- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 163
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Keridan, well...I'm lost now. Are you saying that your only objection to pragmatarianism is that taxpayers would be susceptible to advertising by government organizations? If that's the case then wouldn't they be willing to contribute more than their fair share of taxes? Or would they somehow lose their susceptibility to advertising as soon as they paid their fair share?
Keridan, it's lack of understanding that prevents you from effectively explaining why you disagree. There was absolutely no substance to your reply. I already completely understand that you disagree...but you totally failed to defend your incredibly vague assumptions.
Where is the fascism? Why can't we apply free market principles to the public sector? Why isn't it healthy?
Keridan, again...no substance. The only reason that congress allocates taxes is because they took control of the taxes from a king. That's it. That's the ONLY reason. Some barons got together and decided to strip the power of the purse from the king. You can't defend something that has no logical basis. It's based on nothing but tradition.
There is absolutely no evidence that 535 congresspeople can allocate taxes more efficiently than millions and millions of taxpayers. All the evidence is to the contrary. Every single failed socialist experiment offers loud and indisputably clear evidence that planners cannot allocate resources as efficiently as the invisible hand can.
Let me ask you again...
Where is the fascism?
Why can't we apply free market principles to the public sector?
Why isn't it healthy?
Keridan, it's not about me liking your answer...it's about your answer having any validity. For example...you said..."In a free market, the advantage to those wealthy is to provide the service for a direct return on investment. The reward system is very key in making the invisible hand theory work." That would be valid...if it weren't for the fact that the invisible hand efficiently allocates the non-profit sector.
Your concern over the wealthy would be valid...if you could offer any evidence that they would all allocate their taxes exactly alike. That would require generalizing people's values based on their level of wealth. The same concept applies to corporate taxes.
But I'd be very interested in hearing which public goods you think that the wealthy and corporate "fascists" would support with their taxes. Incidentally, it's really fascinating though to hear a libertarian making the same argument against pragmatarianism that a revolutionary communist made...A "Hard Times" Milestone. Don't worry if you can't come up with a reasonable answer...the revolutionary communist wasn't able to either. So you're in good company...I guess.
Keridan, whether you purchase a TV or make a donation to UNICEF...you instinctively understand that the money you spent cannot be used for the other goods that you value. This is known as "opportunity cost". When people are considering how much defense they would be willing to forgo for healthcare they are considering opportunity costs. The opportunity cost concept is necessary to ensure the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
I mentioned this to you way back when you brought up your Medicare example...
"The only way to ensure the most efficient allocation of public goods is to force taxpayers to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions. You obviously value your grand/parent's health...so what other public goods would you be willing to forgo in order to help fund their healthcare?"
I'm not being obtuse...you're just bringing up the same thing that I already answered with basic economic concepts. You obviously didn't grasp it the first time even though I provided you with a link to help explain it. Like I said...This "doesn't bode well for our ability to make much progress with this discussion. If you trust your conclusions so strongly that you fail to consider the evidence that I offer then...well...we might be here a while."
Economics is all about opportunity costs. Read the opportunity costs of war and the opportunity cost of public goods. Read Bastiat's essay on opportunity costs read Hayek's essay on partial information. If you don't read and understand what I link you to then you're going to keep on bringing up the same objections.
I can't provide any evidence on how the wealthy or the poor are going to allocate their taxes. But I know you can't generalize people's values based on how much money they have. That's ridiculous. I just know that there is plenty of economic evidence for how resources are efficiently allocated and there is no economic evidence for planners being able to efficiently allocate resources. It won't work out wonderfully but it would defy everything we know about economics if it didn't work out better than the current system.
Well, I give up. You don't even understand my last argument, let alone the principal differences between the two fields of economics. You even feel that opportunity cost is the answer to a lack of comparable competition.
You can't teach a pig to sing. I am not going to waste my time trying. So I will have to accept that you walk away feeling like you win and you will get to feel like you win and wonder why pragmatarianism never gains any ground among rational and educated people.
Yes...because Bastiat and Hayek were pigs who didn't know what they were talking about. Because "comparable competition" is a real economics term and "opportunity cost" is not.
Pragmatarianism has only been around for 2 years. How much progress has libertarianism made in the past 100 years? If you get a chance you might want to look up Einstein's definition of insanity.
GreenvilleGrows, when you have questions about pragmatarianism it helps to see how your questions apply to the non-profit sector. In a pragmatarian system you would submit your taxes directly to FEMA...or the EPA...or the DOD...etc. They would give you a receipt and then send a notice of your payment to the IRS.
Anybody not interested in directly allocating their taxes would still be able to send their taxes to the IRS.
In principal, the idea sounds interesting. But, the transition would be chaotic. And, wouldn’t each year also be chaotic? The departments would have no idea how much money they might receive depending upon PR campaigns or controversies that arose the prior year. And, wouldn’t the various departments end up mounting annual capital campaigns? I believe the market takes care of itself when left alone. And, I believe that most of what citizens do would average out. But, I also believe there are false external forces that act upon the citizens skewing results.
Since all government spending and programs are paid for with tax money, directly allocating your own taxes amounts to voting on your choice of government programs. Ones people don't like wouldn't receive funding, even if they were necessary. Suppose, only as an example, people used this method and medicare only ended up with 10% of it's current funding. Most people who have medicare pay fewer taxes. Suddenly people who depend on medicare have no health coverage and didn't have any transition. The same could be said of any social program that people are dependent on. You can't just take it away without transition and a new plan for them.
It becomes regressive, as well, due to the fact that the poor get the fewest monetary votes. Even worse, if you still tax corporations, you start risking fascism.
Regarding continuing of policies when a president leaves office, it depends on who follows and what choices both people make. If he tried to accomplish his goals in 8 years, I think it would be rough and people would dislike the extreme changes and they would vote in someone who vowed to undo them. It's all speculation, however. I'm also not speaking directly to the value of his policies, but rather to the speed with which he would need to see them implemented in an 8 year presidency.
Actually, it went from socialized medicine to fascist medicine when it went from single-payer to forced purchase of a private product. I'm not a republican, but it wasn't them who made the change.
NEWS FLASH: It was never a single-payer.
Also, would you mind explaining how the new healthcare plan is "fascist?"
My stance on the healthcare debate is that taxpayers should have the freedom to directly allocate their individual taxes...aka pragmatarianism.
Pragmatarianism would make the entire debate a moot point. Taxpayers would be able to directly allocate as much of their taxes as they wanted to public healthcare and the amount of funds that public healthcare received would determine the percentage of the population that qualified for coverage. This dynamic would allow public and private healthcare organizations to indirectly compete for funding. Everybody would benefit from this competition.
So...if you had to choose one or the other...would you choose for Ron Paul to be elected president or would you choose for taxpayers to be allowed to directly allocate their taxes?
This would never happen. America's occupying wars would instantly end. I doubt the militairy industrial complex would let that happen.
(or at least be severely reduced with only a small fraction of people willing to pay for the war)
Good luck. You're on your ownOut of curiosity did you read my post on the Opportunity Costs of War? If I randomly stop posting you'll know that it was the military industrial complex that got me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?