Are Congresspeople Omniscient?

[Xerographica]

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

None of the people I give my money to in the marketplace understand whether or not I have a preference for roads without potholes, frequent police patrols within my neighborhood, or a globalist foreign policy aimed at preventing world wars before they happen.

They know that you prefer whatever it is that you paid them for. And they also know which public goods inputs they need to supply the private goods that you prefer. Are any of them going to spend their taxes on the same inputs? Of course. Perhaps one common input will be roads. They'll need roads for customers and employees to travel on in order to go to and from their business. Plus they'll need roads for inputs and outputs to be delivered.

So if you give your money to a million different representatives in a year...then chances are extremely good that your public goods interests will receive far greater protection than they would with our current system. And if you don't make enough money to owe any taxes...on the really off chance you felt that one of your interests was really not covered...then absolutely nothing would stop you from sacrificing the alternative uses of your money in order to give some to the government organization in question. It's really doubtful that any government organization is going to have a prohibitive minimum contribution requirement.

Worse, because none of them are experts in highway engineering, community policing, or geopolitical grand strategy; none of them are inherently any more capable of judging what is best for America than I am.

They are experts in supplying whatever it is that you value enough to sacrifice for. And if their competitors are better at selecting inputs than they are...then this will become apparent when you start giving their competitors your money. So it would behoove them to do their homework. And millions and millions of business owners are going to be able to do infinitely more homework than 300 congresspeople.

Indeed, it's quite likely — given the amount of time and energy that they spend trying to do nothing else with their lives save for making lots and lots of money, let alone the fact that they probably live in different neighborhoods than I do (and thus understand neither how potholes nor crime are a problem where I live, or because their attachment to multinational corporations makes them indifferent to the question of whether the nation in which I live gets conquered and enslaved by another [they'll probably just move to some other country, or maybe even collaborate with the aggressors if offered any money to do so and sell me out for a cut of my slave labor]) — that these people are less qualified than I am to make such decisions.

Your willingness to pay somebody indicates that you believe them to be sufficiently qualified to use your money to continue to serve your interests.

You've made the usual libertarian mistake of failing to realize that some services can't be delivered through the marketplace — especially if we don't even correctly identify who the "consumers" of those services are to begin with (HINT: They're not the taxpayers, especially as individuals; rather, they are the citizenry-at-large, as a collective body with collective interests).

My argument is not that public goods should be kicked over to the private sector. My argument is that we have to create a market in the public sector in order to guarantee the optimal provision of public goods. Therefore, I'm a pragmatarian...not a libertarian. The distinction is extremely significant. Unlike a libertarian, I have absolutely no problem with a 50%, 60%, 70% or even higher tax rate...as long as taxpayers can choose where their taxes go.

[Xerographica]

It doesn't matter that you don't think that they're a particularly valuable avenue of discussion because they're still ideas that make your assertions wrong. To an extent, the criticisms I mentioned last time still apply now.

There's really not much of interest/value in your posts. I figured I'd read them and not bother to respond. But, for some reason (perhaps optimism?) I decided to try a somewhat different approach.

I'm simply going to throw some stuff at you and give you the chance to say something at least vaguely interesting/valuable. If you say something of interest...then I'll respond to it...if not, then I'll just throw something else at you.

Of course, obviously you're welcome to decide that you have more valuable things to do with your limited time.

So here we go...

Read this essay...The Use of Knowledge in Society...and share one passage that you disagree with the most and explain exactly why you disagree with it.

In case you missed it, Hayek received a Nobel Prize in no small part because of that essay.

[Forsher]

It doesn't matter that you don't think that they're a particularly valuable avenue of discussion because they're still ideas that make your assertions wrong. To an extent, the criticisms I mentioned last time still apply now.

There's really not much of interest/value in your posts. I figured I'd read them and not bother to respond. But, for some reason (perhaps optimism?) I decided to try a somewhat different approach.

I'm simply going to throw some stuff at you and give you the chance to say something at least vaguely interesting/valuable. If you say something of interest...then I'll respond to it...if not, then I'll just throw something else at you.

Of course, obviously you're welcome to decide that you have more valuable things to do with your limited time.

So here we go...

Read this essay...The Use of Knowledge in Society...and share one passage that you disagree with the most and explain exactly why you disagree with it.

In case you missed it, Hayek received a Nobel Prize in no small part because of that essay.

Here's the basic thing... I'm not disagreeing with him. I'm disagreeing with you.

I've made it perfectly clear why I disagree with you. I have explained why things you've done (in this thread and others) don't make sense. Generally this prompts no response from you or irrelevant responses (which usually abuse economic concepts and poorly integrate quotes, sorry, passages).

Ignored Posts That Establish Issues with Xerographica's ideas

The fundamental problem with the idea that the OP presents is that government is not, I repeat not, the same as being a consumer shopping at McDonald's or, indeed, McDonald's itself.

You can argue that somebody benefits from public education, but you can't know their utility function. If you could then you would be omniscient. Nobody is omniscient so we have to allow people to indicate exactly how much they value public education. If you value public education, but you feel it's adequately funded, then it doesn't make you a free-rider if you give your tax dollars to the EPA instead. If you value public education...and feel it's inadequately funded...but you give your taxes to the EPA instead...then clearly you feel that protecting the environment is a more important priority. You're still not a free-rider given that you're contributing to the common good.

One of the things about public education is that it doesn't exist because John thinks it is a good idea. It doesn't even exist because John's entire city thinks it is good. It exists because it is the best model of providing education out there for the nation as a whole.

Here's another thing about education: externalities.

Responded to one part with an irrelevant criticism

Is every bakery going to be a success? Obviously not...right? If that were the case then poverty would be eliminated because everybody who lacked money would be guaranteed money simply by starting a bakery. No need for redistribution.

So what factors determine whether a bakery will be successful or not? Maybe it simply boils down to luck? That can't be right. The fact of the matter is that it's a given that some bakers are going to make less mistakes than other bakers. As a result, some bakeries are going to be more successful than others.

It boils down to insight and foresight. A successful baker sees more accurately than an unsuccessful baker. And it's up to consumers to determine which baker sees more accurately.

You want to redistribute wealth from a wealthy baker to a poor baker? You want to give more influence to people who see less accurately? You want to take flour from a successful baker and give it to an unsuccessful baker?

Your intentions are good, but unfortunately, because you're failing to think things through you're simply increasing the severity of the problem you're trying to solve.

If you truly want the poor to have better options in life...then you have to think things through. Better options depend on people doing better things with society's limited resources. Consumers determine who exactly are the people who are doing better things with society's limited resources. The people they give their positive feedback (money) to are the people with the most insight/foresight. Therefore, we all will greatly benefit by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

The fundamental problem is that government is not a bakery. "Insight/foresight" is a meaningless phrase that you're just repeating.

There's no substance to the above, it's just a bunch of words that tries to pass itself off as an argument by including the word "therefore".

The primary difficulty is that a baker has no responsibility to his fellow baker. In fact, they're in competition. To an extent, two consumers are also in competition (I mean, who hasn't gone down to the bakery to find all the steak pies are gone?) but it's totally different.

What is good for one baker (i.e. there being only one bakery around) is bad for the consumer. What is good for the consumer (i.e. there being multiple bakeries) is bad for the bakers.

The government is not in the business of crippling one bakery for the benefit of the other. It considers that to be bad for the country as a whole because most governments these days are very interested in small businesses. If, however, this bakery was the baking industry's De Beer's the govt. probably would do something because there's no good reason to have a monopoly that's a bakery. The government is, however, in the business of ensuring that all aspects of the country are well looked after.

As you've been told many times, there's no apparent reason for a person in location A to help pay for a bridge in location B. Person A possibly doesn't even know where location B is. The government and Person B, however, are aware that a bridge is needed in Location B. The govt. is probably aware because of people like Person B (this is where that division of labour point comes up, govt. is compartmentalised and ultimately there are far more than 300 people in charge of how money is spent in the US, frankly it's naive to think that's true) that a bridge is needed (what is the point of electing representatives that don't represent your interests?). They take money from persons alphabet and then distribute it so that the bridge gets better. The multiplier effect says that this then benefits even Person A.

Under your system, the pool from which the bridge money comes from is at risk. It's entirely at the mercy of a population with divided interests. Look at NSG, there are many people who argue economics who don't come near your threads (probably due to the large amount of pseudo-economics but hey) and there are plenty of people don't argue economics at all. The general favourite subject in NSG is, by a country mile, gender issues (whether abortion, feminism, identity or something else). There are lots of minority topics out there though and plenty of topical interest. Your system is reliant on there being sufficient funding coming in from people who are interested on infrastructure and also in administration. I daresay the only result of any thinking through of your ideas is the conclusion that they'd quickly lead to disaster.

I've pointed out, previously, the implications of your position for the public sector and your response suggested that you accept that there's little to no practical difference between this and the abolition of the public sector/government. However, you also seem to like the idea. There are far too many flaws, repeated meaningless defences of the ideas and just general wrong-ness for this to be worth our time. The difficulty is that I think you dress your words with just the right amount of authoritative pseudo-economics to actually convince some of the lurkers. Frankly, your ideas are just too bad for society to take the risk that lurkers are being convinced.

Ignored Posts about Xerographica's Formal Education in Economics (conclusion: doesn't exist)

Hows your freshman economics degree going Xero?

Degree? I have large degree of difficulty believing that the OP has had any formal education in the subject given that he's disagreed with very basic definitions/concepts such as (but not limited to) opportunity cost and the market itself. However, I've never seen him claim to have had either. As far as I can tell from his post "economics" is his hobby.

Ignored Posts Criticising Irrelevant Response to Second Category

If the bridge doesn't get built because taxpayers can't be persuaded that it's worth the alternative uses of their tax dollars...then what happens to their money? Their money just disappears? It vanishes? Obviously not...it's put to uses that they value more than the bridge. Is it really so difficult for you to understand and comprehend that perhaps people value something more than the bridge you love so much? Or is it impossible for you to imagine a world where a bridge isn't always going to be the most valuable use of society's limited resources?

You really don't grasp the concept of opportunity cost...

That is not the point. The point here is that for the bridge that you need my money is required. The problem is that I don't care about your bridge. As a result, no bridge, and you're stuck.

Obviously the money would go somewhere else or, alternatively, it'd get spent and wasted because it was used to, say, clear the land in preparation for the bridge but the money dried up before work on building the bridge could start. Either is possible. Doesn't make it the point and that does make this part of your post as irrelevant as yet another quote.

Wow, if opportunity cost was actually relevant to the criticism this would have been relevant. That's a first. However, his understanding is somewhat flawed. Opportunity Cost is about the next best... not all the rest.

But, let's be clear, the point was that A has no reason to fund B's bridge but B still needs that bridge.

How many other things could have been built with the same labor and materials? Do you think it's a small list? Do you think that at any given point in time that something on this list of alternative uses might provide more value than your bridge would? Is it really so hard for you to imagine the possibility?

When people can shop for themselves, they evaluate the alternative uses of their money and determine which use provides them with the most value. If they can't shop for themselves then you can't know which use of their money provides them with the most value. Except, clearly you're under the impression that you can. Which is exactly why our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient.

Again, no. The issue is that you're really struggling to grasp the concept that different people have different needs but the only way to actually cover those needs in the case of things like bridges is by pooling resources... and your "idea" gets in the way of that.

You also ignored the other two points. The first was my initial point: your model of government is irredeemably flawed. The second is the apparent contradiction that your stated positions create (final paragraph).

Ignored Posts that Cover Multiple Subjects (for example, Xero's economic instruction, difficulties with the term pragmatarian, real basis on kingship, why 5000 citations isn't the argument Xero thinks it is, why tax choice isn't really needed)

dunno about that his posts seem to me like an exited 18 year old who has just started uni a week ago, has skimmed his reading list and now thinks he knows the workings of the universe.

I may be completely wrong in my speculation however.

When I said that Xerographica doesn't make any claim to formal economic education I was quite possibly wrong. It looks more like Xerographica will not talk about the subject at all. I strongly suspect that he has none, has read maybe one paper back in his formative years (hang on, how old are you Xero, these could be his formative years you know) and then followed it up with some highly suspect hobby reading.

I mean, he says he's not a Liberatarian (possibly with a small "l") but there's little practical difference and, in many ways, one is truly categorised by others who usually use the word "libertarian". This is one reason why I don't say I follow any particular school of any particular are (whether philosophy, politics, economics or something else). The other reason is that self-assessment is usually a poor tool.

The theory used to be that the king should have the power of the purse because he had divine authority. That theory was trashed. Now the theory is that congresspeople should have the power of the purse because they are omniscient. If you think there's a better public finance explanation for our current system then feel free to share it.

What King? The usual model is that I'm king because daddy said so and daddy killed a couple of people to make himself king because by killing people, other people followed him. Then, later on, someone decides that having God appoint you is a good idea for making people follow you with less effort.

His paper...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure...has been cited over 5000 times.

I've been quoted about 9000 times (used to be more times than I had posted but I did have quite a few ET posts).

The point? Not everyone agrees with me. The point? Even if people agree with me, that doesn't make me right. The point? Saying this really doesn't demonstrate anything other than the fact I've been quoted a couple of thousand times.

What ASB is trying to make you understand is that the ideas that underpins how your government works have to come from the time when your government was built.

It's like saying that the world's first aeroplane was jet powered because someone wrote a paper explaining how jet engines work.

Hell to the fucking no. That said, they are way more omniscient than a teenager who claims to be more American than those living in the USA despite living in Finland.

Anyways, as for us proposing where our money goes, how about we could get one person from every state/province, and two from every territory (for the USA, it'd be 82 people (32 from the territories and 50 from the states) and in Canada, it'd be 16 people (10 from the provinces and 6 from the territories), chosen to the average person in that region (or people) and describe what they want to see funded, in a commission.

I disagree.

Fundamentally, tax choice exists because you vote for someone who represents your ideas about the national stage (i.e. macro not micro stuff). That's representative democracy and it's a good idea. Your MPs (or senators or congressmen, whatever they're called, let's stick with MPs because we all live in NZ) get your vote because you think, fundamentally, their ideas for the big picture are the same as yours. They don't get your vote because you think they're the best MP to do your groceries (as Xero would have us believe). That MP then helps make government policy (or oppose it if they end up in opposition) and that's where the Budget and stuff come into it with the govt. saying where it's going to spend stuff.

Reality is infinitely preferable to Xerographica's apparently one-man Crusade for tax choice.

Ignored Posts Where Xerographica tries to make the conversation about someone else's ideas

Nearly 1000 years ago some barons stole the power of the purse from the king because they were fed up with him wasting their money on war after war. I'm really not talking about this.


Right, because I'm going to really want to debate the economic rationale of the constitution instead of the economic rationale of the preeminent liberal economist. Are you serious? If you want to talk about the economic value of the constitution...then be my guest. But don't try and argue that it's something that I find value in discussing.

It doesn't matter that you don't think that they're a particularly valuable avenue of discussion because they're still ideas that make your assertions wrong. To an extent, the criticisms I mentioned last time still apply now.

Really, this latest "debating" tactic of yours is highly questionable. If you don't want to reply to my criticisms you're welcome to let everyone see that, just don't try and threadjack the thread to hide your failure to present rebuttal.

[Xerographica]

Here's the basic thing... I'm not disagreeing with him. I'm disagreeing with you.

You're not disagreeing with Hayek...but you're disagreeing with me? Eh? What? How is what Hayek said any different from what I'm saying?

[Forsher]

Here's the basic thing... I'm not disagreeing with him. I'm disagreeing with you.

You're not disagreeing with Hayek...but you're disagreeing with me? Eh? What? How is what Hayek said any different from what I'm saying?

Well, it doesn't, for instance, include the word "Omniscient". More significantly "tax" and "government" don't appear. "Governing" does ... "Of course, if detailed economic plans could be laid down for fairly long periods in advance and then closely adhered to, so that no further economic decisions of importance would be required, the task of drawing up a comprehensive plan governing all economic activity would be much less formidable." If anything that disagrees with you, you who would put society at the whims of tax-payers that would be very difficult to predict, whether for businesses or government.

I'll be frank, I didn't read it, just ran a series of searches for key words from this thread and its OP. It's pretty clear you're just chucking it out there in lieu of actually addressing any rebuttal offered by me (and only me, I'm an exception).

Really struggling to see the relevance and that's not helped by your set up either.

[Xerographica]

I'll be frank, I didn't read it, just ran a series of searches for key words from this thread and its OP. It's pretty clear you're just chucking it out there in lieu of actually addressing any rebuttal offered by me (and only me, I'm an exception).

Really struggling to see the relevance and that's not helped by your set up either.

My argument has two components...

1. the free-rider problem (Nobel Prize liberal economist Paul Samuelson)
2. the knowledge problem (Nobel Prize market economist Friedrich Hayek)

If you disagree with my argument...then either you disagree with Samuelson or Hayek. If you don't disagree with Hayek...then you disagree with Samuelson.

Clearly you disagree with me...so do you disagree with Hayek or Samuelson?

[Forsher]

I'll be frank, I didn't read it, just ran a series of searches for key words from this thread and its OP. It's pretty clear you're just chucking it out there in lieu of actually addressing any rebuttal offered by me (and only me, I'm an exception).

Really struggling to see the relevance and that's not helped by your set up either.

My argument has two components...

1. the free-rider problem (Nobel Prize liberal economist Paul Samuelson)
2. the knowledge problem (Nobel Prize market economist Friedrich Hayek)

If you disagree with my argument...then either you disagree with Samuelson or Hayek. If you don't disagree with Hayek...then you disagree with Samuelson.

Clearly you disagree with me...so do you disagree with Hayek or Samuelson?

Your argument is in the OP.

I have outlined why I disagree with you. Perhaps you'd care to read my posts?

The OP's idea... the US Congress is not Omniscient and therefore there is no justification for any system other than tax choice.

My initial criticism of this is based on the idea that the OP fundamentally fails to adequately descrive government as a thing.

The fundamental problem with the idea that the OP presents is that government is not, I repeat not, the same as being a consumer shopping at McDonald's or, indeed, McDonald's itself.

As my examples shows I was attaching that to a reply Xero made to Infactum. It applies to the OP in that the same error is made there. The OP's two examples are "public education" and "milk". The OP assumes that these are, somehow, the same. This reflects the basic misunderstanding of what govt. actually is... shown by continued attempts to model govt. as just another producer. I elaborated on this point in my next post.

You can argue that somebody benefits from public education, but you can't know their utility function. If you could then you would be omniscient. Nobody is omniscient so we have to allow people to indicate exactly how much they value public education. If you value public education, but you feel it's adequately funded, then it doesn't make you a free-rider if you give your tax dollars to the EPA instead. If you value public education...and feel it's inadequately funded...but you give your taxes to the EPA instead...then clearly you feel that protecting the environment is a more important priority. You're still not a free-rider given that you're contributing to the common good.

One of the things about public education is that it doesn't exist because John thinks it is a good idea. It doesn't even exist because John's entire city thinks it is good. It exists because it is the best model of providing education out there for the nation as a whole.

Here's another thing about education: externalities.

ACG is a group that manages private schools in NZ. They do so because they can make money out of it as people need education, right? The government provides education because people need education. It's not about people wanting something and extracting benefit from it, this is a basis of need, not want.

The externalities point is relevant. It's why a market can never actually efficiently allocate this particular service. Education is a positive externality of consumption. This means that in a free market there would be less education being provided than is socially desirable. This could be internalised but economic wisdom says that this is impossible to actually achieve. In reality what is needed is a subsidy, to allow producers to receive a higher price and consumers pay a lower one. This demonstrates a major flaw in Xero's argument, here consumers are wrong. What their MU curves leads them to end up with results in a lower output than is socially desirable, it's not allocatively efficient.

As I have pointed out in the past, Xero pretends that his idea is different to no government. His Xero relief fund suggests otherwise in this thread, but lurkers I suggest following that link... it's plain English and short. Xero has, in this thread, been rabbiting on about utility a lot as well, with the basic idea being that the current system doesn't represent the utility "functions" of consumers (er, taxpayers). Externalities render this line of argument quite clearly wrong. Economists have long since decided that consumers acting together to maximise their own utility, doesn't result in the socially optimum equilibrium because of the likes of externalities. I think Xero knows this and I think that's why he ignored that post.

My next post had three main arguments, one of which generated a response from Xero that was irrelevant, but we'll come to that.

The primary difficulty is that a baker has no responsibility to his fellow baker. In fact, they're in competition. To an extent, two consumers are also in competition (I mean, who hasn't gone down to the bakery to find all the steak pies are gone?) but it's totally different.

What is good for one baker (i.e. there being only one bakery around) is bad for the consumer. What is good for the consumer (i.e. there being multiple bakeries) is bad for the bakers.

The government is not in the business of crippling one bakery for the benefit of the other. It considers that to be bad for the country as a whole because most governments these days are very interested in small businesses. If, however, this bakery was the baking industry's De Beer's the govt. probably would do something because there's no good reason to have a monopoly that's a bakery. The government is, however, in the business of ensuring that all aspects of the country are well looked after.

This is returning to that main point Xero does not present government as it really is. To an extent, the primary problem is that Xerographica treats everything like it's the same thing: microeconomics. Lots of the stuff he talks about is really macro-stuff and, as ASB pointed out, much of it is actually more politics than economics. Certainly, social policy is one of the main drivers of where/why/how money is spent. A government is not a supermarket and politicians certainly aren't "personal shoppers" picking and choosing what particular groceries to get. It's not meant to be and doesn't pretend to be, but every step of the way this is how Xerographica treats govt. and how he talks about it.

As you've been told many times, there's no apparent reason for a person in location A to help pay for a bridge in location B. Person A possibly doesn't even know where location B is. The government and Person B, however, are aware that a bridge is needed in Location B. The govt. is probably aware because of people like Person B (this is where that division of labour point comes up, govt. is compartmentalised and ultimately there are far more than 300 people in charge of how money is spent in the US, frankly it's naive to think that's true) that a bridge is needed (what is the point of electing representatives that don't represent your interests?). They take money from persons alphabet and then distribute it so that the bridge gets better. The multiplier effect says that this then benefits even Person A.

Under your system, the pool from which the bridge money comes from is at risk. It's entirely at the mercy of a population with divided interests. Look at NSG, there are many people who argue economics who don't come near your threads (probably due to the large amount of pseudo-economics but hey) and there are plenty of people don't argue economics at all. The general favourite subject in NSG is, by a country mile, gender issues (whether abortion, feminism, identity or something else). There are lots of minority topics out there though and plenty of topical interest. Your system is reliant on there being sufficient funding coming in from people who are interested on infrastructure and also in administration. I daresay the only result of any thinking through of your ideas is the conclusion that they'd quickly lead to disaster.

This is my usual example and it is one that Xerographica has never understood. I think, perhaps, this is because Xero struggles with the concept of "need" in much the same way as he doesn't get how "I want this" isn't the same as the economic sense of demanding whatever "this" is. This is also where we got Xero's irrelevant response.

An area in the north of a country is going to have concerns that the rest of the country doesn't know and/or care about. Theoretically, the pool is going to have a lot of cash from people who just go with infrastructure as a whole because that's what they think is important (we're assuming that Xero's "tax choice" idea has been implemented). However, that assumes anyone cares about this specific point. This is all really rather simple.

• Area A needs a new bridge. Area B is unaware of the pressures/foces acting on Area A and doesn't know that it needs a new bridge.
• The bridge is too expensive for all of Area A to afford even if they placed all their tax money into the bridge fund. Area B doesn't really have any concerns about infrastructure and Area A has other issues as well.
• As a result, there's not enough money to build the bridge. This results in no bridge... although Xero will tell you that the money gets spent elsewhere instead, but that still leaves Area A without the bridge it needs.
• This is a problem and it's caused because consumers acting in their own interest don't actually end up working in society's interest. The problem would be worsened if Area A was poor... it is established that Xero's basically a Victorian Coal Mine owner in that respect.

This problem doesn't exist in the current system. Sure, there is always disagreement over whether stuff is needed (see rail loop debate or how Auckland show expand... up or out). On the other hand, the people making the decisions are informed by veritable armies of underlings (i.e. civil servants and experts who are roped in where necessary)... so Xero is again wrong there (it's not 300). Admittedly, there are infrastructure problems wherever one lives but, and this is important, they'd get worse and this isn't limited to infrastructure. The brige is a stand-in for anything where non-locals aren't in a position to judge need but, at the same time, are required to help ensure that need is met. It's everyone working together being guided by what is very much a visible hand.

I've pointed out, previously, the implications of your position for the public sector and your response suggested that you accept that there's little to no practical difference between this and the abolition of the public sector/government. However, you also seem to like the idea. There are far too many flaws, repeated meaningless defences of the ideas and just general wrong-ness for this to be worth our time. The difficulty is that I think you dress your words with just the right amount of authoritative pseudo-economics to actually convince some of the lurkers. Frankly, your ideas are just too bad for society to take the risk that lurkers are being convinced.

Basically, you're ideas are too dangerous for society due to the implications for government. Also, there's an apparent contradiction (you like government you say) yet you don't let your apparent acceptance of this flaw actually help you change your mind.

I have also spent some time explaining that one of the reasons why I find your ideas so dubious is because you appear to be entirely a hobbyist and anyone at all with any formal education in economics disagrees (ranging from the likes of myself to those in uni to those who've got their degrees). Your use of concepts like "opportunity cost" is also frequently at odds with anyone who isn't you, "demand" is the worst example of this.

Your response about opportunity cost was (to go over this again, following this post) irrelevant because the bridge still needs to be built. You just skipped that point altogether and tried to keep going. Ever played Lego Racers and missed the cones? That's exactly what that is doing.

One of my main fundamental objections to "tax choice" is that, well, I don't think it's needed and the above is why your arguments are unconvincing and will remain so... because they tend to select facts as if to build a stronger case and then just chuck them out the window. When this is pointed out nothing happens and your back three weeks later to do it all again, although usually with a new key-word or something.

Fundamentally, tax choice exists because you vote for someone who represents your ideas about the national stage (i.e. macro not micro stuff). That's representative democracy and it's a good idea. Your MPs (or senators or congressmen, whatever they're called, let's stick with MPs because we all live in NZ) get your vote because you think, fundamentally, their ideas for the big picture are the same as yours. They don't get your vote because you think they're the best MP to do your groceries (as Xero would have us believe). That MP then helps make government policy (or oppose it if they end up in opposition) and that's where the Budget and stuff come into it with the govt. saying where it's going to spend stuff.

Reality is infinitely preferable to Xerographica's apparently one-man Crusade for tax choice.

Notice how Xero's incorrect view of govt. is worked into that?

Finally, I brought up Xero's perceived historical inaccuracy. (Namely, exaggeration of significance of what appears to be the Magna Carta... who knows, it's never mentioned by name but it does appear to be the most likely case... and poor assessment of its age + lack of understanding about God and kings.)

But, I mean, additionally, I really cannot see how the free-rider problem exists when everyone has to pay taxes. Thanks to GST I've contributed to every state provided thing I've ever come in contact with. And, for some reason, my head wants that sentence to be read in a Scottish accent (it's a weird feeling). On the other hand, it's pretty self-explanatory how Xerographica's "tax choice" concept would allow it to exist (imagine, if you will, that Area A's bridge got built by some miracle and some bastard from Area B mistakenly goes on holiday there and uses it, having spent all his taxes on defence).

[Alien Space Bats]

Your willingness to pay somebody indicates that you believe them to be sufficiently qualified to use your money to continue to serve your interests.

Wrong.

Do you think I base my choice of cat food on the political views of the owners of the company that manufactures the brand I buy? Because let me assure you, that's not at all a factor in my buying decision — nor can it be, if my cat has any kind of special dietary need due to health issues as he grows older.

Do you think I base my choice of laundry detergent on the views of the manufacturer? Or the brand of tea I buy? Or the kind of eggs? Rest assured, I don't make my purchasing decisions on these things, and neither do the vast majority of consumers. No, we buy what suits us — what gets our clothes clean, what suits our tastes, or what works within our budget.

Moreover, even if we wanted to base our purchasing decisions on these things, we can't; the information is simply unavailable. As a consumer, I am not entitled to a list of the shareholders of the company that manufactures my laundry soap, nor is that information listed beneath all the different brands of laundry soap or paper towels or toilet tissue in the store; then, too, even if I had that information, I have no right to demand that the shareholders of these companies present their political views to me so that I can choose intelligently when I "vote" between them by buying their products; and given the way the market works, there's no guarantee that it will offer me a "political party" of manufacturers to whom I can turn to meet all my household product needs.

I could continue along this vein for a very long time, but I believe at this point everybody but you probably grasps the fundamental absurdity of thinking that everyday marketplace purchasing decisions serve as some kind of proxy — Hell, as any kind of proxy — for an ordinary elections process. And that's without considering the way in which secondary purchasing decisions affect who gets my money; every time I buy gasoline for my car, I'm sure that some of that money ends up in the hands of the Koch Brothers — because the oil that is used to manufacture gasoline is generally bought, sold, and stored as an undifferentiated commodity, which means that Koch Oil is commingled with everybody else's oil before it even ends up at the refinery as fuel or additives or the raw materials for the manufacture of plastics. A modern economy is full of situations such as this: Oil, grain, coffee, electricity, and a huge list of other things are sold in bulk on the primary resource markets for use in manufacturing parts and then goods; services are provided by companies like Haliburton and Academi (a/k/a "The Artist Formerly Known as Blackwater") to other companies along the line in the course of product or service development and manufacture without any transparency whatsoever; the idea that I could effectively "vote with my pocketbook" in such a complicated economy is utterly laughable — not to mention hopelessly naïve.

You've made the usual libertarian mistake of failing to realize that some services can't be delivered through the marketplace — especially if we don't even correctly identify who the "consumers" of those services are to begin with (HINT: They're not the taxpayers, especially as individuals; rather, they are the citizenry-at-large, as a collective body with collective interests).

My argument is not that public goods should be kicked over to the private sector. My argument is that we have to create a market in the public sector in order to guarantee the optimal provision of public goods. Therefore, I'm a pragmatarian...not a libertarian. The distinction is extremely significant. Unlike a libertarian, I have absolutely no problem with a 50%, 60%, 70% or even higher tax rate...as long as taxpayers can choose where their taxes go.

"Have to"? No, we don't have to. And we don't even want to. You still haven't addressed (for example) the complete lack of knowledge on the part of both the general public and the ultra-rich elites into whose hands you would entrust society regarding military matters and geopolitical strategy; nor have you addressed the differential class interest between those who pay the bulk of the Nation's taxes and the greater mass of its population (which was rather my point when I spoke of streets and crime; after all, we don't see the super-rich backing candidates who want to see the bulk of their countrymen earn a living wage, now do we?). All in all, your system is both completely impractical and shamelessly immoral, and it's just not worth even trying to save, let alone something that we "have" to do.

As for your being a "pragmatarian", I see nothing at all pragmatic about a system that is fundamentally incapable of properly mustering the resources needed for national survival in a world where state-on-state aggression has been around for well over 5,000 years; nor do I see anything at all pragmatic about a system that deliberately disenfranchises nearly half of the National population while simultaneously ensuring that public policy will skew away from their interests — a combination guaranteed to produce a large and disaffected mass of people who will eventually rise up and overthrow it.

See, this is why you need political science: There is more to life than just economics.

[Galloism]

See, we need to test this on a large, but somewhat smaller, scale to see if its viable as a strategy.

I recommend we have Walmart shareholders each decide how they want the $142 of gross income applicable to each share be spent each year. The board of directors no longer makes a budget. The individual shareholders decide what portion of walmart's expenses are important to them.

The free market will sort the details.

Personally, I'm going to buy a few shares and put my $142 of revenue per share into space exploration.

[Infactum]

Ok, I will have to ellide some of my response to your massive wall of quotes, but I will attempt to make my argument as clearly as possible through a series of questions:

1) Do you agree that goods have varying degrees of publicness? That is, under a tax choice system, there would be some goods which are more dispersed in their benefits than other goods despite both being offered on the "menu".

"We maximize value when we give people the freedom to choose who they exchange with."

This statement does not follow:

"Given that it's the Truth it's relevant whether we're talking about this forum or the public sector."

You are conflating dissimilar goods and markets with no reason to assume that these things behave in exactly the same way. It is my contention that you cannot by any means prove that they do (indeed, I believe that they do not), and the examples and situations I have proposed exist to show that this conclusion is incorrect.

Goods can't behave at all. People behave. And you either value their behavior or you do not. A market is a bunch of people going around deciding how much they value other people's behavior.

Public goods are dissimilar though in the sense that people can benefit from them without having to contribute to them. For example, let's say that Bob values my efforts to share basic economics with others. But he strongly suspects that I'm going to continue to do so whether or not he gives me some positive feedback (money). So he doesn't chip in...and because of a lack of positive feedback...I discontinue my efforts and Bob is worse off (by his own standards) as a result. But if Bob was forced to set aside $40 a month for "public goods"...then why wouldn't he give me some money if he valued my efforts more than he valued the alternative uses of these "tax dollars"?

No, Bob wouldn't. He strongly suspects that you will continue regardless, so he'll chip into other public goods (classing your efforts as a "public good" is suspect from my perspective, but I'll go with it) that he also values. Unless, of course, Bob is behaving irrationally and is not consistent with the assumptions of a market actor.

Also, while I contend that talking about goods behaving is perfectly clear economic parlance, I will explicitly state that I mean "how actors in the market for those goods behave."

However no decentralized pricing system can serve to determine optimally these levels of collective consumption. Other kinds of "voting" or "signalling" would have to be tried. But, and this is the point sensed by Wicksell but perhaps not fully appreciated by Lindahl, now it is in the selfish interest of each person to give false signals, to pretend to have less interest in a given collective consumption activity than he really has, etc. I must emphasize this: taxing according to a benefit theory of taxation can not at all solve the computational problem in the decentralized manner possible for the first category of "private" goods to which the ordinary market pricing applies and which do not have the "external effects" basic to the very notion of collective consumption goods. - Paul A. Samuelson, The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure

False signals. Sure, people are utility maximizers. Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. If taxes were voluntary...and people understood that their tax obligation depended on the answers they gave...then obviously they would have an incentive to lie about how much benefit they derived from any particular public good...in order to pay less taxes. They would have a monetary incentive to lie. (1)

But what happens if their tax obligation was a given? If they have to pay $10,000 in taxes no matter what, then what incentive could they possibly have to give false signals? (2) If the $10,000 is a foregone conclusion, given that people are utility maximizers, they'll have an incentive to shop around and try and get the most bang for their buck.

Millions of taxpayers shopping around trying to get the most bang for their buck will incentive producers to give taxpayers the most public goods for their tax dollars.

So yes...public goods are dissimilar to private goods. But once we incentive people to give true signals, then in both situations we simply have people going around deciding how much they value other people's behavior.

See bolded numbers in spoiler.
1) As long as there is a spread in the publicness of goods available, there is still incentive to lie.
2) If I can get you to pay for the highway, I can dump more money into the DoE. Both are public, but the DoE benefits me more than you (and we both benefit from the highway). The DoE also benefits me less than the highway does*. The best way to get you to fund the highway is to convince you that I am completely uninterested in the Highway and believe it to be useless, despite knowing it is useful. I may even try and convince you that I am irrational and cannot be convinced to fund it. It's an interesting new take on Highway Chicken. You would probably do the same to try and fund your favorite slightly less public agency. And we can see that there are all kinds of benefits to sending false signals.

*Note, my behavior is not predicated on my absolute knowledge of my own utility function, merely my belief (which is reasonable IMO).

Also, I'll admit to not having read the Samuelson paper because the conclusion is reasonable, I am short on time, and your arguement is invalid independent of Samuelson's correctness. He appears to be making approximately the same argument I am, however.

Thus, considered in themselves, in their own nature, in their normal state, and apart from all abuses, public services are, like private services, purely and simply acts of exchange. - Frédéric Bastiat, Private and Public Services

You exchange $5 for a haircut because you value the haircut more than you value the alternative uses of those $5 dollars. You exchange $300 for environmental protection because you value the environment more than you value the alternative uses of those $300 dollars. Opportunity cost is relevant and essential no matter whether we're talking about private goods, club goods or public goods.

Once a tax obligation is a foregone conclusion, then heck, you might as well get the most bang for your buck...

I agree completely, which is why a set of rational actors will tend towards the least public goods on the menu, which, in turn, often causes them to choose the least total good.

Under most real-world taxing institutions, the tax price per unit at which collective goods are made available to the individual will depend, at least to some degree, on his own behavior. This element is not, however, important under the major tax institutions such as the personal income tax, the general sales tax, or the real property tax. With such structures, the individual may, by changing his private behavior, modify the tax base (and thus the tax price per unit of collective goods he utilizes), but he need not have any incentive to conceal his "true" preferences for public goods. - James M. Buchanan (1), The Economics of Earmarked Taxes

We cannot provide efficient levels of public goods without knowing people's true preferences for public goods. Samuelson's theoretical model assumes that people's preferences are given...but most public finance economists understand the necessity of determining people's true preferences.

This is the best "nutshell" description...

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 proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

"Given the other possible uses of their money"...opportunity cost. If we create a market in the public sector and allow taxpayers to shop for themselves, then it's a given that they will evaluate the alternative uses of their tax dollars. The result will be the optimal provision of public goods.

I won't pretend to speak for Samuelson, but you DO NOT need to precisely know a utility function to provision public goods in a good way. If you can approximate one at all you can have real utility gains. That is, over providing a Highway is probably better than optimally providing local roads. It is certainly possible, and that possibility is all you need to make tax choice not provably a better system.

More boldedness
1) Buchanan, if I am parsing this quote correctly, seems to be saying that there is not incentive to lie under the current system. That is debatable, but not obviously false. Unless he is talking about transitioning the current collection system to choice on the back end. It is not clear from the quote.

Poor choice on my end. I did neglect the collective veto you include in your tax choice system. Lets say, instead, that you value the Department of Education, but not as much as you value a millennium of peace and prosperity. Also assume that as long as at least 70% of the budget goes to the military, these 1000 years will be wonderful, but nothing will be different from 71-100%. The Department of Education has a positive return on every dollar you give it (but is still not as valuable as having at least 70% go to the military).

Which would you choose to fund?

Why am I assuming that defense, rather than education, will be the key to future peace and prosperity? If I could truly know that then yeah, you should really want me to be a dictator. But I can't know that so we infinitely increase our chances of success by allowing people to invest in different solutions to the same problem...

You don't have to know, you just have to believe. Lets say 85+% of the tax base believed that 70% level. Furthermore, they all believed that 85+% believed that. This, according to you, would be the absolute best prediction of the the future.

As a member of that tax base, would you fund the DoD or the Department of Education? This answer is important.

A second point of broad consensus among critics stresses that publicness in consumption must not necessarily mean that all persons value a good’s utility equally, Mendez (1999), for example, illustrates this point by examining peace as a PG. Some policy-makers might opt for increased defense spending in order to safeguard peace. However, this decision could siphon off scarce resources from programmes in the areas of health and education. Other policy-makers might object to such a consequence and prefer to foster peace through just the opposite measure -- improved health and education for all. Especially under conditions of extreme disparity and inequity, the first strategy could indeed provoke even more conflict and unrest, securing national borders by unsettling people’s lives. - Inge Kaul, Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century

I could value a highway system 100X more than anything else, but if I know it's going to be funded, I should dump my cash into the next best thing. It is terribly irrational to prioritize you spending decisions based on what you value most. Do you agree with the last sentence?

If what I value most isn't at all feasible then maybe I should focus on investing in plausible endeavors. But nothing ventured nothing gained. If people could choose where their taxes go...then there are going to be as many different investment strategies as there are people.

The point is that a highway is entirely very feasible. For Congress. Getting independent actors to act in concert is somewhere between much harder and impossible (depending on rationality and information).

But it is my assertion that market actors would not build I-64 despite it being globally better (and demonstrably so) than a patchwork of locally maintained roads. It is the continued problem of local rationality not producing global rationality.

In a pragmatarian system, I don't think it would be unreasonable for taxpayers to have the option to give their taxes to foreign governments...A Global Free-trade Agreement for Public Goods. That's infinitely more global than our current system.

My apologies, I slipped into math jargon mode. By local I mean independent rationality, and by global I meant the the best collective set of choices for the actors.

I've addressed the notion of approximation above, so I'll focus on the latter accusation.
? If you could convince me that tax choice would lead to a better world, I would certainly support it whole heartedly. I would also be glad to be certain of something in economics - rarely does one encounter a field with such complexity and political muddling of the messages.

Scarcity means that you can either choose x or y...

It is through the gaze of my extinguished self that I realize the limitations that make scarcity necessary. Through this gaze into my own limitedness - a limit always established by the impending cessation of space and time for me - through this gift of death, I discover in nature the best way to be efficient. Thanks to death I must choose x rather than y. This has become a feature of 'nature' - a demystified 'nature' that bears no possibility of participation in the eternal. This is consistent with capitalism. - D. Stephen Long

Yeah...no participation in the eternal...but definitely participation in building a better world.

Basically you have an idea of...heaven...but on earth. So you choose whichever option (x or y) will result in the shortest distance between you and your utopia. Should you give your tax dollars to the EPA...or the DoD...which decision will bring you closer to a better world? (1)

Each taxpayer could be contributing to a community which would become more reflective of the kind of world in which he or she would like to live. Gaudeat Emptor! - Daniel J. Brown, The Case For Tax-Target Plans

But by forcing people's interest's to compete, you lose the cooperative benefits. In some cases it seems plausible that this out weighs efficiency gains.

Given scarcity...people's interests are always competing... (2)

By preferring my work, simply by giving it my time, my attention, by preferring my activity as a citizen or as a professional philosopher, writing and speaking here in a public language, French in my case, I am perhaps fulfilling my duty. But I am sacrificing and betraying at every moment all my other obligations: my obligation to the other others whom I know or don’t know, the billions of my fellows (without mentioning the animals that are even more other others than my fellows), my fellows who are dying of starvation or sickness. I betray my fidelity or my obligations to other citizens, to those who don't speak my language and to whom I neither speak or respond, to each of those who listen or read, and to whom I neither respond nor address myself in the proper manner, that is, in a singular manner (this is for the so-called public space to which I sacrifice my so-called private space), thus also to those I love in private, my own, my family, my son, each of whom is the only son I sacrifice to the other, every one being sacrificed to every one else in this land of Moriah that is our habitat every second of every day. - Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death

God I love that passage. Here's the same thing in economic terms... (3)

The concept of opportunity cost (or alternative cost) expresses the basic relationship between scarcity and choice. If no object or activity that is valued by anyone is scarce, all demands for all persons and in all periods can be satisfied. There is no need to choose among separately valued options; there is no need for social coordination processes that will effectively determine which demands have priority. In this fantasized setting without scarcity, there are no opportunities or alternatives that are missed, forgone, or sacrificed. - James M. Buchanan

Yes, I understand opportunity cost and scarcity. These are not complex, and people waxing poetic on them is not actual argument.

1) That depends heavily on wherever everyone else chooses to put their funds. This dependence makes it a global game, which independent actors are bad at. Contrast things in the private sector: my utility/$ from buying diet coke does not go markedly down because enough money has been spent on diet coke by other people.
And its a better world for me. If everyone behaved as a utilitarian, tax choice wouldn't be bad.
2) Yes, and?
3) If reading a passage that agrees with you brings so much pleasure, I ask that you consider that confirmation bias might be clouding your judgement.

No, my repeated assertion is that centralized spending decisions give more power than decentralized actors and that, in some cases, this makes up for the inefficiency in allocation of the power created. The whole point is that you don't need to be as informed as the market to have a net benefit.

The size of the pie also absolutely depends on concentration of decision making. A person with $1 Billion dollars to spend has more economic and real power than 10,000 people with $100,000 dollars each have total. Do you agree with this statement? I believe I can prove it if not.

And it's the power that matters because it's the power that provides utility.

Let's say that I find you the absolutely cheapest ticket to Timbuktu. Therefore, you should buy the ticket regardless of your preferences?

The public sector fails because because preferences are assumed. As a result, it's a given that we end up with quantities of public goods that do not match the preferences of taxpayers...but it's ok because the public goods were produced in the least costly manner. Taxpayers would have preferred more education...but instead they received more war. But no worries...the bullets were bought in bulk. I didn't need to have a heart transplant...but at least I got a great deal. My preference is to date women, but at least the guy I'm dating is low maintenance. I like to look on the bright side. (1)

Economies of scale are only valuable when whatever is being produced truly matches consumers' preferences. Otherwise, you're simply destroying value. You're shifting resources away from more valuable uses. (2)

1) And we're back to assuming the government know nothing about what people want. This is demonstrably false. Even if you assume all humans are special snowflakes with wildly diverging interests (we're demonstrably not), the government can easily gather data on mass trends. You can claim that this data may not be as good as a market system, as I have been stipulating for the sake of argument, but you would be hard pressed to show that this data is really bad.

2) It's not just an economy of scale. It's the difference between entire projects being feasible or unfeasible.

[Xerographica]

1) Do you agree that goods have varying degrees of publicness? That is, under a tax choice system, there would be some goods which are more dispersed in their benefits than other goods despite both being offered on the "menu".

Unlike 100% of the other houses in my neighborhood here in Southern California..my front yard does not have a lawn. Instead, it has a collection of some of the most interesting and unusual tropical dry forest succulents and drought tolerant plants from around the world. My city actually gave me an award for it. Basically my front yard is a small slice of what people have to pay to see at local botanical gardens. Of course, nobody has to pay to see my yard. It's "free" for anybody who happens to be in the area. Does this mean though that everybody values my yard equally? Nope, my next door neighbor who frequently tells me how much she enjoys my yard told me that that the neighbor across the street said my yard was too full of "branches".

How dispersed are the benefits of my front yard? How many degrees of publicness does my front yard have? Just because the benefits are dispersed...does not mean that everybody values my front yard equally. The current system forces people to pay for things that they don't derive any benefit from. It's the equivalent of forcing my neighbor across the street to pay me for the maintenance of my yard despite the fact that my yard provides her with negative utility.

1. Is the forced rider problem a real problem?
2. Is the preference revelation problem a real problem?
3. Is it a problem that our current system concentrates benefits and disperses costs?

No, Bob wouldn't. He strongly suspects that you will continue regardless, so he'll chip into other public goods (classing your efforts as a "public good" is suspect from my perspective, but I'll go with it) that he also values. Unless, of course, Bob is behaving irrationally and is not consistent with the assumptions of a market actor.

If Bob doesn't chip in, and has never chipped in...then how can you can jump to the conclusion that Bob values my efforts? What evidence do you have that he's straying from his true preferences?

1) As long as there is a spread in the publicness of goods available, there is still incentive to lie.

So pacifists would have an incentive to pay for war? Because that would certainly be a lie. My neighbor across the street would have an incentive to pay for my front yard? That would also be a lie. Environmentalists would have an incentive to pay for a massive public works project that would destroy the habitat of extremely endangered plants and animals? That would also be a lie.

Honestly it's not a "lie" if somebody doesn't pay for something they think is adequately funded. Neither is it a lie if they are willing to forego funding something that they truly believe is underfunded...in order to avoid an even greater sacrifice.

The EPA is usually an environmentalist's priority...except when Canada is threatening to invade and kill everybody that the environmentalist knows and loves. How are you going to say that he's lying if he funds the DoD rather than the EPA? You're going to tell him that he's giving a false signal because he's not willing to sacrifice his family for snail darters?

2) If I can get you to pay for the highway, I can dump more money into the DoE. Both are public, but the DoE benefits me more than you (and we both benefit from the highway). The DoE also benefits me less than the highway does*. The best way to get you to fund the highway is to convince you that I am completely uninterested in the Highway and believe it to be useless, despite knowing it is useful. I may even try and convince you that I am irrational and cannot be convinced to fund it. It's an interesting new take on Highway Chicken. You would probably do the same to try and fund your favorite slightly less public agency. And we can see that there are all kinds of benefits to sending false signals.

It's a false signal to try and persuade you to fund something that I value? It's a false signal to try and persuade you to buy me lunch?

If the environmentalist can get out of paying the EPA simply by persuading you to pay the EPA instead...then good for him. But what the chances that your contribution is going to make up the difference? Are you that wealthy? Clearly the environmentalist isn't going to waste his time/energy trying to persuade you to pay for something that he feels is adequately funded. Therefore, from his perspective, the EPA is inadequately funded...which is why he's trying to persuade you to make a contribution to the EPA. If you think he's trying to pull a fast one on you...then why not just ask to see his receipt? If he already spent all his taxes on the EPA...then he could prove it simply by showing you his receipt.

There's not going to be anything "false" about neighbors trying to persuade each other that one shortage is more dire than another.

Also, I'll admit to not having read the Samuelson paper because the conclusion is reasonable, I am short on time, and your arguement is invalid independent of Samuelson's correctness. He appears to be making approximately the same argument I am, however.

You really seem to be genuinely interested in the topic, but you're not willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of your time to read one of the most important (and shortest) papers on the topic? Are you giving me false signals? I'm just giving you a hard time. Clearly I appreciate the necessity of respecting people's freedom to prioritize.

I agree completely, which is why a set of rational actors will tend towards the least public goods on the menu, which, in turn, often causes them to choose the least total good.

Regardless of their preferences? Regardless how underfunded a valued government organization is? All the people who voluntarily contribute to non-profits are going to lie about their priorities simply because they can choose where their taxes go? Environmentalists are going to forego funding the EPA in order to fund the least public good on the menu?

If something lacks that much publicness...if the benefits are so narrow...if the interests are so special...then why in the world hasn't it been removed from the menu? What percentage of citizens would have to spend their taxes on a war in order for you to agree that the war constituted a genuine public good? For example, if only one person gave their tax dollars to the DoD in order to help fund a strike against Syria...would you say that the military strike was a public good? Would you say that it should be on the menu?

What would be the threshold for a public good to be credible? What is the minimum percentage of the population that would have to fund a public good in order for it to be on the menu? Would you say that farm subsidies should be on the menu if only .001% of the population was willing to pay for them?

I won't pretend to speak for Samuelson, but you DO NOT need to precisely know a utility function to provision public goods in a good way. If you can approximate one at all you can have real utility gains. That is, over providing a Highway is probably better than optimally providing local roads. It is certainly possible, and that possibility is all you need to make tax choice not provably a better system.

Over providing a highway is never better than optimally providing local roads...given that optimally providing local roads frees up resources for more valuable uses. Why would I overspend on clothing when doing so would sacrifice money that could be spent on more valuable things?

Indeed, presuming that individuals need and will choose to buy, regardless of price, a given level of safety is a grossly simplistic and paternalistic view of human behavior. Consumers are often willing to forgo safety, because of the cost, in deference to other things. Some are even willing to forgo health and years of life in order to have other things now. People smoke even though they know that smoking is harmful. Poor people buy cheap, less-than-reliable electric appliances because by doing so, they can have more of other things. - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free

If people forego the best/biggest highway possible...in order to give more money to cancer research...it would't be the "wrong" answer. It would be the allocation that provides the most value. It might not provide the most value to you...but clearly it provides the most value to society as a whole. It would be the most good for the most people.

Sacrifice reveals value. If people are willing to sacrifice the war on drugs...then it's because there are other public goods that they value more.

1) Buchanan, if I am parsing this quote correctly, seems to be saying that there is not incentive to lie under the current system. That is debatable, but not obviously false. Unless he is talking about transitioning the current collection system to choice on the back end. It is not clear from the quote.

He's talking about people "earmarking" their taxes...designating exactly where their taxes go. He's saying that if the cost is a foregone conclusion, then people have an incentive to reveal their true preferences.

To my knowledge, Samuelson never once critiqued a decentralized system where the tax obligation was a foregone conclusion. Therefore, Samuelson, at least in his paper, definitely was not agreeing with your critique of false signals in a pragmatarian system. That I know of, there aren't any Nobel Prize economists that have critiqued a market in the public sector.

You don't have to know, you just have to believe. Lets say 85+% of the tax base believed that 70% level. Furthermore, they all believed that 85+% believed that. This, according to you, would be the absolute best prediction of the the future.

As a member of that tax base, would you fund the DoD or the Department of Education? This answer is important.

Either I believe that the DoD is worth my sacrifice...or I do not. If I fund it then clearly I believed that doing so would be worth the sacrifice. If I continue to fund it then clearly I confirmed that it was worth the sacrifice.

Either you believe that it's worth it to sacrifice your time for me...or you don't. If you sacrifice your time for me...then clearly you're guessing that it will be worth the sacrifice. If you continue to sacrifice your time for me then clearly you confirmed that it was worth the sacrifice.

Every investment is a guess. If it turned out that the investment was profitable...then we continue to make the investment until a possibly more profitable opportunity presents itself.

Honestly I'm struggling with your question...so if the answer is important then you're going to have to rephrase it.

The point is that a highway is entirely very feasible. For Congress. Getting independent actors to act in concert is somewhere between much harder and impossible (depending on rationality and information).

Yeah, and world wars are entirely very feasible as well. But just because something is feasible in no way shape or form means it's more valuable than the opportunity cost.

My apologies, I slipped into math jargon mode. By local I mean independent rationality, and by global I meant the the best collective set of choices for the actors.

Errr, the best collective choice for actors...within the US? Because those are the only individuals we care about? A more valuable answer can't possibly be found by eliminating barriers to trade? An individual is not collective enough...a global collective is too collective...so a national collective is just right? If environmentalists around the world want to give their taxes to the Brazilian EPA in order to conserve the Brazilian rain forest...then that's not the best collective choice for them?

Yes, I understand opportunity cost and scarcity. These are not complex, and people waxing poetic on them is not actual argument.

Derrida wasn't just waxing poetic, he was giving a personal insight into the myriad of trade-offs and sacrifices that he has to make on a daily basis. It's the epitome of complexity.

1) That depends heavily on wherever everyone else chooses to put their funds. This dependence makes it a global game, which independent actors are bad at. Contrast things in the private sector: my utility/$ from buying diet coke does not go markedly down because enough money has been spent on diet coke by other people.

The goods/services available in the private sector does not heavily depend on where everyone else chooses to put their funds? Artichokes are an option solely because I choose to purchase them? If I stop purchasing them then they'll cease to be an option? Actually artichokes are an option because enough people are willing to pay for them to be an option. If enough people are not willing to pay for them to be an option...then they really shouldn't be an option. Resources shouldn't be taken away from more valuable uses.

If I have enough artichokes...then there's no reason for me to buy more. If the EPA is adequately funded...then there's no reason for me to give them my tax dollars.

You have this concern that in a pragmatarian system people are going to fundamentally stray from their preferences. Yet, somehow you have absolutely no concern with how far the current system forces people to stray from their preferences.

3) If reading a passage that agrees with you brings so much pleasure, I ask that you consider that confirmation bias might be clouding your judgement.

Passages bring me pleasure because other people have easily said what I struggle to say. Therefore, they bring me pleasure because they facilitate communication. Sometimes I struggle trying to understand what you're trying to say. So it might help you hedge your bets if you shared passages that convey your point using different words.

1) And we're back to assuming the government know nothing about what people want. This is demonstrably false. Even if you assume all humans are special snowflakes with wildly diverging interests (we're demonstrably not), the government can easily gather data on mass trends. You can claim that this data may not be as good as a market system, as I have been stipulating for the sake of argument, but you would be hard pressed to show that this data is really bad.

I know you need food, clothing and entertainment...therefore just give me all the money that you'd spend on food, clothing and entertainment and I'll be your huckleberry? Close enough counts for horseshoes, hand grenades...and personal shoppers. C'mon, it will be a fun experiment. You'll be able to give me as many "hints" as you give your congressperson. How often do you personally talk to your congressperson anyways? Once a never? So it will be the same frequency with me.

I'm actually not at all hard pressed to show that the data is bad...Does Consumer Irrationality Trump Consumer Sovereignty? If the data is really bad for somebody who knows you spending their own money on you...then the data has to be far worse for somebody you've never even met spending other people's money on you. Close enough counts for horseshoes and hand grenades...not personal shoppers.

[Forsher]

Passages bring me pleasure because other people have easily said what I struggle to say. Therefore, they bring me pleasure because they facilitate communication. Sometimes I struggle trying to understand what you're trying to say. So it might help you hedge your bets if you shared passages that convey your point using different words.

Yeah, no. Generally your "passages" do not add anything to your argument except more length, a lack of clarity and disrupt the progression of what passes for logic in your posts.

If there's one thing to be said for English as it was taught to me is that my teachers were quite clear about how to quote something. You don't just chuck quotes in and hope for the best (i.e. what you do), you attach them to the framework of your argument and make them relevant. Or, in the words of one the markers, "Don't just stick in quotes -- make them part of your explanations." This is very similar to the response that your posts generate from us. Although, really, the misread version of that is more like how we respond, the quite antagonistic use of mate is notable, "Don't just stick in quotes -- mate."

To reinforce this point, here's an essay about the conflict between the individual and society as presented in Golding's work.

In the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding the theme of humanity’s inherent capability for evil was explored through Golding’s use of conflict. There are three main conflicts within the text. There is Jack’s rivalry with Ralph over leadership which can be considered symbolic of good versus evil. There is the almost war between the conch tribe and the spear tribe and there is fire versus meat.

The conflict that exists between Jack Merridew and the elected chief Ralph is more than a simple challenge for leadership, it is symbolic of the battle against good (represented by Ralph) and evil (Jack). Both boys begin the novel as leaders, Ralph brings all the boys together while Jack controls his choir with military discipline, but it is Ralph who wins the election; his campaign message is simple, “let him with the trumpet thing be chief” which sets up a later conflict. In victory Ralph is magnaminous and graciously allows Jack to “keep the Choir” in his words and even choose a role within their new society. Jack chose to be the lead hunter, again establishing the basis for a later conflict. This early conflict for leadership, contesting the election, establishes who is good and who is evil. Ralph’s magnaminosity is contrasted with Jack’s sourness at defeat. The attribution of ‘gracious victor’ to Ralph clearly makes him good while Jack gets the bad trait of ‘sore loser.’ Throughout the novel this conflict is explored further. Jack is always the instigator firmly aligning him with evil. Jack begins to ignore Ralph’s instructions early on, not yet strong enough to openly challenge Ralph’s leadership, and abandons him so ‘just me [Ralph] and Simon built the last [hut].” When Ralph challenges on any point his answer is, “We need meat,” and the choir always backs him up. This is the second phase of their conflict and is typified by Jack’s refusal to do what is asked of him. This third phase of their conflict is Jack’s direct challenge for leadership of the tribe. During the second phase both had gathered forces around each other. Ralph had two advisors in the almost prophetic Simon and the leadership option, the asthmatic Piggy. Jack had his loyal lieutenant Roger and, of course, the paramilitary Choir now hunters. The more militaristic nature of Jack’s side associates him with the leaders of military or pseudo-military coups like Mussolini who in the Western world are presented as the ‘bad-guys.’ Ralph leads the civilian government that is overthrown by the evil military, or pseudo-military, who are the ‘good-guys.’ Again, the nature of the conflict places Ralph and Jack on their respective sides, it can be expected that Jack would triumph in this new challenge but Golding defeats that expectation and Ralph manages to use democracy (again emphasising his goodness) to triumph. The defeated Jack fled to ‘castle rock’ where the sea was ‘dark’ not ‘peacock –coloured’ where Ralph’s government held sway. This is traditional light versus dark thinking and once again it is Jack’s conflict with Ralph that revealed it. Their conflict on a personal basis is now moistly over as Jack begins to cultivate a new tribe as his hunters join him at ‘castle-rock.’ The personal conflict between Ralph and Jack begins to explore the idea that man is inherently evil as it continually reinforces which side the two boys are on. Each element of three main phases does this and the conclusion of the third sows the seeds for the next major conflict.

Following Jack’s second defeated attempt to gain leadership of the boys two tribes began to form – the ‘conch tribe’ who were based on the ideas of society represented by the conch and the ‘spear tribe’ who were based on the idea of spear and what it symbolised: power. As it would turn out neither tribe would last very long but during their short lifespans the ‘spear tribes’ growth came at the cost of the ‘conch tribe.’ This culminated in a direct raid of those who remain of the ‘conch tribe’ to sieze Piggy’s glasses forcibly. The defence devolved into chaos against the organised sortie, “I got one” Ralph said but it was heavily implied that he’d injured one of Sam’n’eric as the damage dealt with damage done. The violence that the ‘spear tribe’ undertook in carrying out the raid confirmed that the evil which their leader, Jack, symbolised extended to all of them. Likewise, Ralph’s resolution to get back Piggy’s glasses once they realised it was his “specs” not the conch (a confusion that again emphasised their goodness) and Piggy’s and Sam’n’eric’s willingness to participate reinforced that they too were good. However, the organised Nazi-reminiscent evil of Jack’s ‘spear tribe’ murdered Piggy, tortured Sam’n’eric and declared war on Ralph, something the Naval Officer realised quickly, “Were you having a War?” he asked, making it clear that evil had triumphed over good. The trappings of society presented in the Naval Officer may have ended the conflict, the war, but their absence had allowed the evil to come loose. This was similar to the shattering of the conch at Piggy’s death, the symbol of their original society, marked the introduction of the heights of the boy’s evil. The conflict of the ‘spear’ and ‘conch’ tribes showed that it was society that was restraining evil. This was a development explored by the conflict and it is central to the theme of man’s inherent evil.

The final major conflict within Lord of the Flies is that of fire versus meat which pits the individual (meat) versus society (fire). One of the first acts of the boy’s society is creating a fire. “We need smoke” was Ralph’s view and they did because as a society it was the only possible way they could ever hope to be rescued. Thus fire was established as their key social need – something their society would have to provide. However, the fire went out because the individual’s desire for meat took crucial resources (Sam’n’eric) away from the fire because Jack, consistently portrayed at the individual against society always being defeated by democratic processes (a social function), said “We need meat.” As such meat was established as being the individual want versus the social need for fire. The manner in which the fire went out also made it clear that there could be fire or there could be meat, but not both. The pursuit of the individual want of meat consistently led to problems for society. When Ralph, that token for society as Jack’s antithesis, joined them on the hunt and almost did well Jack was furious at the intrusion on his domain. The hunt also discovered a viable alternative to beach life in ‘castle rock’ which disturbed Ralph but enthused Jack. The hunt also created the Lord of the Flies which set off the only person level headed enough to see ‘the Beast’ for what it truly was – a dead airman. The rituals of the then killed Simon before he could tell anyone. By this point the individual’s meat had well and truly won in the conflict with the social need of fire. Fire versus meat coveys the theme of (as Golding put it) “the darkness of man’s heart” because it was the desire for meat that brought about evil to the island and it came from the individual – man – not society. Even the final destructive fire at the end is social in origin. Ralph is a threat to the new society of individuals but in a final twist it saves his life. The Naval Officer said, “I saw your fire” as an explanation for his rescuing them but, of course, he himself was a symbol for society.

Golding used conflict to explore the theme of man’s inherent evil with in Lord of the Flies effectively. In this analysis it is made clear that the conflict of Jack and Ralph was the first stage of the exploration, establishing good and evil in the novel. The conflict of the ‘spear’ and ‘conch’ tribes elaborated on this, exploring the idea that society restrains evil which is why man is not usually evil. Finally, the conflict between the individual desire for meat and the social need for fire showed that evil comes from individuals – comes from man.

Hopefully, my point can be made on two levels. Firstly, it's quite unclear about what this is meant to do. Secondly, it does help support what I am saying but it's so poorly integrated into my argument to see this you need to be very familiar with what I am saying.

I'm actually not at all hard pressed to show that the data is bad...Does Consumer Irrationality Trump Consumer Sovereignty? If the data is really bad for somebody who knows you spending their own money on you...then the data has to be far worse for somebody you've never even met spending other people's money on you. Close enough counts for horseshoes and hand grenades...not personal shoppers.

"Personal Shoppers"? Really? It's been explained how the model of government from which the idea of "personal shoppers" come from is flawed by numerous individuals and yet here it is again.

It's quite simple, politicians are not and should not be considered personal shoppers, the idea is absurd and underpins your entire argument.

[Xerographica]

It's quite simple, politicians are not and should not be considered personal shoppers, the idea is absurd and underpins your entire argument.

Read this essay...The Use of Knowledge in Society...and share one passage that you disagree with the most and explain exactly why you disagree with it.

In case you missed it, Hayek received a Nobel Prize in no small part because of that essay.

[Xerographica]

Do you think I base my choice of cat food on the political views of the owners of the company that manufactures the brand I buy? Because let me assure you, that's not at all a factor in my buying decision — nor can it be, if my cat has any kind of special dietary need due to health issues as he grows older.

The business practices of your cat food company can't be a factor because you value the well-being of your cat? So ethical consumerism is only relevant when somebody does not value the product/good in consideration?

Do you think I base my choice of laundry detergent on the views of the manufacturer? Or the brand of tea I buy? Or the kind of eggs? Rest assured, I don't make my purchasing decisions on these things, and neither do the vast majority of consumers. No, we buy what suits us — what gets our clothes clean, what suits our tastes, or what works within our budget.

Great, so if we created a market in the public sector then consumers would spend their money on the public goods which suit their tastes, or what works within their budget.

Moreover, even if we wanted to base our purchasing decisions on these things, we can't; the information is simply unavailable. As a consumer, I am not entitled to a list of the shareholders of the company that manufactures my laundry soap, nor is that information listed beneath all the different brands of laundry soap or paper towels or toilet tissue in the store; then, too, even if I had that information, I have no right to demand that the shareholders of these companies present their political views to me so that I can choose intelligently when I "vote" between them by buying their products; and given the way the market works, there's no guarantee that it will offer me a "political party" of manufacturers to whom I can turn to meet all my household product needs.

If you want it to be available...then you vote for its availability and then give your taxes to whichever government organization is responsible for ensuring compliance.

I could continue along this vein for a very long time, but I believe at this point everybody but you probably grasps the fundamental absurdity of thinking that everyday marketplace purchasing decisions serve as some kind of proxy — Hell, as any kind of proxy — for an ordinary elections process. And that's without considering the way in which secondary purchasing decisions affect who gets my money; every time I buy gasoline for my car, I'm sure that some of that money ends up in the hands of the Koch Brothers — because the oil that is used to manufacture gasoline is generally bought, sold, and stored as an undifferentiated commodity, which means that Koch Oil is commingled with everybody else's oil before it even ends up at the refinery as fuel or additives or the raw materials for the manufacture of plastics. A modern economy is full of situations such as this: Oil, grain, coffee, electricity, and a huge list of other things are sold in bulk on the primary resource markets for use in manufacturing parts and then goods; services are provided by companies like Haliburton and Academi (a/k/a "The Artist Formerly Known as Blackwater") to other companies along the line in the course of product or service development and manufacture without any transparency whatsoever; the idea that I could effectively "vote with my pocketbook" in such a complicated economy is utterly laughable — not to mention hopelessly naïve.

The economy is complicated...therefore let's have 300 people determine the allocation of half the economy? It's too big a sacrifice to spend your money ethically...but it's a small sacrifice to vote ethically?

"Have to"? No, we don't have to. And we don't even want to. You still haven't addressed (for example) the complete lack of knowledge on the part of both the general public and the ultra-rich elites into whose hands you would entrust society regarding military matters and geopolitical strategy; nor have you addressed the differential class interest between those who pay the bulk of the Nation's taxes and the greater mass of its population (which was rather my point when I spoke of streets and crime; after all, we don't see the super-rich backing candidates who want to see the bulk of their countrymen earn a living wage, now do we?). All in all, your system is both completely impractical and shamelessly immoral, and it's just not worth even trying to save, let alone something that we "have" to do.

Find me a passage that states that the optimal provision of public goods does not depend on people's preferences. Until then, you're simply shoveling ignorant crap at me. You're pulling shit out of your ass to try and cover the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And you're going to continue to do so because it's easier than actually making the effort to learn something about public finance. In case you missed it, public finance is the topic of this thread.

But feel free to spew away...I find it mildly entertaining.

[Forsher]

It's quite simple, politicians are not and should not be considered personal shoppers, the idea is absurd and underpins your entire argument.

Read this essay...The Use of Knowledge in Society...and share one passage that you disagree with the most and explain exactly why you disagree with it.

In case you missed it, Hayek received a Nobel Prize in no small part because of that essay.

Woah... deja vu. (End stupid section of reply.)

Why? Does it defend your model?

Did you read the essay I presented? Are you actually prepared to present a point or engage in rebuttal?

How about, for a change, you actually go out and make an argument. I've laid down my views perfectly clearly (twice, once with quite detailed explanation) and both times you've attempted to dodge it by ignoring it. I mean, hey, the second one actually included reference to something that it didn't need to...

But, I mean, additionally, I really cannot see how the free-rider problem exists when everyone has to pay taxes. Thanks to GST I've contributed to every state provided thing I've ever come in contact with. And, for some reason, my head wants that sentence to be read in a Scottish accent (it's a weird feeling). On the other hand, it's pretty self-explanatory how Xerographica's "tax choice" concept would allow it to exist (imagine, if you will, that Area A's bridge got built by some miracle and some bastard from Area B mistakenly goes on holiday there and uses it, having spent all his taxes on defence).

I mean, surely, Xerographica, O Great Editor of Wikipedia Articles, can address that. It should be child's play for one such as he. It's not like it's a particularly substantial part of my criticisms of his idea either so he can even make it look like by doing so he's actually presented a rebuttal to them.

Do you think I base my choice of cat food on the political views of the owners of the company that manufactures the brand I buy? Because let me assure you, that's not at all a factor in my buying decision — nor can it be, if my cat has any kind of special dietary need due to health issues as he grows older.

The business practices of your cat food company can't be a factor because you value the well-being of your cat? So ethical consumerism is only relevant when somebody does not value the product/good in consideration?

You're aware that the market can fail? You know that this is a serious economic idea considered by actual economists as opposed to guys with a confusing turn of phrase that elicit aesthetic responses from you?

Anyway, ASB's point is that need is driving his consumption here... not want. It's like the bridge and, again, you fail to counter it. ASB cannot consider the wide variety of factors because, what do you know, he either buys the food or let his cat die. He values the cat more, see?

His main point though is that, for the most part, consumers do not consider the wider implications of decisions. This can be, again, consumption externalities and it is market failure (hence the start of this reply). Fair Trade chocolate campaigns are an attempt to internalise these issues but, instead, fair trade is usually just used to engage in price discrimination (or possibly market segregation... the point was the coffee shop, because that was the lecturer's example, just uses fair trade to charge a considerable higher mark-up and get away with it).

The economy is complicated...therefore let's have 300 people determine the allocation of half the economy? It's too big a sacrifice to spend your money ethically...but it's a small sacrifice to vote ethically?

Again, it's not just 300 people and it's either naive or dishonest to claim otherwise.

Find me a passage that states that the optimal provision of public goods does not depend on people's preferences. Until then, you're simply shoveling ignorant crap at me. You're pulling shit out of your ass to try and cover the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And you're going to continue to do so because it's easier than actually making the effort to learn something about public finance. In case you missed it, public finance is the topic of this thread.

But feel free to spew away...I find it mildly entertaining.

Yes, very good Xerographica, no-one at all can see that you have no way to counter the following criticisms if you ask him for "passages" like the ones that you provide, which are ridiculed.

• "lack of knowledge on the part of [taxpayers] regarding military matters and geopolitical strategy"
• differences in needs and values of various classes within society, which are in competition

To put that last one another way, here's a passage which you should have read before...

This is a problem and it's caused because consumers acting in their own interest don't actually end up working in society's interest. The problem would be worsened if Area A was poor... it is established that Xero's basically a Victorian Coal Mine owner in that respect.

And that first one, well...

True but even the simpletons in the service has a better idea of war then an arm chair general.....

Guys I played a loooooooooot of Starcraft I think I'm most qualified to discuss the military capabilities of East Asian states.

Don't worry, there's heaps to choose from.

Apologies to all and sundry for resorting the the intellectually dishonest tactic of questioning the other guy's intellectual honesty.

[Xerographica]

Why? Does it defend your model?

Read this essay...The Use of Knowledge in Society...and share one passage that you disagree with the most and explain exactly why you disagree with it. Or just continue on with your irrelevance.

[Alien Space Bats]

The business practices of your cat food company can't be a factor because you value the well-being of your cat? So ethical consumerism is only relevant when somebody does not value the product/good in consideration?

Absolutely. I can buy choose to buy tasty beer, or "socially responsible" beer. If I'm lucky, the two brews will be identical; if not, I have to decide if "social responsibility" is worth drinking beer that tastes like vinegary piss. Guess which choice is going to prevail, especially if I reach the point where I get tired of throwing up?

Great, so if we created a market in the public sector then consumers would spend their money on the public goods which suit their tastes, or what works within their budget.

Markets assume informed consumers. In real life, very few consumers understand health care well enough to make intelligent choices (do you know how balloon angioplasty works, and when it should and should not be used?); how are they supposed to choose between, say, rival nuclear war-fighting strategies, rapid airborne force deployment vs. a larger Marine corps, different kinds of spy satellite systems, or alternative approaches to intelligence gathering (to confine ourselves just to national security issues, which are themselves just a subset of what our government spends money on)?

The economy is complicated...therefore let's have 300 people determine the allocation of half the economy? It's too big a sacrifice to spend your money ethically...but it's a small sacrifice to vote ethically?

Absolutely.

Voting ethically doesn't mean I have to drink bad beer.

Moreover, even if we wanted to base our purchasing decisions on these things, we can't; the information is simply unavailable. As a consumer, I am not entitled to a list of the shareholders of the company that manufactures my laundry soap, nor is that information listed beneath all the different brands of laundry soap or paper towels or toilet tissue in the store; then, too, even if I had that information, I have no right to demand that the shareholders of these companies present their political views to me so that I can choose intelligently when I "vote" between them by buying their products; and given the way the market works, there's no guarantee that it will offer me a "political party" of manufacturers to whom I can turn to meet all my household product needs.

If you want it to be available...then you vote for its availability and then give your taxes to whichever government organization is responsible for ensuring compliance.

You're missing the greater point. Your argument is that I can indirectly determine what government spends its money on by conditioning my choice is the market for private goods and services in such a way as to favor those among the wealthy who share my views. Yet in truth, I have no real way of even knowing who owns most of the companies that offer me private products, let alone what they believe in — and those owners are under no obligation to tell me what those views are anyway.

Find me a passage that states that the optimal provision of public goods does not depend on people's preferences. Until then, you're simply shoveling ignorant crap at me. You're pulling shit out of your ass to try and cover the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And you're going to continue to do so because it's easier than actually making the effort to learn something about public finance. In case you missed it, public finance is the topic of this thread.

But feel free to spew away...I find it mildly entertaining.

No, actually, the structure of government is the subject of this thread, thank you very much.

You're claiming that the power of the purse — a power on which all governmental operations depends — should be invested in super-rich taxpayers with no experience in or understanding of said governmental operations (such as, for example, the conduct of the defense of the United States and surrounding waters), and that this will work out better for everyone.

So prove it.

[Forsher]

The business practices of your cat food company can't be a factor because you value the well-being of your cat? So ethical consumerism is only relevant when somebody does not value the product/good in consideration?

Absolutely. I can buy choose to buy tasty beer, or "socially responsible" beer. If I'm lucky, the two brews will be identical; if not, I have to decide if "social responsibility" is worth drinking beer that tastes like vinegary piss. Guess which choice is going to prevail, especially if I reach the point where I get tired of throwing up?

Great, so if we created a market in the public sector then consumers would spend their money on the public goods which suit their tastes, or what works within their budget.

Markets assume informed consumers. In real life, very few consumers understand health care well enough to make intelligent choices (do you know how balloon angioplasty works, and when it should and should not be used?); how are they supposed to choose between, say, rival nuclear war-fighting strategies, rapid airborne force deployment vs. a larger Marine corps, different kinds of spy satellite systems, or alternative approaches to intelligence gathering (to confine ourselves just to national security issues, which are themselves just a subset of what our government spends money on)?

The economy is complicated...therefore let's have 300 people determine the allocation of half the economy? It's too big a sacrifice to spend your money ethically...but it's a small sacrifice to vote ethically?

Absolutely.

Voting ethically doesn't mean I have to drink bad beer.

If you want it to be available...then you vote for its availability and then give your taxes to whichever government organization is responsible for ensuring compliance.

You're missing the greater point. Your argument is that I can indirectly determine what government spends its money on by conditioning my choice is the market for private goods and services in such a way as to favor those among the wealthy who share my views. Yet in truth, I have no real way of even knowing who owns most of the companies that offer me private products, let alone what they believe in — and those owners are under no obligation to tell me what those views are anyway.

Find me a passage that states that the optimal provision of public goods does not depend on people's preferences. Until then, you're simply shoveling ignorant crap at me. You're pulling shit out of your ass to try and cover the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And you're going to continue to do so because it's easier than actually making the effort to learn something about public finance. In case you missed it, public finance is the topic of this thread.

But feel free to spew away...I find it mildly entertaining.

No, actually, the structure of government is the subject of this thread, thank you very much.

You're claiming that the power of the purse — a power on which all governmental operations depends — should be invested in super-rich taxpayers with no experience in or understanding of said governmental operations (such as, for example, the conduct of the defense of the United States and surrounding waters), and that this will work out better for everyone.

So prove it.

Out of interest, ASB, what do you think of my retelling of your points?

The business practices of your cat food company can't be a factor because you value the well-being of your cat? So ethical consumerism is only relevant when somebody does not value the product/good in consideration?

You're aware that the market can fail? You know that this is a serious economic idea considered by actual economists as opposed to guys with a confusing turn of phrase that elicit aesthetic responses from you?

Anyway, ASB's point is that need is driving his consumption here... not want. It's like the bridge and, again, you fail to counter it. ASB cannot consider the wide variety of factors because, what do you know, he either buys the food or let his cat die. He values the cat more, see?

His main point though is that, for the most part, consumers do not consider the wider implications of decisions. This can be, again, consumption externalities and it is market failure (hence the start of this reply). Fair Trade chocolate campaigns are an attempt to internalise these issues but, instead, fair trade is usually just used to engage in price discrimination (or possibly market segregation... the point was the coffee shop, because that was the lecturer's example, just uses fair trade to charge a considerable higher mark-up and get away with it).

The economy is complicated...therefore let's have 300 people determine the allocation of half the economy? It's too big a sacrifice to spend your money ethically...but it's a small sacrifice to vote ethically?

Again, it's not just 300 people and it's either naive or dishonest to claim otherwise.

Find me a passage that states that the optimal provision of public goods does not depend on people's preferences. Until then, you're simply shoveling ignorant crap at me. You're pulling shit out of your ass to try and cover the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And you're going to continue to do so because it's easier than actually making the effort to learn something about public finance. In case you missed it, public finance is the topic of this thread.

But feel free to spew away...I find it mildly entertaining.

Yes, very good Xerographica, no-one at all can see that you have no way to counter the following criticisms if you ask him for "passages" like the ones that you provide, which are ridiculed.

• "lack of knowledge on the part of [taxpayers] regarding military matters and geopolitical strategy"
• differences in needs and values of various classes within society, which are in competition

[Forsher]

I think one of the issues (as I said in the pseudo thread) is that Xerographica doesn't really talk about anything other than this. Compare Ailiailia's list to the search of threads that he's posted in full stop... they're basically the same (some are where his name has been brought up in other contexts).

The point is that I don't think that Xerographica gets much practice with putting his political ideas into new contexts (read, real world examples/situations) and that's one of the main reasons why he struggles with a lot of the critiques that he receives. Compare the search of threads I have OP'd with the ones I've posted in. It's a very different looking list, that is much much smaller. What makes this particularly interesting is that I don't have that many more threads made than Xero but many thousands of more posts. For a better comparison someone with a similar number of posts should have been used.

What I am trying to get across is that, regardless of Xero's criticism of the last time I made this suggestion, Xero is unaware of the wider implications of what he thinks because (and again I use the terminology of individuals whose approaches to "debating" I often really disagree with) he deals with this subject in a vacuum, treats it in isolation and doesn't connect "tax choice" to the world around us. This is one reason, perhaps, why when he does find himself needing to do this (See the US Constitution argument with ASB) he is at a loss or, alternatively, makes vague remarks (1000 Year Baron King thing) and never clarifies them.

Ironically, Xero's objection demonstrates exactly why he is wrong.

Right, so I should participate in threads that don't match my preferences. You should too! We all should. That would really ensure that society's limited resources were efficiently allocated. Again, you fail to grasp even the most basic economics.

Xero only posts in threads that match his preferences. Basically, if it's not somehow connected to tax choice, he's not going to post in it.

His ideas are weaker for this... by only fulfilling Xero's preferences, Xero weakens what he cares about most.

In other words, Xero's posting habits are an example of where consumers acting in their own interests harm the total good.

Why? Does it defend your model?

Read this essay...The Use of Knowledge in Society...and share one passage that you disagree with the most and explain exactly why you disagree with it. Or just continue on with your irrelevance.

Not until you explain why that is relevant.

Go read Mr Pip and then get back to us. That's what you're doing and at least I am actually engaging with what you're saying and trying to point out the flaws present in your posts/actions.

For example, in that post you've just quoted, you ignored:

• My question (Why?) which has been repeated.
• My question (did you read my essay, as in the one I quoted).
• Another reference to your repeated pattern of ignoring rebuttal.
• Forsher, On Tax Choice and the "Free Rider Problem"... something asked me to criticise.
• My explanation of what you did wrong with ASB's post.
  
  • existence of market failure
  • failure to grasp the concept of "need"
• The idea that there are more than 300 people involved.
• The ridiculousness of your request for "passages" explained by example.

As an aside, that's so cool, lists within lists. Now I think about it, I think I've seen it done before and just didn't notice. Could look better though, but still...

[Alien Space Bats]

Out of interest, ASB, what do you think of my retelling of your points?

I saw no need to correct anything you said... <smile>

[Xerographica]

The business practices of your cat food company can't be a factor because you value the well-being of your cat? So ethical consumerism is only relevant when somebody does not value the product/good in consideration?

Absolutely. I can buy choose to buy tasty beer, or "socially responsible" beer. If I'm lucky, the two brews will be identical; if not, I have to decide if "social responsibility" is worth drinking beer that tastes like vinegary piss. Guess which choice is going to prevail, especially if I reach the point where I get tired of throwing up?

How "socially irresponsible" is the beer?

Markets assume informed consumers.

How can markets assume anything? It's people who make assumptions. So who, exactly, assumes informed consumers?

Absolutely.

Voting ethically doesn't mean I have to drink bad beer.

So ethical consumerism requires that you give up something you value (beer) but ethical voting does not require that you give up something that you value?

You're missing the greater point. Your argument is that I can indirectly determine what government spends its money on by conditioning my choice is the market for private goods and services in such a way as to favor those among the wealthy who share my views. Yet in truth, I have no real way of even knowing who owns most of the companies that offer me private products, let alone what they believe in — and those owners are under no obligation to tell me what those views are anyway.

If taxpayers could choose where their taxes go...and there's absolutely no financial benefit for companies to share how they allocate their taxes...then clearly there's no demand for this information. In other words, consumers don't care what taxpayers spend their taxes on. Are you arguing that consumers should care? I thought you were initially arguing that people who don't pay taxes wouldn't have a say. Now it seems like you're arguing that they don't even care to know.

You're claiming that the power of the purse — a power on which all governmental operations depends — should be invested in super-rich taxpayers with no experience in or understanding of said governmental operations (such as, for example, the conduct of the defense of the United States and surrounding waters), and that this will work out better for everyone.

So prove it.

Why do so many people equate shopping to running an organization? Pragmatarianism doesn't put Bill Gates in charge of the DoD. It simply means that he can decide exactly how much of his taxes he gives to the DoD. Will he do his homework? What do you think?

[Xerographica]

Not until you explain why that is relevant.

I already explained that pragmatarianism is based on two concepts...

1. the free rider problem (Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson)
2. the knowledge problem (Nobel Prize winning market economist Friedrich Hayek)

Now read this essay...The Use of Knowledge in Society...and share one passage that you disagree with the most and explain exactly why you disagree with it. Or just continue on with your irrelevance.

[Infactum]

1) Do you agree that goods have varying degrees of publicness? That is, under a tax choice system, there would be some goods which are more dispersed in their benefits than other goods despite both being offered on the "menu".

Unlike 100% of the other houses in my neighborhood here in Southern California..my front yard does not have a lawn. Instead, it has a collection of some of the most interesting and unusual tropical dry forest succulents and drought tolerant plants from around the world. My city actually gave me an award for it. Basically my front yard is a small slice of what people have to pay to see at local botanical gardens. Of course, nobody has to pay to see my yard. It's "free" for anybody who happens to be in the area. Does this mean though that everybody values my yard equally? Nope, my next door neighbor who frequently tells me how much she enjoys my yard told me that that the neighbor across the street said my yard was too full of "branches".

How dispersed are the benefits of my front yard? How many degrees of publicness does my front yard have? Just because the benefits are dispersed...does not mean that everybody values my front yard equally. The current system forces people to pay for things that they don't derive any benefit from. It's the equivalent of forcing my neighbor across the street to pay me for the maintenance of my yard despite the fact that my yard provides her with negative utility.

1. Is the forced rider problem a real problem?
2. Is the preference revelation problem a real problem?
3. Is it a problem that our current system concentrates benefits and disperses costs?

I'll be honest, I can't tell if an answer to my question is in there, unless you are declaring it unanswerable. Is this the case? I would think the obvious answer to the question is yes, but I would like to hear that from you.

1) The forced rider problem seems ill defined (do pacifists REALLY not benefit from the DoD?), but I could see how it has a negative contribution to the efficiency of a plan. I guess that makes it a "real" problem.
2) Understanding people's preferences better will certainly has a positive contribution to the efficiency of any plan. I guess that makes it a "real" problem as well.
3) Sort of. As it stands, what it means to "concentrate benefits" is ill defined. Lots of people may pay taxes to fund fewer people on welfare, but we all benefit from an efficient labor market. It would be a much much worse problem in a tax choice system where these concentrated benefits would exist as "defector" options.

No, Bob wouldn't. He strongly suspects that you will continue regardless, so he'll chip into other public goods (classing your efforts as a "public good" is suspect from my perspective, but I'll go with it) that he also values. Unless, of course, Bob is behaving irrationally and is not consistent with the assumptions of a market actor.

If Bob doesn't chip in, and has never chipped in...then how can you can jump to the conclusion that Bob values my efforts? What evidence do you have that he's straying from his true preferences?

For example, let's say that Bob values my efforts to share basic economics with others. But he strongly suspects that I'm going to continue to do so whether or not he gives me some positive feedback (money).

You defined it as part of bob's situation. Unless you are saying he does not know his own preferences until he spends money.

1) As long as there is a spread in the publicness of goods available, there is still incentive to lie.

So pacifists would have an incentive to pay for war? Because that would certainly be a lie. My neighbor across the street would have an incentive to pay for my front yard? That would also be a lie. Environmentalists would have an incentive to pay for a massive public works project that would destroy the habitat of extremely endangered plants and animals? That would also be a lie.

Honestly it's not a "lie" if somebody doesn't pay for something they think is adequately funded. Neither is it a lie if they are willing to forego funding something that they truly believe is underfunded...in order to avoid an even greater sacrifice.

The EPA is usually an environmentalist's priority...except when Canada is threatening to invade and kill everybody that the environmentalist knows and loves. How are you going to say that he's lying if he funds the DoD rather than the EPA? You're going to tell him that he's giving a false signal because he's not willing to sacrifice his family for snail darters?

The whole point is that there are ways to lie other than by spending money. You can just talk and lie about your priorities. Every lie you tell muddles the state of the universe for everyone else, which makes it harder for them to maximize their priorities. Considering that where I put my money depends so heavily on where you put yours, this is an issue. Unless you are willing to contend that spending is the only form of communication AND that tax choice contributions should be public.

2) If I can get you to pay for the highway, I can dump more money into the DoE. Both are public, but the DoE benefits me more than you (and we both benefit from the highway). The DoE also benefits me less than the highway does*. The best way to get you to fund the highway is to convince you that I am completely uninterested in the Highway and believe it to be useless, despite knowing it is useful. I may even try and convince you that I am irrational and cannot be convinced to fund it. It's an interesting new take on Highway Chicken. You would probably do the same to try and fund your favorite slightly less public agency. And we can see that there are all kinds of benefits to sending false signals.

It's a false signal to try and persuade you to fund something that I value? It's a false signal to try and persuade you to buy me lunch?

If the environmentalist can get out of paying the EPA simply by persuading you to pay the EPA instead...then good for him. But what the chances that your contribution is going to make up the difference? Are you that wealthy? Clearly the environmentalist isn't going to waste his time/energy trying to persuade you to pay for something that he feels is adequately funded. Therefore, from his perspective, the EPA is inadequately funded...which is why he's trying to persuade you to make a contribution to the EPA. If you think he's trying to pull a fast one on you...then why not just ask to see his receipt? If he already spent all his taxes on the EPA...then he could prove it simply by showing you his receipt.

There's not going to be anything "false" about neighbors trying to persuade each other that one shortage is more dire than another.

But that's not what's going no here. No one is trying to persuade anyone that one shortage is more dire than another. I value the highway system. Truly, I do. Let's say you do too. However, one of the best ways for me to get to spend my money elsewhere (and reap the benefit of the highway AND that) is to tell you that I do not value the highway system at all. I could try all different ways to do this. I could just be a really good lier. I could pretend to be selectively irrational. All of these are false signals.

If we do the whole pay as you go thing, I could spend my money in a globally suboptimal fashion and "defect" ASAP. Then show you the receipt and force you to choose the Highway system or your favorite slightly less public good. You, of course, would have the same option and idea. If we were both too fast, the highway would not get funded despite both of us preferring that to our pet project. Can you see how this would occur?

According to you, this sends the signal that I value the pet program more than the highway, but this is false. I would class that as a false signal.

Also, I'll admit to not having read the Samuelson paper because the conclusion is reasonable, I am short on time, and your arguement is invalid independent of Samuelson's correctness. He appears to be making approximately the same argument I am, however.

You really seem to be genuinely interested in the topic, but you're not willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of your time to read one of the most important (and shortest) papers on the topic? Are you giving me false signals? I'm just giving you a hard time. Clearly I appreciate the necessity of respecting people's freedom to prioritize.

Ok, it was shorter than I thought. He, as I understand it, makes (much more rigorously*) a similar point I have been making about public goods and lying, though he is using less game theory terminology.

*grumble, grumble, economists and their abuse of differential notation.

I'm just being whiny of course - it is my solemn duty as a scientist to complain about other fields' use of notation.

I agree completely, which is why a set of rational actors will tend towards the least public goods on the menu, which, in turn, often causes them to choose the least total good.

Regardless of their preferences? Regardless how underfunded a valued government organization is? All the people who voluntarily contribute to non-profits are going to lie about their priorities simply because they can choose where their taxes go? Environmentalists are going to forego funding the EPA in order to fund the least public good on the menu? (1)

If something lacks that much publicness...if the benefits are so narrow...if the interests are so special...then why in the world hasn't it been removed from the menu? What percentage of citizens would have to spend their taxes on a war in order for you to agree that the war constituted a genuine public good? For example, if only one person gave their tax dollars to the DoD in order to help fund a strike against Syria...would you say that the military strike was a public good? Would you say that it should be on the menu? (2)

What would be the threshold for a public good to be credible? What is the minimum percentage of the population that would have to fund a public good in order for it to be on the menu? Would you say that farm subsidies should be on the menu if only .001% of the population was willing to pay for them? (3)

1) Absolutely, if they are rational actors. Lying about your priorities is one of the best ways to get other people to fund them.
Some goods are not completely public, yet still more useful than money being spent on private goods. As a rule, these have less total benefit than fully public projects, but are still good uses of public funds once the fully public projects have been funded.
(2-3) I wouldn't set a threshold, because I don't think the general public is qualified to judge whether or not such things are goods. Preventing global warming is undeniably a good, yet people are far too shortsighted to have done anything about it. Regardless, I have been stipulating for the sake of argument that the public can accurately decide how much of a good something is. I feel no need to defend the notion therefore.

I won't pretend to speak for Samuelson, but you DO NOT need to precisely know a utility function to provision public goods in a good way. If you can approximate one at all you can have real utility gains. That is, over providing a Highway is probably better than optimally providing local roads. It is certainly possible, and that possibility is all you need to make tax choice not provably a better system.

Over providing a highway is never better than optimally providing local roads...given that optimally providing local roads frees up resources for more valuable uses. Why would I overspend on clothing when doing so would sacrifice money that could be spent on more valuable things?

Allow me to be more precise. Overproviding a highway and overproviding local roads is almost assuredly better than underproviding a highway and perfectly providing local roads. The lost highway does make up the few percent gain in efficiency on local roads.

Indeed, presuming that individuals need and will choose to buy, regardless of price, a given level of safety is a grossly simplistic and paternalistic view of human behavior. Consumers are often willing to forgo safety, because of the cost, in deference to other things. Some are even willing to forgo health and years of life in order to have other things now. People smoke even though they know that smoking is harmful. Poor people buy cheap, less-than-reliable electric appliances because by doing so, they can have more of other things. - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free

(1)
If people forego the best/biggest highway possible...in order to give more money to cancer research...it would't be the "wrong" answer. It would be the allocation that provides the most value. It might not provide the most value to you...but clearly it provides the most value to society as a whole. It would be the most good for the most people.

Sacrifice reveals value. If people are willing to sacrifice the war on drugs...then it's because there are other public goods that they value more.

But the point is that they don't want to underprovide the highway, they just want everyone else to do it for them and let them fund their pet projects. They aren't choosing to sacrifice the highway, as whether the highway is sacrificed is not really up to them.

1) By the way, that quote is something I disagree with. It presupposes that people values are defined by the choices they make, which seems to get the causality wrong. I could launch into a diatribe about what makes a self and an actor and such, but that would be for another thread. I just wanted to lodge my objection to the notion "Person smokes => person values nicotine more than health."

1) Buchanan, if I am parsing this quote correctly, seems to be saying that there is not incentive to lie under the current system. That is debatable, but not obviously false. Unless he is talking about transitioning the current collection system to choice on the back end. It is not clear from the quote.

He's talking about people "earmarking" their taxes...designating exactly where their taxes go. He's saying that if the cost is a foregone conclusion, then people have an incentive to reveal their true preferences.

To my knowledge, Samuelson never once critiqued a decentralized system where the tax obligation was a foregone conclusion. Therefore, Samuelson, at least in his paper, definitely was not agreeing with your critique of false signals in a pragmatarian system. That I know of, there aren't any Nobel Prize economists that have critiqued a market in the public sector.

If you are correct, then Buchanan is provably wrong and seems to completely misunderstand game theory. Or he doesn't assume his economic actors are rational in the standard sense. He can be forgiven for this because the paper you quote from come less than a decade after vigorous investigation game theory started to pick up (according to my quick scan of wiki).

Samuelson claims that "No decentralized pricing system can serve to determine optimally these levels of collective consumption" in his 1954 paper. I would imagine this includes your compulsory contribution system (His logic above that certainly extends to your system in my analysis).

You don't have to know, you just have to believe. Lets say 85+% of the tax base believed that 70% level. Furthermore, they all believed that 85+% believed that. This, according to you, would be the absolute best prediction of the the future.

As a member of that tax base, would you fund the DoD or the Department of Education? This answer is important.

Either I believe that the DoD is worth my sacrifice...or I do not. If I fund it then clearly I believed that doing so would be worth the sacrifice. If I continue to fund it then clearly I confirmed that it was worth the sacrifice. (1)

Either you believe that it's worth it to sacrifice your time for me...or you don't. If you sacrifice your time for me...then clearly you're guessing that it will be worth the sacrifice. If you continue to sacrifice your time for me then clearly you confirmed that it was worth the sacrifice.

Every investment is a guess. If it turned out that the investment was profitable...then we continue to make the investment until a possibly more profitable opportunity presents itself.

Honestly I'm struggling with your question...so if the answer is important then you're going to have to rephrase it.

(1) Wrong. Either you believe that your contribution to the DoD is worth your sacrifice or you do not. This depends heavily on what other people choose. Which is the point here.

I'll be honest; I am unsure how to make the question any clearer. I have provided a situation that a member of your tax choice system could end up in and I want to know how you think that member would react. What additional information would you need (that you think our theoretical member could reasonably access)?

I am asking you, as a rational actor given a (fairly complete) set of preferences and beliefs about the world, to make a funding decision. If markets have any use at all, you should be able to do this. Please answer the question; it really is quite important.

The point is that a highway is entirely very feasible. For Congress. Getting independent actors to act in concert is somewhere between much harder and impossible (depending on rationality and information).

Yeah, and world wars are entirely very feasible as well. But just because something is feasible in no way shape or form means it's more valuable than the opportunity cost.

Yes, but by making the total set of feasible options larger, you can certainly increase the absolute maximum. x^2 hits a max at 16 on the interval [0,4], but it maxes at 25 on the interval [0,5]. More feasible options means higher maxes. It also can mean higher numbers that aren't maxes. 4.5^2 > 4^2 despite the fact that 5^2>4.5^2.

Choosing 4.5 over 5 has an opportunity cost of 4.75, while choosing 4^2 on the first interval has no oppurtunity cost. We're still better off choosing 4.5^2.

My apologies, I slipped into math jargon mode. By local I mean independent rationality, and by global I meant the the best collective set of choices for the actors.

Errr, the best collective choice for actors...within the US? Because those are the only individuals we care about? A more valuable answer can't possibly be found by eliminating barriers to trade? An individual is not collective enough...a global collective is too collective...so a national collective is just right? If environmentalists around the world want to give their taxes to the Brazilian EPA in order to conserve the Brazilian rain forest...then that's not the best collective choice for them?

Well, yes, ideally maximizing utility for all humans is the best. I just wanted to clarify how I am using the terms local and global. Global could truly mean the whole Earth if we could set up a one world government of something.

Yes, I understand opportunity cost and scarcity. These are not complex, and people waxing poetic on them is not actual argument.

Derrida wasn't just waxing poetic, he was giving a personal insight into the myriad of trade-offs and sacrifices that he has to make on a daily basis. It's the epitome of complexity.

The ideas of oppurtunity cost and scarcity, however, are not complex. The can be precisely defined in a few lines. Unpacking how they interact with every facet of economics becomes harder, but for any individual facet, it's not too bad.

1) That depends heavily on wherever everyone else chooses to put their funds. This dependence makes it a global game, which independent actors are bad at. Contrast things in the private sector: my utility/$ from buying diet coke does not go markedly down because enough money has been spent on diet coke by other people.

The goods/services available in the private sector does not heavily depend on where everyone else chooses to put their funds? Artichokes are an option solely because I choose to purchase them? If I stop purchasing them then they'll cease to be an option? Actually artichokes are an option because enough people are willing to pay for them to be an option. (1) If enough people are not willing to pay for them to be an option...then they really shouldn't be an option. Resources shouldn't be taken away from more valuable uses.

If I have enough artichokes...then there's no reason for me to buy more. If the EPA is adequately funded...then there's no reason for me to give them my tax dollars.

You have this concern that in a pragmatarian system people are going to fundamentally stray from their preferences. Yet, somehow you have absolutely no concern with how far the current system forces people to stray from their preferences. (2)

1) But artichokes don't have less return for you because enough people bought them (in fact they may have more if demand drive innovation). Similarly, diet coke doesn't become less useful for me after $1million dollars worth of money has been spent on it. Buying 120% as much diet coke as is optimal for the day may not make me 20% happier, but it will probably make me 15-18% happier. Or I can save it and save money tomorrow. The threshold amount spent is also, as a rule, smaller for private goods

In contrast, public goods tend to top out. Funding a highway at 120% of what it needs will probably give you a highway around 102% as good. The util/dollar function (which is what you want to maximize as a tax chooser) is generally highest near the threshold for a project.

2) I am certainly concerned with how the current system could better represent peoples' preferences. I don't think the pragmatarian system will make it much, if any better, and I certainly don't think it's worth the other negatives I would expect.

3) If reading a passage that agrees with you brings so much pleasure, I ask that you consider that confirmation bias might be clouding your judgement.

Passages bring me pleasure because other people have easily said what I struggle to say. Therefore, they bring me pleasure because they facilitate communication. Sometimes I struggle trying to understand what you're trying to say. So it might help you hedge your bets if you shared passages that convey your point using different words.

Fair enough. I tend to approach things scientifically, and so I have an instinctual distrust for that feeling. As far as other passages, I try to be quite precise with both the connotative and denotative load of my statements, and I find that others' words tend to misrepresent one or the other of these. I will see if I can find something, however.

1) And we're back to assuming the government know nothing about what people want. This is demonstrably false. Even if you assume all humans are special snowflakes with wildly diverging interests (we're demonstrably not), the government can easily gather data on mass trends. You can claim that this data may not be as good as a market system, as I have been stipulating for the sake of argument, but you would be hard pressed to show that this data is really bad.

I know you need food, clothing and entertainment...therefore just give me all the money that you'd spend on food, clothing and entertainment and I'll be your huckleberry? Close enough counts for horseshoes, hand grenades...and personal shoppers. C'mon, it will be a fun experiment. You'll be able to give me as many "hints" as you give your congressperson. How often do you personally talk to your congressperson anyways? Once a never? So it will be the same frequency with me. (1)

I'm actually not at all hard pressed to show that the data is bad...Does Consumer Irrationality Trump Consumer Sovereignty? If the data is really bad for somebody who knows you spending their own money on you...then the data has to be far worse for somebody you've never even met spending other people's money on you. Close enough counts for horseshoes and hand grenades...not personal shoppers. (2)

1) If you could by food and clothes for 1/10th the cost that I could and I could hold you to some degree of accountability, I would seriously consider it. Say by giving you 20% of what I would spend and letting you guess by buying twice as much as I might need and picking from it. Especially if it was your sole (theoretical) job to understand what spread of food and clothing people like. This, IMO, is the correct analogy to congress and public goods.

2) But it does. Performing 80% as good as a market in allocation, but 150% as good in production is a net win. Close is all you need because you can leverage collectivized action.

[Forsher]

Not until you explain why that is relevant.

I already explained that pragmatarianism is based on two concepts...

1. the free rider problem (Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson)
2. the knowledge problem (Nobel Prize winning market economist Friedrich Hayek)

Now read this essay...The Use of Knowledge in Society...and share one passage that you disagree with the most and explain exactly why you disagree with it. Or just continue on with your irrelevance.

That's not actually explaining the relevance of that essay. You're just saying, "Yeah, well, I've got these two ideas and one of them is in that says me." It assumes that a) there aren't other things that we can attack (which we have) and b) is clearly an attempt to stop us talking about such criticisms. To show relevance of that essay you must explain why what it says is more fundamental to your ideas than what I rebutted here. Re-stating what you've already said just makes you look like a parrot and/or a broken record.

It also ignores as I have already pointed out specifically a section saying that your idea of "tax choice" creates the Free-rider problem, while it's difficult to see how it exists currently (i.e. a world where everyone contributes to everything the govt. does; provided they pay taxes).

Additionally, I suggest that you provide a framework that I could attach any theoretical response to Hayek to. What, for instance, are you taking out of that? What, in your words, is the meaning... Hayek's conclusion? Do tell us, Xero, what special part of Hayek's work is relevant to yours? Attempt to explain where Hayek's essay actually attaches to your idea.

I'll just edit in a request to Infactum. He seems to be much more sympathetic to your ideas than I am and, perhaps, I need a fresh perspective. Infactum, would you care to look over this post and its contents? No expectation of the sort of reply that you've just given Xero, of course.

[Forsher]

One of the sections of that essay, to demonstrate why Xero needs to do what I suggest, that I read (when I made my control-f searches) last night seems to disagree flatly with Xero and solidly with ASB...

Hayek:

Professor Schumpeter argues that the possibility of a rational calculation in the absence of markets for the factors of production follows for the theorist "from the elementary proposition that consumers in evaluating ('demanding') consumers' goods ipso facto also evaluate the means of production which enter into the production of these goods."*1

H.29Taken literally, this statement is simply untrue. The consumers do nothing of the kind. What Professor Schumpeter's "ipso facto" presumably means is that the valuation of the factors of production is implied in, or follows necessarily from, the valuation of consumers' goods. But this, too, is not correct.

ASB:

The business practices of your cat food company can't be a factor because you value the well-being of your cat? So ethical consumerism is only relevant when somebody does not value the product/good in consideration?

Absolutely. I can buy choose to buy tasty beer, or "socially responsible" beer. If I'm lucky, the two brews will be identical; if not, I have to decide if "social responsibility" is worth drinking beer that tastes like vinegary piss. Guess which choice is going to prevail, especially if I reach the point where I get tired of throwing up?

There are some differences and Schumpter's "means of production" I do equate to Xero's "business practices", but there you are.

From "100 Years of the American Economic Review: The Top 20 Articles".

The author addresses the fundamental question of the nature of the economic system and, in particular, its role in dealing with resource allocation when a fundamental knowledge base is distributed in small bits among a large population. The knowledge needed includes consumer valuations, production relations, and resource availabilities. In particular, general scientific principles, where expert opinion might be best, are only a small part of the knowledge base. The author argues for the importance of a price system in achieving coordination and efficiency in resource use without implying an impossible aggregation of information in a central place.

We all know, of course, that Xero has been iffy on the worth of prices. He also seems largely clear on the idea that a central place cannot know what it needs to know and, therefore, tax choice is the only way. Basically, I think that all Xero has got from this essay is the underlined without taking it properly from the whole.