taxpayers not mind flushing their hard-earned money down the toilet? Will they not mind paying for bridges to nowhere and unnecessary wars? Will producers in the public sector not respond to incentives? Again, the "conventions" aren't fundamentally different.

If we created a market in the public sector... then private goods and public goods would be put on equal footing. The DoD would have just as much incentive to provide results as Dell. And the amount you spent on computers and the amount you spent on defense would reflect how you wanted talent to be distributed between these two goods. If you're more concerned with a shortage of defense... then you'd give more money to the DoD.... which would allow the DoD to more effectively compete talent and other resources away from Dell and all the other organizations.

[Xerographica]

- Destroying difference impedes progress. T/F
Irrelevant. Progress is driven by adaptability, adaptability by change of environment. People get more crafty in times of war, which I assume according to your terminology "destroys difference". I'm tempted to say "False", but it's not even false. WWII saw a huge advance in technology.

Eh? What? Let's say that some orchid species has very little variation (difference) in drought tolerance. The climate changes and becomes drier. What happens to the orchid? It's screwed. Is the orchid family screwed? No. Why not? Because within the family itself there is considerable variation in drought tolerance. The orchid family has 30,000 species... and some species are a lot more drought tolerant than other species. So even though that one species with little variation in drought tolerance was screwed by climate change... the family itself would have enough variation that it would be able to adapt to the climate change. The "optimum" changed but, because the orchid family didn't have all its eggs in one basket, it was able to adapt to the new optimum. Of course, it's a given that if the change in climate is large and fast enough... then even the orchid family would be screwed.

Is the importance of difference only relevant to biology? Nope...

It is sufficient if all firms are slightly different so that in the new environmental situation those who have their fixed internal conditions closer to the new, but unknown, optimum position now have a greater probability of survival and growth. They will grow relative to other firms and become the prevailing type, since survival conditions may push the observed characteristics of the set of survivors toward the unknowable optimum by either (1) repeated trials or (2) survival of more of those who happened to be near the optimum - determined ex post. If these new conditions last "very long," the dominant firms will be different ones from those which prevailed or would have prevailed under other conditions. - Armen Alchian, Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory

Since adaptation depends on difference.... and war destroys difference... then clearly war impedes adaptation and progress. And it's not like I can show you all the adaptation and progress that would have occurred if the war hadn't destroyed so much difference. All I can show you is the concept.