Ask a Pragmatarian!

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, oh, hmmmm, I suppose you did just do that. My bad. I guess the answer that I was looking for was "competition". Here are a few quotes on the subject...

As I've mentioned before, there are some major problems with gov't spending on programs. And these revolve around measurability and self-correction. When private businesses are running their businesses poorly and not delivering value, the free market drives revenues down and the business either corrects itself or it goes out of business. The gov't doesn't have such mechanisms. They often put in bogus measurements on how effective the program is, and when it doesn't work the first year, they double down and put more money into the program. No self-correction mechanism. - James L, Greta Wire Blog

For this is the salient point: private organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit, perform or lose their customers or their donors. When a private entity fails to deliver on its promise, or actually causes harm, it is held liable for the failure and pays the damages. When government fails, it gets a bigger budget and even more power. - Mary L. G. Theroux, Public and Private Responses to Katrina

Because of the existence of consumer and donor choice, private services are rarely offered by only one provider -- there is competition for funding which encourages both quality and affordability as service providers seek to outdo one another. Government services, however, tend to be monopolies because they do not have to fight for funding from countless individual sources. - Bryan, The Government Vs Private Charity

Charitable organizations are better than government as a source of aid. First, it is easier for donors to hold charitable organizations accountable than it is for taxpayers to hold government accountable. A failed government program can go on forever. An ineffective charity has a more difficult time obtaining funding. - Arnold Kling, Libertarianism and Poverty

Although the term 'NPM' suffers from a degree of concept stretch, Hood (1991) sets out some broad reformist priniciples in which the public choice heritage can be clearly observed. The first is that the focus of public sector reform should be on structural reorganization rather than policy. It is the structure of the public sector that fails to provide adequate incentives for the public sector organizations to respond to citizens' preferences for government goods and services. The provision of public services should be made more competitive, both between publilc sector providers and between the public and private sectors. Contracting out, quasi markets and seperation of the questions of who pays (public finance) from who provides (public provision), are all hallmarks of NPM. They follow from the government failure logic and the objective of greater efficiency in particular. As discussed above, individual contracts in the public sector will generally fail to provide efficiency-enhancing incentives, but the public choice view is that increased competition in the provision of public services will. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

Dang, I got carried away with the quotes. Competition is the only way to ensure that government operates at maximum efficiency. We can force government organizations to compete for funding simply by allowing tax payers to directly choose which government organizations they support with their taxes.

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, oh, hmmmm, I suppose you did just do that. My bad. I guess the answer that I was looking for was "competition". Here are a few quotes on the subject...

Dang, I got carried away with the quotes. Competition is the only way to ensure that government operates at maximum efficiency. We can force government organizations to compete for funding simply by allowing tax payers to directly choose which government organizations they support with their taxes.

The government already competes for funding. Donations to non-profit organizations are tax-deductible. Anyone paying taxes can choose to route that money into any of those organizations they believe will use it more efficiently or in a way that is more in line with their own interests. However, it remains that we need taxation to accomplish this, as it is the very fact that donations to non-profit organizations are tax-deductible which makes them attractive.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, yes, that's a good point. The government as a whole competes to some extent with tax deductions. But it's not enough. You said, "Anyone paying taxes can choose to route that money into any of those organizations they believe will use it more efficiently or in a way that is more in line with their own interests." This should be true not just with non-government organizations but with government organizations as well. Tax payers should be able to choose to route their own money into any of the government organizations they believe will use it more efficiently or in a way that is more in line with their own interests. Why not? It works with companies...and non-profit organizations...I can't think of any reasons why it can't work with government organizations.

I'm not making the typical libertarian or conservative argument that the tax rate be reduced...or that we kick certain public goods over to the private market. The total amount of taxes that people paid would be exactly the same. And by no means am I advocating getting rid of congress. Congress is just another government organization. The only difference is that tax payers would be able to choose which government organizations receive their hard earned taxes. If they didn't want to choose then they could just give all their taxes to congress.

 

[Deuce]

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?

One thing you seem to be avoiding:

Government activity doesn't follow market forces but you're relying on those forces for an ambiguous standard of efficiency.

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, yes, that's a good point. The government as a whole competes to some extent with tax deductions. But it's not enough. You said, "Anyone paying taxes can choose to route that money into any of those organizations they believe will use it more efficiently or in a way that is more in line with their own interests." This should be true not just with non-government organizations but with government organizations as well. Tax payers should be able to choose to route their own money into any of the government organizations they believe will use it more efficiently or in a way that is more in line with their own interests. Why not? It works with companies...and non-profit organizations...I can't think of any reasons why it can't work with government organizations.

I'm not making the typical libertarian or conservative argument that the tax rate be reduced...or that we kick certain public goods over to the private market. The total amount of taxes that people paid would be exactly the same. And by no means am I advocating getting rid of congress. Congress is just another government organization. The only difference is that tax payers would be able to choose which government organizations receive their hard earned taxes. If they didn't want to choose then they could just give all their taxes to congress.

The problem in this idea lies in the influence that your tax dollar would suddenly provide. We influence policy with our votes, not our individual choices for tax allocations, and it is fairly certain that allowing people to allocate their own tax money would suddenly give the wealthy an unfair amount of direct influence.

 

[Xerographica]

Deuce, what are your thoughts on paying for success?

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, is it too much of a stretch to think of tax payers as shareholders?

Do you agree with the conclusion of this passage from Democracy in America?

Again, it may be objected that the poor are never invested with the sole power of making the laws; but I reply, that wherever universal suffrage has been established the majority of the community unquestionably exercises the legislative authority; and if it be proved that the poor always constitute the majority, it may be added, with perfect truth, that in the countries in which they possess the elective franchise they possess the sole power of making laws. But it is certain that in all the nations of the world the greater number has always consisted of those persons who hold no property, or of those whose property is insufficient to exempt them from the necessity of working in order to procure an easy subsistence. Universal suffrage does therefore, in point of fact, invest the poor with the government of society. - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

What government organizations would the wealthy support with their taxes?

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, is it too much of a stretch to think of tax payers as shareholders?

I'd say it is quite a stretch. You are on the path to Oligarchy here.

Do you agree with the conclusion of this passage from Democracy in America?

No, I can't honestly say I do. It might be more true if a larger share of the poor voted, but I think also that the poor (at least what I consider to be the poor) is not a full majority. I think the poor make up about two fifths of our population. Additionally, they are not as well educated overall, so there is a problem with critical thinking skills that often leads the poor to vote against their own interests.

What government organizations would the wealthy support with their taxes?

This is a big question.

I think it is more appropriate to ask what would benefit the rich most in the short term.

That would be defense and infrastructure spending, because those are things they can actually invest in on the other end, and thus spending tax money on them means they lose less money overall. It is in the short term interests of the wealth not to invest in government schooling, since that gives their own kids a competitive edge over the rest of the country.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, here's the 2009 US charity breakdown by recipient category...

Religion: 33% / 100 billion
Education: 13% / 40 billion
Gifts to grantmaking foundations: 10% / 31 billion
Unallocated giving: 10% / 28 billion
Human Services: 9% / 27 billion
Public society benefit: 8% / 22 billion
Health: 7% / 22 billion
Arts, culture, humanities: 4% / 12 billion
International affairs: 3% / 8 billion
Environment, animals: 2% / 6 billion
Foundation grants to individuals: 1% / 3 billion

More specifically regarding the top 3% of income earners...

In fact, this very group who are oft criticized for not doing their “fair share” actually account for more than 66 percent of all charitable giving year after year. This means, of the approximately $300 billion contributed, $200 billion comes from this top group. According to a Bank of America study of high-net-worth donors done by the Center on Philanthropy, 71 percent of high net worth donors contribute to cultural organizations and 80 percent contribute to education, versus only 7 percent and 15% of general donors. - David H. King, Giving Institute Blog

There are probably rich people that do not donate to charitable causes...but if this group of "selfish" rich people allocated all their taxes to defense and infrastructure...then wouldn't the "selfless" rich people allocate all of their taxes to the other government organizations?

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, here's the 2009 US charity breakdown by recipient category...

There are probably rich people that do not donate to charitable causes...but if this group of "selfish" rich people allocated all their taxes to defense and infrastructure...then wouldn't the "selfless" rich people allocate all of their taxes to the other government organizations?

I think this is a dangerous assumption. We cannot predict with any degree of accuracy where people might choose to allocate the funding under these circumstances. There is a great risk that some vital areas will end up greatly under-funded while other government organizations that are higher profile, but require less overall funding may end up with an embarrassment of funding. This kind of fund allocation by guesswork, trying to predict where others will put their funds, and then allocating your own contribution accordingly is certain to lead to considerable waste.

You seems to have disregarded the "path to Oligarchy" argument I made earlier. "Voting with your taxes" is unfair representation in the working of government. This is an ethical consideration. The ability of the wealthy to game such a system and introduce even greater levels of corruption is simply too great.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, "dangerous", "great risk", "considerable waste", "greatly underfunded", "an embarrassment of funding"...it's not sufficient just to tell me these things...you have to show them to me. There are four possibilities...

1. an important public good receives excessive funding - can we ever be too educated or too safe or too healthy?
2. an important public good receives insufficient funding - how important could the good really be if nobody funded it?
3. an unimportant public good receives excessive funding - errrr...evidently the good was more important than we thought.
4. an unimportant public good receives insufficient funding - no worries, it wasn't that important anyways.

The only way we can measure with any sort of accuracy how "important" a public good is to society as a whole is by looking at how much money that public good receives. It's all about the opportunity cost.

Regarding the path to Oligarchy argument...well...I kind of didn't want to say anything. We both want to take the power from congress...except I want to give it to tax payers while you want to give it to the president..."The lions share of the trouble comes from the fact that the legislative branch of the government allocates funding, rather than the executive branch."

When that "divinity" which "doth hedge a king," and which in our day has left a glamour around the body inheriting his power, has quite died away - when it begins to be seen clearly that, in a popularly-governed nation, the government is simply a committee of management; it will also be seen that this committee of management has no intrinsic authority. The inevitable conclusion will be that its authority is given by those appointing it; and has just such bounds as they choose to impose. Along with this will go the further conclusion that the laws it passes are not in themselves sacred; but that whatever sacredness they have, is entirely due to the ethical sanction - an ethical sanction which, as we find, is derivable from the laws of human life as carried on under social conditions. And there will come the corollary that when they have not this ethical sanction they have no sacredness, and may be rightly challenged.

The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments - Herbert Spencer, Contemporary review, Volume 46

Do you see the problem? You want to take a giant step backwards. You want to take the power of 535 congress people and put it in the hands of 1 person. I want to take the power out of the hands of 535 congress people and put it in the hands of 21,000,000 people (individuals that earn 100K+). Corrupting 1 person is ridiculously easy. Corrupting 535 people is obviously not that hard. Trying to corrupt even 1,000,000 people would be ridiculously hard.

There's nothing unethical about it. Voters would decide what constitutes a public good and tax payers would decide which public goods receive their hard-earned money.

And government organizations would be forced to operate more efficiently as a result of competing for limited funds. And taxes would no longer have a negative connotation given that tax payers can directly support the public goods that they value. Once tax payers know exactly where their money is going then they will demand accountability/transparency and expect results.

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, "dangerous", "great risk", "considerable waste", "greatly underfunded", "an embarrassment of funding"...it's not sufficient just to tell me these things...you have to show them to me. There are four possibilities...

1. an important public good receives excessive funding - can we ever be too educated or too safe or too healthy?
2. an important public good receives insufficient funding - how important could the good really be if nobody funded it?
3. an unimportant public good receives excessive funding - errrr...evidently the good was more important than we thought.
4. an unimportant public good receives insufficient funding - no worries, it wasn't that important anyways.

The only way we can measure with any sort of accuracy how "important" a public good is to society as a whole is by looking at how much money that public good receives. It's all about the opportunity cost.

I think that if you want more concrete examples, it will be hard to accomplish, since all of this is still in the conceptual phase. If we could design a thought experiment that took the various factors into account it might be easier to discuss this. My concern is that, lacking ESP, how is anyone going to know what is getting the funding it needs and what is not? Suppose we have another national security scare.. the public has not shown itself to be particularly careful and their critical thinking skills, on the average are poor. Given that our news media focuses so heavily on conflict, I can easily see a situation in which 75% or more of the tax allocations go to the military, leaving our governments domestic services grossly underfunded. Suddenly we have to lay off thousands of teachers, and our children are not learning as they should. We might correct for it in the next year, but what happens in the meantime? How do you avoid this possibility?

Regarding the path to Oligarchy argument...well...I kind of didn't want to say anything. We both want to take the power from congress...except I want to give it to tax payers while you want to give it to the president..."The lions share of the trouble comes from the fact that the legislative branch of the government allocates funding, rather than the executive branch."

Do you see the problem? You want to take a giant step backwards. You want to take the power of 535 congress people and put it in the hands of 1 person. I want to take the power out of the hands of 535 congress people and put it in the hands of 21,000,000 people (individuals that earn 100K+). Corrupting 1 person is ridiculously easy. Corrupting 535 people is obviously not that hard. Trying to corrupt even 1,000,000 people would be ridiculously hard.

I do see what you are saying here, but the reason other corporate entities rely on a CEO to set the budget is that it is just far more efficient. Building a budget by committee, as we often see, is a wasteful process. I propose that the Executive branch set the budget and the legislative branch takes a simple up or down vote to pass it. If it doesn't pass, then the executive branch formulates a new budget with input from the legislature, and submits it to the legislature again.. and so on until a budget that is acceptable is passed. No special riders, no pork. Moreover, I am in favor of publishing the budget for the people to look over before the vote is taken, so that there is an opportunity for everyone to have some input. I fail to see how a transparent process for setting the budget will leave much of a window open for corruption to find it's way in.

There's nothing unethical about it. Voters would decide what constitutes a public good and tax payers would decide which public goods receive their hard-earned money.

And government organizations would be forced to operate more efficiently as a result of competing for limited funds. And taxes would no longer have a negative connotation given that tax payers can directly support the public goods that they value. Once tax payers know exactly where their money is going then they will demand accountability/transparency and expect results.

I can't say that I am fond of the idea of different government organizations competing for funds in this way. In the private sphere, competitors tend to be in the same kind of business, but in this case, each organization has a function that is not mirrored by its competitors. Competition under these conditions isn't likely to lead to much improvement, since we cannot compare one product or service to another in the marketplace.

I can see that you are attempting to find solutions to real problems, and I appreciate it, but it seems clear a lot more discussion is yet in order before we can reach a consensus.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, what are your thoughts on paying for success?

How is this relevant to the discussion?

Incidentally, the lower income bracket donates more to charity by percentage of income than the upper income bracket does.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, thought experiments are great but we already have concrete evidence that this approach works. We have our economy. If a free-market approach works with a lot of goods...then why wouldn't it work with a lot less goods? A free-market is certainly not without its drawbacks but it's incredibly more effective than planned approaches. Now the only countries with planned economies are countries like North Korea and Cuba.

Not sure if you read where I described the logistics of this approach. Tax payers would have the option to divvy up their taxes among three different tiers. The top tier would be congress, the middle tier would be the cabinet departments and the bottom tier would be the individual government organizations (GOs). Each GO would have a fundraising progress bar on their website...just like this website does. Tax payers would have the option to make "donations" at any time throughout the year. They would make the donation directly to the GO. The tax payer would receive a receipt and the GO would send a notice of payment to the IRS.

So if there is a national scare then what? Our country can't respond without a plan. So first the pentagon creates a plan and decides how much it will cost to execute that plan. The Department of Defense (DOD) then updates their fundraising progress bar accordingly. Congress will be able to allocate some funds to the DOD. Tax payers will make some donations as well.

What's interesting is our country is in major debt trying to pay for wars and education and everything else. Personally, I've never heard of anybody intentionally overpaying their taxes. But with a pragmatarian approach...when tax payers choose which GOs they support with their taxes...would anybody overpay their taxes? Parents care about the safety and education of their children...so I can definitely imagine more than a few tax payers overpaying their taxes to make sure that both education and defense were optimally funded. Is that a stretch? So rather than America being in debt to China...Americans would be in debt to credit card companies.

Nearly all goods produced by GOs are also produced by private organizations...education, health, welfare, transportation, etc. The major public good not produced by the private sector is national defense. A huge part of the political debate is centered on whether the public or private sector is better at producing these goods.

Socialists - The government is better at producing all goods
Liberals - The government is better at producing most public goods
Libertarians - The free-market is better at producing most public goods
Anarcho-capitalists - The free-market is better at producing all goods

Deng Xiaoping said that he didn't care if a cat was black or white, what mattered was whether it caught mice. It shouldn't matter whether an organization is public or private, what matters is results. We need less focus on ideology and more focus on results. Pragmatarianism will allow tax payers to directly support the public organizations that produce the best results.

China used to have a planned economy but Deng Xiaoping's pragmatism allowed China to quickly catch up with the rest of the world. Applying free-market principles to public goods will increase our competitiveness in the international market.

 

[Xerographica]

Deuce, here's the first sentence from that page...

For too long, the U.S. Government has funded programs based upon metrics that tell us how many people we are serving, but little about how we are improving their lives. As part of this Administration’s commitment to using taxpayer dollars effectively, we are employing innovative new strategies to help ensure that the essential services of government produce their intended outcomes.

Does that sound relevant to the discussion?

 

[Just1Voice]

You may have something here, with the GO concept, but there is still something about it that concerns me. I am having a little trouble articulating it, however, so I need to ask some questions to clarify your concept.

1. When a GO reaches its fundraising goal, what happens? Is it able to continue getting allocations beyond that? Is there a release valve of some sort that funnels that excess funding elsewhere?
2. What happens if a GO doesn't meet it's fundraising goal? Is it forced to scale back expenditures or does it go into debt? If it has to scale back, how would that be accomplished?

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice,

1. It's kind of hard to imagine that people would continue to donate substantial money to a GO after its fundraising goal had been met...especially if there were other GOs that weren't even close to meeting their fundraising goals. But I don't think that there should be "ceilings" or release valves.

2. If a GO doesn't meet its goal then it would either cut back expenditures or borrow money I suppose. But I think that even liberals generally appreciate that all GOs can do a lot more with a lot less. Every GO has its supporters though...so it's hard to imagine a scenario where the supporters of a GO sit back and do nothing if their GO is far from reaching its projected fundraising goal. Congress of course will have some funds that it can direct to what it believes to be the most underfunded yet essential GOs.

What's hard for me to articulate is the fundamental paradigm shift that will occur between tax payers and GOs. Tax payers will no longer be blindly shelling out their money to a faceless organization. They will become donors altruistically supporting public goods that they believe to be essential to the well being of our society. The focus will no longer be on cutting...it will be on contributing. The process of contributing to the good of society will go from impersonal to personal.

Right now most people feel a "cold prickle" when they pay taxes but they feel a "warm glow" when they make donations to non-profits that they support. That will change once they can give to the GOs that they support. People will feel a "warm glow" when they pay their taxes...which is how it should be. I know the impact of this paradigm shift will be positive but it's really hard to quantify the repercussions.

What do you think?

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, here's the first sentence from that page...



Does that sound relevant to the discussion?

No. It doesn't. Charity and national defense are not comparable.

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice,

1. It's kind of hard to imagine that people would continue to donate substantial money to a GO after its fundraising goal had been met...especially if there were other GOs that weren't even close to meeting their fundraising goals. But I don't think that there should be "ceilings" or release valves.

It's not hard for me to imagine this happening at all. Supposing a presented set of goals for various GOs (i.e. the overall budget) has been "balanced" in terms of the amount of tax revenue expected, then the likelihood of this happening is actually very high.

2. If a GO doesn't meet its goal then it would either cut back expenditures or borrow money I suppose. But I think that even liberals generally appreciate that all GOs can do a lot more with a lot less. Every GO has its supporters though...so it's hard to imagine a scenario where the supporters of a GO sit back and do nothing if their GO is far from reaching its projected fundraising goal. Congress of course will have some funds that it can direct to what it believes to be the most underfunded yet essential GOs.

I think this statement is far too ambiguous. How much is "a lot"? Certainly any institution can be made more efficient, but inefficiency in government is a built-in characteristic. Our government was designed to be inefficient, as a self-limiting safety measure, to keep government from becoming too powerful. So the point at which the efficiency gain will plateau is inherently lower than that point is in the private sector.

What's hard for me to articulate is the fundamental paradigm shift that will occur between tax payers and GOs. Tax payers will no longer be blindly shelling out their money to a faceless organization. They will become donors altruistically supporting public goods that they believe to be essential to the well being of our society. The focus will no longer be on cutting...it will be on contributing. The process of contributing to the good of society will go from impersonal to personal.

Right now most people feel a "cold prickle" when they pay taxes but they feel a "warm glow" when they make donations to non-profits that they support. That will change once they can give to the GOs that they support. People will feel a "warm glow" when they pay their taxes...which is how it should be. I know the impact of this paradigm shift will be positive but it's really hard to quantify the repercussions.

What do you think?

As I have said, I do see where you are coming from. It's not a bad idea. I just have grave doubts about it being a good idea.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, regarding the concept of "excessive" funding. The amount of money tax payers allocated to a GO would reflect how much of that public good they wanted. It would be like me telling you that you are spending way too much of your money for your kids' education...or that you are spending too much money on a home security system. Your spending reflects how much you value those goods. Only you can know whether you are spending too much money on a certain good or not.

When it comes to the well being of America we all have different perspectives...which is why 2 heads are better than 1. Take crime for example. To fight crime would you allocate most of your taxes to more jails? What about more cops? If an ounce of prevention is worth two of cure then perhaps you would allocate your taxes to more after school programs?

I don't quite see how efficiency can lead to government being too powerful. A GO producing more of a public good for less money can only be a good thing. If anybody thinks that a GO is producing too much of a public "good" then they can always withdraw their funding from that GO.

 

[Xerographica]

Deuce, the page in question discusses paying for success. In other words, paying for results. Are you saying that results only matter for charity and not for national defense?

 

[Just1Voice]

Just1Voice, regarding the concept of "excessive" funding. The amount of money tax payers allocated to a GO would reflect how much of that public good they wanted. It would be like me telling you that you are spending way too much of your money for your kids' education...or that you are spending too much money on a home security system. Your spending reflects how much you value those goods. Only you can know whether you are spending too much money on a certain good or not.

People can be very reactionary in these choices. Look at single-issue voters. I know a number of people who hated GWs policies but voted for him only because they believed he was closer to their stance on abortion than his opponent. That is going to translate to similar choices in tax allocations.

When it comes to the well being of America we all have different perspectives...which is why 2 heads are better than 1. Take crime for example. To fight crime would you allocate most of your taxes to more jails? What about more cops? If an ounce of prevention is worth two of cure then perhaps you would allocate your taxes to more after school programs?

Now here is a particularly good issue to focus on. It is my contention that under this system prisons would end up in a crisis situation from under-funding. Why? Because people on the left believe that less people should be in prison and people on the right believe that prisoners should suffer more. Hence, both sides would allocate less funding to prisons.

I don't quite see how efficiency can lead to government being too powerful. A GO producing more of a public good for less money can only be a good thing. If anybody thinks that a GO is producing too much of a public "good" then they can always withdraw their funding from that GO.

I can't disagree with this, but there were members of the first constitutional convention that so feared the power of government that they did, indeed, design it to be less efficient on purpose. Look at our system of checks and balances. It seems clear that the framers would rather a government be paralyzed and incapable of taking any action than have enough power to threaten the sovereignty of the individual states. Changing the way we allocate our taxes, odd as it may seem to you and I, would alter that power balance in favor of the Federal Government over the states, even though it would also place more power into the hands of individual citizens. It may well make us susceptible to what the federalist papers called "the tyranny of the majority," or it could effectively create an oligarchy, since the wealthy would have far more say in which programs received funding than anyone else.

Yes, I know that we are getting dangerously close to oligarchy now, but that is due to corruption, and it is more 'fixable' than this new system of tax allocation would be.

 

[Xerographica]

Just1Voice, honestly I'm not sure if our taxes currently pay for abortions. But that's an added benefit of pragmatarianism. If somebody is against abortion then they should have the choice not to allocate any of their taxes towards abortions. Same thing with people who are against the drug war or wars in general. To adapt what Milton Friedman said in this video...If we can't persuade the public that it's desirable to fund these things, then we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it.

Regarding prisons, if both left and right want to allocate less funding to prisons...then it will be up to the center to provide "adequate" funding for prisons. It seems like you're under the impression that there is one "right" answer...that there is some "optimal" funding level. If you think all prisoners should have "x" amount of amenities then it will be up to you to try and convince other tax payers that it's more desirable for prisoners to have "x" amount of amenities than it is for kids to have "x" amount of computers per classroom. It's all about opportunity cost. Then again, nobody will be stopping you from paying more than your fair share of taxes towards any public good that you consider to be seriously "underfunded". Like I said, the focus will switch from cutting to contributing.

The Federalist Papers got the term "tyranny of the majority" from Alexis de Tocqueville who I quoted earlier on. My original post included a link to my blog entry which is dedicated to the concept of checks and balances.