- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 163
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
By contrast, if a consumer wants a new TV set and a new washing machine and he can afford only one of these without drawing on his savings (which he dislikes), he is in a cross-road situation. He must deliberate until he arrives at a decision as to which course of action he prefers. Thus, while we have reason to assume that preference functions for alternative uses of private funds (including the savings alternative) have some firmness and consistency, our findings raise doubt whether the corresponding concept of a preference function for alternative fiscal policies is fruitful. - Eva Mueller, Public Attitudes Toward Fiscal Programs
It depends where you live and what your options are ... I live in a country with public health care and good public transportation, many people don't have those options.
If taxpayers had the option to directly allocate their taxes...would more people have the option of public healthcare and public transportation?
Did you know that a $10 million investment in public transportation results in a $30 million gain in sales for local businesses? I found that out the hard way when I got a speeding ticket. If that little tidbit is true though...then why wouldn't local businesses owners, if given the option, give more of their taxes to public transportation?
Seems to me that every couple of weeks, Xero creates a thread about his ridiculous already completely debunked idea. This, I would say, is starting to border on spamming. For no, I will just make a "friendly" suggestion that you stop doing this.
Next time, my "suggestion" will be more official.
Show how taxpayers would be rational/efficient in allocating money for government spending.
Values are subjective...so how could there be a "wrong" answer? If I spend all my taxes on cancer research...is that an example of irrational spending? If you spend all your taxes on environmental protection...is that an example of irrational spending?
You would spend your taxes on the things that you value...and I would spend my taxes on the things that I value. It's as simple as that.
I think this calls for some historical discussion. Are you familiar with how socialism spread in Asia? I'm going to direct you to a major artifact of this:I'm a pragmatarian like RGacky3 is a socialist. I fundamentally believe that socialism is a ridiculous and already completely debunked idea.
Yeah...because your "official" suggestion would have absolutely nothing to do with your painfully obvious bias. What do you suggest I do? I'm a pragmatarian like RGacky3 is a socialist. I fundamentally believe that socialism is a ridiculous and already completely debunked idea. Yet, even if I had the power to do so...I would NEVER EVER consider the thought of limiting his ability to post new threads. Who the F*** would we debate if we got rid of all the people who disagreed with us? In case you missed it...the name of this website is DEBATEPolitics.
People just like you were responsible for killing Socrates and Jesus. You probably won't read my thread on the value of tolerance...but you really should.
Also, if you're going to threaten me with official action for merely sharing my political/economic perspective then at least have the decency to specify exactly which forum rule I am in violation of.
But how about this...if you don't like my threads...then just don't read them. Would that really be difficult for you to not click on a thread that I started? And if you truly believe that just because you don't find value in an idea...that nobody else will find value in it...then you should really think long and hard about your level of conceit. In other words...the parable of the blind men touching different parts of the elephant was written just for you.
Indeed, I like the idea of this, but I'm still forming my thoughts on it. I'd at least like the chance to discuss it, and I, as a new user, am a valid reason why not to disregard it as spam
but here we go:
I think this calls for some historical discussion. Are you familiar with how socialism spread in Asia? I'm going to direct you to a major artifact of this:
May Fourth Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The May 4th movement was a cultural revolution. It was an advent in popular sociopolitical thought in China, and is the birthplace, or at least a strong artifact of the origins, of Chinese communism.
Given this, If you believe that socialism is a ridiculous and completely debunked idea AND that popular opinion can responsibly shape government, why is China socialist?
Yeah...because your "official" suggestion would have absolutely nothing to do with your painfully obvious bias. What do you suggest I do? I'm a pragmatarian like RGacky3 is a socialist. I fundamentally believe that socialism is a ridiculous and already completely debunked idea. Yet, even if I had the power to do so...I would NEVER EVER consider the thought of limiting his ability to post new threads. Who the F*** would we debate if we got rid of all the people who disagreed with us? In case you missed it...the name of this website is DEBATEPolitics.
People just like you were responsible for killing Socrates and Jesus. You probably won't read my thread on the value of tolerance...but you really should.
Also, if you're going to threaten me with official action for merely sharing my political/economic perspective then at least have the decency to specify exactly which forum rule I am in violation of.
But how about this...if you don't like my threads...then just don't read them. Would that really be difficult for you to not click on a thread that I started? And if you truly believe that just because you don't find value in an idea...that nobody else will find value in it...then you should really think long and hard about your level of conceit. In other words...the parable of the blind men touching different parts of the elephant was written just for you.
In your graphic, you make a clear distinction between social progression from history to the present to the future, and that suggests that you don't think such a system would be possible in, say, 13th century England, and any reasonable person would assume that's due to the general level of education of the would-be taxpayer. Doesn't your view require, then, the assumption that the general education of society will always improve over time? I can't think of any evidence that would clearly support otherwise, of course, but you do have to make that assumption, yes?
EDIT: Also, out of curiosity, how much taxes would one pay under this system, and how would it be determined? What about contributions? Do you think it should then be illegal to give more taxes than you owe? Or does the separation of the democratic process and the economic process cover this as well, meaning that the ability of the upper class to give more money of their choice does not affect the equal rights of the lower class?
He didn't say something because he doesn't like what you post. He said something because you post the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Citizens United.Can you think of a public good that the less wealthy might object to if the more wealthy gave more than their fair share to?
China is currently just as socialist as we are. Well...not exactly...but close enough for the purposes of this discussion. In other words...we both have mixed economies. Here's a diagram that I created to depict our mixed economy...
As a pragmatarian
Will taxpayers responsibly shape the government? Well...we all make mistakes. But the idea of a "mistake" only makes sense in terms of waste. Generally...we try to avoid giving our money to people who waste it. If we do end up giving our money to somebody who wastes it then we regard it as a mistake and regret our decision. In that sense...given that we voluntarily and continually give our money to taxpayers...they can be thought of as the least wasteful people in our society. As such they will actively avoid giving their taxes to any government organizations that waste their money. This is why 150 million taxpayers actively striving to maximize the return on their investment in the public sector will produce far more value than 538 congresspeople spending money that they did not sweat, labor and toil to earn.
I fundamentally believe that socialism is a ridiculous and already completely debunked idea.
Also, if you're going to threaten me with official action for merely sharing my political/economic perspective then at least have the decency to specify exactly which forum rule I am in violation of.
Funny, I would say that if economics were ever to invade the realm of democracy, then we invariably will experience democratic problems.My proposal is about delineating the division of labor between economics and democracy. Whenever we're talking about money being spent...we're talking about economics. If democracy ever invades the realm of economics...then we invariably will experience economic problems.
Well, yes, exactly. Do you realize that there are people who actually can't choose how they spend their time and money?Perhaps Henry David Thoreau best summarized the overall concept when he said, "The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it." So if you spend $10 on a book...and you earn $10/hr...then you exchanged an hour of your life for that book. Was it worth it? That depends entirely on your perspective. But if you can't choose how you spend your time/money...then your perspective does not influence how resources are distributed...which leads to a misdirection of resources...which results in the abortion of opportunities.
Indeed. Xerographica, if we are given the power to choose based on the money we can pay, it is inherently a plutocracy and thereby complete anathema to democracy. I would take this a lot more seriously with simple limits placed on taxation and contribution.You've NEVER addressed the obvious objection that your basically only supporting plutocracy.
Funny, I would say that if economics were ever to invade the realm of democracy, then we invariably will experience democratic problems.
Well, yes, exactly. Do you realize that there are people who actually can't choose how they spend their time and money?
Indeed. Xerographica, if we are given the power to choose based on the money we can pay, it is inherently a plutocracy and thereby complete anathema to democracy. I would take this a lot more seriously with simple limits placed on taxation and contribution.
This is not the division of labor between democracy and economics. You've simply split the democratic process into two parts: what people are governed by, and how much it governs them based on funding. The former is fine, but under this system, the latter completely destroys democracy and institutes plutocracy.
Neither of them are socialist, since neither of them have democratic economies ... THATS WHAT IS MEANT WHEN SOCIALISTS SAY SOCIALISM!!!!
Will you quit that, its not a real thing ... its not gonna catch on, there is no such thing as pragmatarianism, you just made it up.
You've NEVER addressed the obvious objection that your basically only supporting plutocracy.
It hasn't been debunked, and every time its been put into effect (I mean actually put into effect), its worked just fine.
The fact is every single thread of yours is just promoting some ideololgy you just made up and like to pretend is a a real thing ... You never actually deal with any objections and just create new threads with the same idea under a different title, its rediculous and its really just spamming.
I just had a realization about this. Just because the upper class can give more tax money than the middle class does not mean there will be no support for the middle class. The middle class simply has to take care of itself.
Ok then. The lower class is still an issue, though, because the lower class can be a huge number of people and yet not pay a lot in taxes. How will those who represent them get adequate funding?
Other than that, there would also need to be checks against government organizations to ensure that they don't infringe upon the rights of anyone who didn't fund them. Because that's entirely possible, and is easily seen with Citizens United.
Of course. Intellectual responsibility requires listening before speaking. Give me any reading you want.Let's say that I want you to spend your time reading my most recent blog entry...Noah Smith's Critique of Pragmatarianism. What would it take for me to persuade you to read it? Maybe a little...maybe a lot? I can't possibly know until I ask you to read it. What would your response be? Maybe you'll ask me WHY you should read it? That's a very reasonable question. My response would be because that entry contains a detailed explanation of the value of persuasion. Would that be sufficient to convince you to spend your time reading that entry? How could I possibly know that? Only you have that information. Only you know all the other things that you could spend your time doing. Only I know all the other things that I could be spending my time doing right now.
This doesn't happen though. It happens in an intellectual environment, and in many cases, taxpayers are not in an intellectual environment. It's why 90% of Americans will always vote for a single party regardless of just about everything. The people who actively worry about their government are a minority in just about every society I can think of. Most people won't want to deal with the torrent of information that you envision raining down on them. This will create a market for "Tax Contribution Guides" that will attempt to simplify the process, and will most likely be published by political parties and organizations, hell, even the biggest organizations that stand to receive tax allocation. I can't imagine that dissenting opinions of any particular allocation option is going to penetrate this market, because specifics in each government organization is too intellectual for people to want to deal with.Xerographica said:Errr...because you would tell them. You would create a blog entry that offers conclusive proof that the Dept of Transportation can only really effectively spend $50 billion dollars. Isn't that what economists are for? And then the Dept of Transportation would offer conclusive evidence that refutes your conclusive evidence. And then all the trolls would chime in with their own conclusive evidence.
And taxpayers would be swimming in all sorts of conclusive evidence.
In other words, our culture is one that has taught itself that improvement of the substance or results of a service or social institution implies nothing more than throwing money at it, which of course is complete bogus. Independent allocation of tax contributions would further realize that mindset in the public and remove thought towards intelligent reform and innovation in government.Chapter 1. Why We Must Disestablish School
Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is "schooled" to accept service in place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work. Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavor are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question.
Xerographica said:It's kind of hard to communicate with you when you assign meaning to words that nobody else does...
Xerographica said:The objection is so obvious...yet all you're capable of saying is "plutocracy". Surely you must know that something is dangerous about plutocracy...or else you wouldn't use the word to attack pragmatarianism. So show me exactly how that danger applies to allowing 150 million taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. I really don't think 150 million taxpayers...half of our country...would really even remotely constitute a plutocracy. But maybe it has the same inherent dangers...but I certainly do not see them. If you see them...then please show them to me. If the dangers are so obvious...then you should have no problem doing so.
How are 150 million taxpayers going to spend their taxes to screw the other half of the country?
Xerographica said:Socialism is a small group of government planners who decide how a nation's resources should be spent. It's failed every time it's been tried. If that's not what you're advocating then you're not advocating socialism. And like I already told you...I have absolutely NO objection to democratically organized companies. NOBODY is stopping you from starting a democratically organized company. Do you know how I know? Because as I already pointed out to you...democratically organized companies already exist...such as Armstrong Nurseries. We've already been over this. I already provided you the link to the thread where I have promoted democratically organized companies...
Xerographica said:I really really really like it that you feel so threatened by something that you say is not real.
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?