Ask a Pragmatarian!

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, what about diffusion of responsibility?

 

[Geo Patric]

went to the blog and looked around a lil....

The pragmatarian approach would allow the invisible hand to decide whether the public or private sector is better at producing a "public" good.

what the hell can that possibly mean? you do know that the term is metaphor, doncha? it does not really exist as a force of nature.

A hundred years ago, liberalism referred to a philosophy that in some ways resembeled modern-day libertarianism. . . .The classical liberal movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are, of course, the forebears of contemporary libertarian thought.

this is categorically untrue.

The size of government is not the primary concern of classical liberals; its limits are. Limited governments tend to be small relative to unlimited governments.

this IS true. Locke never suggested that govt be limited in size or function but autonomy. how those limits are determine is via the will of the people...

prerogative can be nothing but the people's permitting their rulers to do several things, of their own free choice, where the law was silent, and sometimes too against the direct letter of the law, for the public good; and their acquiescing in it when so done:

Whosoever, therefore, . . . unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority.

“We have learned from history we have reason to conclude that all peaceful beginnings of government have been laid in consent of the people.”

This source establishes the prominence of Jefferson (nope), [de] Tocqueville (nope), Adam Smith (no... not really), John Stuart Mill (absofckiglootle NOT) , Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek and Ayn Rand.. (yes, yes and yes).

libertarianism is the focus of personal property over collective well-being.... the antithesis of lockean liberty. . libertarians are materialists. they care not a farthing for social or individual well being. Deuce is right. you ignore fundamental human characteristics, including the fact that humans are social animals and have historically been far more social than individual.

sorry... you do not have a new approach or even a new twist on the bastard known as libertarianism- you have a regurgitation of secondhand selfish materialism... Rand was a bad novelist and a terrible social philosopher.

geo.

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, what about diffusion of responsibility?

That is a phenomenon, not the rule. Moreover, it is my contention that when that happens it is a warning sign that the community is not strong enough. Some effort has to be made to prevent people from becoming isolated from each other in an urban community because, in living so close together, they have no choice but to be more dependent on one another.

 

[Xerographica]

Geo, let's pretend that you and I are at an archery range that only has one target. I point at the big red and white target and say...there's the target...give it your best shot. Rather than aim at the target, you aim in a different direction and shoot at a large tree. Except, you don't even hit the tree.

The big red and white target in this thread is pragmatarianism. If you'd bothered to read through this thread you'd notice all the arrows that Deuce had at least managed to shoot towards the big red and white target. Rather than aim at pragmatarianism, you tried to shoot at libertarianism...but you completely missed.

Did you get distracted because it says that my political lean is libertarian? Or did you not grasp the concept of pragmatarianism so you went after the more familiar subject? Here...if you want to shoot at libertarianism then watch how easy it is...

Robin Hood ambushes a rich baron. With his bow and arrow pointed at the baron's head, Robin politely requests that the baron make a sizable contribution to the public good. The baron complies of course. Now, would the baron have contributed the same amount of money to the public good if Robin hadn't been pointing a bow and arrow at his head? Of course not.

If we take coercion out of the equation, people will contribute less of their money to public goods. The overall LEVELS of public goods produced will be reduced. If you want to shoot at libertarianism then all you need to do is talk about LEVELS of public goods produced.

Jonathan Macey wrote...

Put differently, voters in democratic regimes are unwilling to give up the protections offered by the welfare state, even when those protections are produced inefficiently, and at very high cost. Libertarians are not going to succeed politically by telling voters that they should give up welfare-state protections. Rather, libertarians need to show how freemarket programs will produce social security at levels comparable to those provided by welfare-state systems.

- Problems of market liberalism - Google Books

Except, libertarians can't show how freemarket programs will produce social security at LEVELS comparable to those provided by welfare-state systems because once Robin Hood stops pointing his bow and arrow at the baron's head... the baron...and nearly everybody else...will contribute considerably less of their income to public welfare.

Given your distaste for libertarianism I'm guessing that you probably don't want to shoot at liberalism...but it's necessary if you actually want to bother trying to shoot at pragmatarianism. Honestly though, as somebody who considered himself a devout libertarian...it certainly wasn't easy for me to genuinely consider the flaw of libertarianism. So I'll understand if you have a hard time critically evaluating your own ideological foundations.

To shoot at liberalism we just need to reread the first part the Macey quote. It's where he points out that the welfare state produces welfare "inefficiently, and at very high cost." This is pretty straightforward. The government has a monopoly on our taxes. When a company has a monopoly, it has an incentive to reduce costs in order to increase profit margins. The government has no such incentive.

In other words, after Robin Hood receives the baron's money...a huge portion of it is lost to fraud, waste and abuse. Actually, on another forum a liberal tried to argue that the government is very efficient at producing public goods. But even Obama and other liberals are aware of the problem. Their solution? More oversight. Another committee with recommendations that will be completely ignored by congressmen that have long since realized that spending is more popular than cutting.

Ok, we've identified the flaw with libertarianism and the flaw with liberalism...so what's the solution? We simply take the best from liberalism and the best from libertarianism and add them together.

coercion + choice = high levels of efficiently produced public goods

THAT'S pragmatarianism. Robin Hood points his bow and arrow at the baron's head and politely requests that the baron make a sizable contribution to the public good. Except, rather than taking the money, Robin Hood allows the baron to choose which public goods he contributes to.

With the pragmatarian approach, we would allow tax payers to choose which government organization(s) most deserve their hard earned money.

I'd really like to believe that this clarification helped clear up your confusion regarding my statement on the invisible hand...but rather than just assume so perhaps I should try and explain it...

Nobody has all the answers...right? Sometimes the government (the public sector) has some answers while other times the private sector has other answers. Pragmatarianism, in theory, should facilitate the transfer of funds to the organizations that have the best answers...irrespective of whether they are public or private. In other words, survival of the fittest. Unfit organizations generally don't last very long in the private sector...unlike in the public sector where Boondoggles can last indefinitely... Boondoggle (project) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, your first few shots were really off. But, don't be discouraged. Relax, concentrate on your breathing and don't anticipate the shot.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, heh, if you genuinely don't believe it's an awesome return on investment then send me $5 and I'll send you $1. Better yet...send me $500 dollars and I'll send you a $100.

Except currently the Department of Energy doesn't have to spend that $1 on advertising and fundraising. You've just added overhead to literally everything the government does. How very pragmatic of you.

 

[Geo Patric]

Geo, let's pretend that you and I are at an archery range

nah, let's not. it is a wordy and essentially inept little parable.

Did you get distracted because it says that my political lean is libertarian?

distracted? from what? you identify as a libertarian, post libertarian dogma and link to a libertarian blog... what is there to be distracted from?

Robin Hood ambushes a rich baron.

lemme guess... you like to play with bowz ' arrowz?

If we take coercion out of the equation,

after having first shown that coercion is, in fact, part of the equation, of course... which you have not done.

Except, libertarians can't show how freemarket programs will produce social security

they need not... we can see that it can and does... but you mean FREE Free market capitalism, don't you... no restraints on trade or monetary policy? no one can show anything about Lassaiz faire capitalism because it has never existed anywhere... and for good reason,. it is a disastrous fantasy.

it's necessary if you actually want to bother trying to shoot at pragmatarianism.

there is nothing there to shoot at -"pragmatarianism" does not actually exist... your principle is a ill framed badly disguised version of weak right wing libertarianism... which is, itself, a poorly disguised version of extreme right wing economic (not political) anarchy.

I'll understand if you have a hard time critically evaluating your own ideological foundations.

generous of you.

equating liberalism with welfare is questionable... equating Liberalism with welfare is nonsense.

In other words, after Robin Hood receives the baron's money...

again? i'll wait til you put your toys back in the box. sorry, but this is little more than pretentious gibberish. but my opinion can be easily dismissed

geo..

 

[Xerographica]

Deuce, hah, one of the goals of pragmatarianism is to reduce overhead. If we have to add a little overhead in one area in order to reduce a lot of overhead in other areas...then so be it. That's pragmatic. Sites like Charity Navigator exist because, given a choice, people will choose to donate to organizations that offer the best results at the lowest possible costs. Tax payers work hard for their money. I'm confident that, if given a choice, they will choose to support the most effective and efficient government organizations.

 

[Xerographica]

Geo...look at what you wrote...

******************************************

Robin Hood ambushes a rich baron.

lemme guess... you like to play with bowz ' arrowz?

If we take coercion out of the equation,

after having first shown that coercion is, in fact, part of the equation, of course... which you have not done.

******************************************

Hmmmm...what's your definition of coercion?

 

[Geo Patric]

Hmmmm...what's your definition of coercion?

: to restrain or dominate by force : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

 

[Xerographica]

: to restrain or dominate by force : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

So wouldn't Robin Hood pointing a bow and arrow at the baron's head and requesting that the baron hand over his money be considered an example of coercion?

 

[Geo Patric]

So wouldn't Robin Hood pointing a bow and arrow at the baron's head and requesting that the baron hand over his money be considered an example of coercion?

it seems you have mistaken this for the medieval lit forum....

geo.

 

[Xerographica]

it seems you have mistaken this for the medieval lit forum....

geo.

My bad, let me rephrase. Wouldn't our government threatening to throw us in jail if we do not pay our taxes be considered an example of coercion?

 

[Just1Voice]

My bad, let me rephrase. Wouldn't our government threatening to throw us in jail if we do not pay our taxes be considered an example of coercion?

Taxes are payment for services renderd by the government. Refusing to pay them is basically stealing. Is it an attempt to coerce a purchase when a person is jailed for shoplifting?

 

[Geo Patric]

My bad, let me rephrase. Wouldn't our government threatening to throw us in jail if we do not pay our taxes be considered an example of coercion?

as opposed to threatening to throw us in jail if we rob a bank?

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Taxes are payment for services renderd by the government. Refusing to pay them is basically stealing. Is it an attempt to coerce a purchase when a person is jailed for shoplifting?

sorry, just... posted before i saw yours.

geo.

 

[Just1Voice]

sorry, just... posted before i saw yours.

geo.

No worries

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, hah, one of the goals of pragmatarianism is to reduce overhead. If we have to add a little overhead in one area in order to reduce a lot of overhead in other areas...then so be it. That's pragmatic. Sites like Charity Navigator exist because, given a choice, people will choose to donate to organizations that offer the best results at the lowest possible costs. Tax payers work hard for their money. I'm confident that, if given a choice, they will choose to support the most effective and efficient government organizations.

You have failed miserably in your goal because your entire platform is based on the idea that people are well-enough informed to judge things on the criteria you mention. They aren't. You have no idea what the results are of government-funded medical research are. You have no idea how efficient NASA is at researching the materials needed for flight at Mach 15 and you probably aren't even aware of why anyone would want to do that. The government does about 800,000 things that the average citizen isn't even aware of, yet some of those things can be literally life or death. You really think running a website is going to properly inform a hundred million people on the importance, effectiveness, efficiency, and importance of everything?

Free market principles only work in a free market.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice and Geo, sure, our behavior is influenced by the threat of force. Many people do not rob banks or shoplift for fear of going to jail. We are coerced into following the rules. Some comply willingly, others comply unwillingly and a few refuse to comply.

To get back on track...however you view it...if we removed the threat of force (aka coercion) from the tax equation...then people would pay a lot less taxes. True or false?

 

[Xerographica]

Deuce, if you ran a company would you have all your employees do the same exact job? Of course not, we've long since learned that a division of labor is the most effective method of accomplishing complex tasks. The goal wouldn't be to make a hundred million people experts on all the 800,000 things that the government does...that would be absurd. It would be as ridiculous as making a hundred million people experts on every single good and service available on the private market.

What's kind of interesting is that you're assuming that a hundred million people would choose to allocate their taxes themselves rather than just give their taxes to congress. Why do you make that assumption?

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice and Geo, sure, our behavior is influenced by the threat of force. Many people do not rob banks or shoplift for fear of going to jail. We are coerced into following the rules. Some comply willingly, others comply unwillingly and a few refuse to comply.

To get back on track...however you view it...if we removed the threat of force (aka coercion) from the tax equation...then people would pay a lot less taxes. True or false?

I don't know what you are getting at. Ok, it true that they would pay less taxes, but then removing the threat of force would eventually also bankrupt the government, end the institutionalized portion of the social contract, cause cities to fill with trash and waste, since no one would be paying city employees to take care of such things, fires would destroy the urban centers. Illiteracy would plague the poor and create a caste of unskilled poverty-stricken beggars. You would turn New York into Calcutta.

 

[Geo Patric]

Just1however you view it...if we removed the threat of force (aka coercion) from the tax equation...then people would pay a lot less taxes. True or false?

not taking actions that are harmful to me is not coercion, it is sensible behavior, even if i disagree with the legitimacy of the restrictions on that behavior. when that restriction is a result of agreement with a specific end, that is not coercion, it is rational social behavior.

and obligations are not coercive when we have a say in the creation of the obligation. is your fidelity to your lover 'coercion'? perhaps sometimes you think it would be swell to diddle someone else... but you do not. maybe you think that monogamy is bull**** but your agreement with your lover is that you will diddle only her (or him). if you were to change your mind, you would go to her (him) and either make new arrangements or agree to dissolve your relationship. that is not coercion, that is agreement based on principle.

taxation without representation... IS coercion. we took steps to change that some time back. taxation as 'coercion' is an example of the sort of tortured, anti-social, anti-democratic thinking that has earned libertarians the disdain they suffer among real Liberals.

geo.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, well...that certainly is one possible outcome. In any case, we both strongly agree that removing coercion from the tax equation is not advised. At this point it's important to note is that I'm a "libertarian" conceding a point to a "liberal". How often does that happen? Not often enough?

In the spirit of reciprocity, I'd like you to concede one point...that government does not operate efficiently. Can you concede this point?

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, well...that certainly is one possible outcome. In any case, we both strongly agree that removing coercion from the tax equation is not advised. At this point it's important to note is that I'm a "libertarian" conceding a point to a "liberal". How often does that happen? Not often enough?

In the spirit of reciprocity, I'd like you to concede one point...that government does not operate efficiently. Can you concede this point?

"Efficiently" is is a very ambiguous word. I need something to compare it to. I would be willing to say, for instance that the government use of assets is less efficient overall than the use of capital assets in the private sector, but I could not give you an exact ratio to describe the difference.

I do need to point out, however, that much of this trouble is not inherent to the actual workings of the majority of government services. The lions share of the trouble comes from the fact that the legislative branch of the government allocates funding, rather than the executive branch. That whole part of the system has been riddled with corruption and it is wasting a lot of taxpayer money as a result.

I am not willing to concede that there is any guarantee the private sector would do the job better. The private sector is corrupt too.

In my opinion only election reform will solve this problem, and we'd need at least 6 years beyond that to see things shape up to satisfactory levels.

Despite that, I contend that it is still a better alternative than scrapping the whole system and starting over from scratch.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, so you're willing to concede that the private sector operates more efficiently than the public sector? If so, can you offer a few thoughts as to why that might be?

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, so you're willing to concede that the private sector operates more efficiently than the public sector? If so, can you offer a few thoughts as to why that might be?

I thought i just did that.