Who Are Your True Representatives?

[Xerographica]

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.

Haven't you ever been a member of a society or club? If so...how many societies have you been a member of? Did you ever have an official position? Did the members ever disagree? Did the members all have the same level of interest? What strategies did they use to recruit new members? Why would they want to recruit new members? How many societies and clubs do you think there are here in the US?

Why would somebody start taking karate classes? Maybe they saw a movie? Maybe their friend dragged them to one? Maybe they were assaulted? Maybe they want to get in shape? Maybe because they were bored?

What led you to join this forum? How did you even know about this forum? How did you develop an interest in politics?

Do you know how much information influences your daily decisions? Do you know how many ads you see on daily basis? Do you know how many ads you ignore on a daily basis? Do you know who or what is your biggest source of information?

Those are all rhetorical questions. Here are a few that aren't. Do you have any idea how many taxpayers would choose to directly allocate their taxes rather than just give their taxes to congress? What would it mean if somebody chose to directly allocate their taxes?

This brings to mind another very relative point. I am going to share a paragraph from "Deschooling Society" by Ivan Illich, which can be found here. (This essay's thesis is unrelated to this discussion, but this excerpt shows a very relevant truth in my mind)
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.

Honestly, that essay was extremely painful to try and read. I kept trying to find his recommendation...his suggestion...his bottom line...something or anything of substance...but to no avail.

How would independent allocation of taxes further the mindset that throwing money at institutions is the solution? What do you throw your money at? Who do you know that just throws their money at things? Of course the government is just going to throw money at things. You know why? Because it's not their money.

Consider this interview with Bill Gates talking about innovation and reform...

Christiane Amanpour: "You talk about democracies, which, obviously they are elected officials who are meant to be taking care of these kind of things, are you stepping in because our democracy is failing in this regard?"
Bill Gates: "No, there's been a history in the United States for several centuries now where an approach that is more innovative requires some extra funding to get going. And, so the idea of charter schools at first they required extra money. Some of these new curriculum approaches require some extra money. The work to measure effective teachers to pay for the videos that Melinda talked about, they're not going to take that out of their normal funds. So maybe they should have more experimental money but they don't. So the role of philanthropy is to make that possible. Now, they get to decide which of these things really work and they get to apply the big dollars, which is their regular spending on these students...so our role is catalytic to let them see new approaches."
[...]
Bill Gates: "In philanthropy it's very important to have diversity. And so if somebody thinks that the giving pledge or other things that we're saying, you know, there is only one model then that is a mistake. We love the fact that we sit down and learn from these people things they are doing. Everybody should pursue their own approach. So it's not a monolothic thing it's about doing different things but still learning from each other."
Melinda Gates: "And I think the important thing is to think about is how much wealth could go back to society from the giving pledge I mean that's the enomerous positive. The financial dollars that come from the philanthropy I think are the initial wedge to try the experiments then it's really up to the democracy to decide whether to take those on."​

In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers would pursue their own approaches. Some people would give their taxes to innovative ideas while other people would play it safe. But I can guarantee you that we would have heterogeneous activity and I can guarantee you that the innovation and reform you're looking is NOT to be found in homogeneous activity. Think about how many societies and clubs there are in the private sector...and then tell me whether allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would result in heterogeneous or homogeneous activity in the public sector.

 

[Xerographica]

Not really, economic democracy has always been the definition of classical socialism.

It would really help if you were able to give me more examples of what you are talking about. All you really say is that people would vote on the things that effect them. Could you be more vague? What specifically would people vote on? We've already established that you really don't want people to vote on how you spend your time.

Because its not 150 million taxpayers, its billions of dollars, most of which are controlled by a couple thousant rediculously rich people.

The danger is that the rich, who would have more say since they have more money, only use public funds to benefit themselves and not to benefit other people.

You're the king of vagueness. Failure to offer specifics is simply failure. What specific public goods are the rich going to spend their taxes on that will result in horrific detriment to the rest of society? What public good is Bill Gates going to spend his taxes on that will result in all types of public badness? Oh noes...he's killing us with kindness!??? He's going to give too much money to NASA? He's going to give too much money to the EPA? He's going to give too much money to congress? He's going to give too much money to national defense? He's going to give too much money to public healthcare? He's going to give too much money to public education? He's going to give too much money to public transportation?

Democratically organized companies and the economy over all.

As I've already demonstrated...I understand what democratically organized companies are...but what's "and the economy over all" mean?

Also if thats what socialism is, a small group of planners, then every corporation is socialist and so is every monarchy, that isn't and never has been socialism.

Really? The board of Microsoft gets to decide how much money they receive...like congress gets to decide how much money the EPA receives? Dang! I should really start my own company. I thought consumers decided how much money a company receives...but I guess I was wrong.

No one feels threatened here, just frusturated at your thick headed ness and pompusness, inventing your own ideology and pretending its an actual movement, and simply ignoring all the obvious flaws in it, and your insistance on arguing against strawmen.

Yet yet yet...here you are. Did anybody force you to read my threads? Cause...I sure don't have any problem not reading your threads. Did anybody force you to reply to my threads? No? So you do so of your own free will? Free will...ain't it great?

 

[RGacky3]

It would really help if you were able to give me more examples of what you are talking about. All you really say is that people would vote on the things that effect them. Could you be more vague? What specifically would people vote on? We've already established that you really don't want people to vote on how you spend your time.

Specific? look up Anarchist Catelonia.

You're the king of vagueness. Failure to offer specifics is simply failure. What specific public goods are the rich going to spend their taxes on that will result in horrific detriment to the rest of society? What public good is Bill Gates going to spend his taxes on that will result in all types of public badness? Oh noes...he's killing us with kindness!??? He's going to give too much money to NASA? He's going to give too much money to the EPA? He's going to give too much money to congress? He's going to give too much money to national defense? He's going to give too much money to public healthcare? He's going to give too much money to public education? He's going to give too much money to public transportation?

he'll just take money away from public education, which he doesn't need, public transportation, which he doesn't need, public healthcare, and only give it to things that benefit him, say, more airports for private planes, privitizing public goods, NASA developing things that benefit only his buisines ...

Its not that difficult to think that with the rich in control they'll use their power to benefit themselves more than other people.

Really? The board of Microsoft gets to decide how much money they receive...like congress gets to decide how much money the EPA receives? Dang! I should really start my own company. I thought consumers decided how much money a company receives...but I guess I was wrong.

The Board of microsoft decides what to do with the money they recieve .... As does congress ... Also taxpayers decide through congress through elections.

Yet yet yet...here you are. Did anybody force you to read my threads? Cause...I sure don't have any problem not reading your threads. Did anybody force you to reply to my threads? No? So you do so of your own free will? Free will...ain't it great?

Don't know what that is a response to ...

 

[gavinfielder]

In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers would pursue their own approaches. Some people would give their taxes to innovative ideas while other people would play it safe.

I was about to respond to this by questioning the practicality of having an infinite number of options available to taxpayers, but then I remembered you also advocate creating an entirely new structure to the tax collection process:

Too much extra cash? Here's the simple answer. Brace yourself...because this might sound absurd...but I'm guessing that each government organization would have a fundraising progress bar on its website. And...just like in the non-profit sector...taxpayers would be able to pay their taxes at anytime throughout the year.

That really does make it possible to have a near-infinite number of options available to taxpayers, including innovative ideas, doesn't it? There is no big master list of options available anywhere, there doesn't need to be because the awareness of those options depends on the persuasion of those advocating it and the validity of their idea. I suppose you also advocate that anyone can form an option without jumping through too many hoops to get there.

Hmm.

Ok, maybe this is coming together.

Let me go back to something else I believe I only briefly mentioned. What protections would there be against an agency infringing upon the rights of those they don't represent? This goes back primarily to class warfare, but in general, there needs to be some check against this.

Here's a big question on specifics: What is the minimum tax rate, how is it determined, and how is it verified to have been collected?

What are the requirements of a tax-receivable organization? How are they different, if at all, from charities and/or philanthropic organizations, or...ah. tax-receivable organizations which exist to promote the advocacy of other tax-receivable organizations. Because, of course, that's essentially what a lobby group is now. What effect would it have on the democratic process to allow those organizations to receive tax revenue as well?

Wait, I'm confused all of the sudden. Where the democratic literal vote go?

 

[gavinfielder]

he'll just take money away from public education, which he doesn't need, public transportation, which he doesn't need, public healthcare, and only give it to things that benefit him, say, more airports for private planes, privitizing public goods, NASA developing things that benefit only his buisines. Its not that difficult to think that with the rich in control they'll use their power to benefit themselves more than other people.

You might be missing a realization in his argument. You can't take money away, you can only give. Xero is making the argument that tax contribution options that support the upper class aren't going to receive much revenue from middle class taxpayers, and nor should they, and nor is it a problem if they don't, and vice versa, because it's not actually possible to literally "take money away" from any tax-receivable organization. But yeah, there obviously can exist organizations whose agenda will limit the freedom of others [and other social classes], so it really depends on what checks and controls might exist to prevent this. Which is why I ask, in my previous post. The dangers might also apply to other ethnic groups, other religious groups, any other group of society, if the tax-receivable organization is organized, consciously or unconsciously, on any such principle.

 

[Xerographica]

Specific? look up Anarchist Catelonia.

So now you're an anarcho-socialist? So you want to get rid of government? How come you haven't mentioned this before?

he'll just take money away from public education, which he doesn't need, public transportation, which he doesn't need, public healthcare, and only give it to things that benefit him, say, more airports for private planes, privitizing public goods, NASA developing things that benefit only his buisines ...

Its not that difficult to think that with the rich in control they'll use their power to benefit themselves more than other people.

So rich people are all selfish and poor people are all selfless? I mean...then what's the point of giving money to poor people? They're all selfless...so none of them would keep it. Well...except for the selfish poor people. They would keep all their money for themselves. Oh...except then that would make them rich. So rich people are just selfish poor people and poor people are just selfless rich people?

Do you have any idea how much money Bill Gates has given to education? LOL When you buy somebody a gift...do you only buy them a gift that you need? Oh, you really crack me up.

As I already said...voters would determine whether or not something was a public good. Do you think that voters are really going to vote for more airports for private planes? Can you offer a specific example of something that NASA would develop that would only benefit Microsoft? Do you think something that NASA developed would be considered public or private property? Which public organization would Bill Gates give his taxes to in order to privatize public goods? I'm really not familiar with that government organization. It sounds kind of strange though that there would be a government organization responsible for privatizing government organizations. Why would Bill Gates want to privatize any public goods when he could choose which public goods he supported with his taxes? Didn't I mention that in a pragmatarian system voters would determine whether or not something was qualified to receive public funding?

The Board of microsoft decides what to do with the money they recieve .... As does congress ... Also taxpayers decide through congress through elections.

So consumers can decide whether they give their money to Microsoft....yet taxpayers can't decide whether they give their taxes to the EPA? Why can't the Board of the EPA decide what they do with the money they receive?

 

[RGacky3]

You might be missing a realization in his argument. You can't take money away, you can only give.

I mean defunding ...

Xero is making the argument that tax contribution options that support the upper class aren't going to receive much revenue from middle class taxpayers, and nor should they, and nor is it a problem if they don't, and vice versa, because it's not actually possible to literally "take money away" from any tax-receivable organization.

Unfortunately the rich have a LOT LOT more disposable income than the middle class, and a lot more access to capital.

 

[RGacky3]

So now you're an anarcho-socialist? So you want to get rid of government? How come you haven't mentioned this before?

Because its not that important, I am an anarcho-socailist (or syndicalist), however I deal in the real world, how to solve real problems here and now, so I would be anti-"Communism" in the USSR and anti-Capitalist in the US.

But hey, THERE is an example of it in the real world.

So rich people are all selfish and poor people are all selfless? I mean...then what's the point of giving money to poor people? They're all selfless...so none of them would keep it. Well...except for the selfish poor people. They would keep all their money for themselves. Oh...except then that would make them rich. So rich people are just selfish poor people and poor people are just selfless rich people?

Strawman, I never said anything of the sort ... Nor did I imply it, everyone in economics is treated as primarily self-interested.

Do you have any idea how much money Bill Gates has given to education? LOL When you buy somebody a gift...do you only buy them a gift that you need? Oh, you really crack me up.

Oh sure ... So you basically want to turn the public sector into the salvation army, a charity where the rich get to choose what is worthy for their charity ... Charity doesn't CHANGE the source of the problems, its just aliviates some of the pain.

As I already said...voters would determine whether or not something was a public good. Do you think that voters are really going to vote for more airports for private planes? Can you offer a specific example of something that NASA would develop that would only benefit Microsoft? Do you think something that NASA developed would be considered public or private property? Which public organization would Bill Gates give his taxes to in order to privatize public goods? I'm really not familiar with that government organization. It sounds kind of strange though that there would be a government organization responsible for privatizing government organizations. Why would Bill Gates want to privatize any public goods when he could choose which public goods he supported with his taxes? Didn't I mention that in a pragmatarian system voters would determine whether or not something was qualified to receive public funding?

airports are public goods ... Bill gates could give his taxes to an organization that examines public sector areas and privitizes them (like a government waste agency), or he might fund public research into computing systems, however only if they promise to privitize the results, and defund things that help the poor.

Bill Gates would want to Privitisze public goods that he could take over and profit from.

Stop calling it pragmatarianism ... just call it Your own system, because thats what it is.

So consumers can decide whether they give their money to Microsoft....yet taxpayers can't decide whether they give their taxes to the EPA? Why can't the Board of the EPA decide what they do with the money they receive?

The taxpayers DO decide through elections, except its not one dollar one vote, its one person ... because guess what, both poor people and rich people suffer from pollution.

 

[gavinfielder]

So rich people are all selfish and poor people are all selfless? I mean...then what's the point of giving money to poor people? They're all selfless...so none of them would keep it. Well...except for the selfish poor people. They would keep all their money for themselves. Oh...except then that would make them rich. So rich people are just selfish poor people and poor people are just selfless rich people?

Do you have any idea how much money Bill Gates has given to education? LOL When you buy somebody a gift...do you only buy them a gift that you need? Oh, you really crack me up.

You believe in the inherent goodness of society, then.

I don't. That's simply not what we are seeing today with the financial giants in America. Microsoft is one thing. I'd agree Microsoft is a great company that would indeed use this system responsibly. But there are also those who would use it irresponsibly, which is why we need checks against infringements upon the freedoms of other groups.

Do you think that voters are really going to vote for more airports for private planes?

Are you talking about the literal vote or the figurative vote? Because it can be interpreted and accomplished either way.

Charity doesn't CHANGE the source of the problems, its just aliviates some of the pain.

Not necessarily. There are charities that do much more than throw money at a problem.

 

[Xerographica]

I was about to respond to this by questioning the practicality of having an infinite number of options available to taxpayers, but then I remembered you also advocate creating an entirely new structure to the tax collection process:
That really does make it possible to have a near-infinite number of options available to taxpayers, including innovative ideas, doesn't it? There is no big master list of options available anywhere, there doesn't need to be because the awareness of those options depends on the persuasion of those advocating it and the validity of their idea. I suppose you also advocate that anyone can form an option without jumping through too many hoops to get there.

Voters would determine whether something was a public good or not. Remember my example of the laptop? If enough voters decided that laptops should be a public good then they would be a public good. That doesn't necessarily mean that everybody would get a free laptop...it would just mean that there was a government organization responsible for giving laptops to inner city youth. The more revenue this government organization received the more laptops it could supply.

It's the same thing with bicycles. If voters decided that bicycles should be a public good...then a government organization would be created that would be responsible for supplying bicycles to inner city youth. The more revenue this government organization received...the more bicycles they would be able to distribute.

Let me go back to something else I believe I only briefly mentioned. What protections would there be against an agency infringing upon the rights of those they don't represent? This goes back primarily to class warfare, but in general, there needs to be some check against this.

The protections are voters...who would determine whether or not a good was public...and taxpayers...who would have the freedom to withhold their taxes from all but one government organization.

Here's a big question on specifics: What is the minimum tax rate, how is it determined, and how is it verified to have been collected?

Congress would determine the tax rate by evaluating how many government organizations were in the public sector. The more government organizations in the public sector...the higher the tax rate. The less government organizations in the public sector...the lower the tax rate.

To pay taxes...you'd go to the EPA website and directly submit a payment. They'd give you a receipt which you would submit to the IRS by April 15.

What are the requirements of a tax-receivable organization? How are they different, if at all, from charities and/or philanthropic organizations, or...ah. tax-receivable organizations which exist to promote the advocacy of other tax-receivable organizations. Because, of course, that's essentially what a lobby group is now. What effect would it have on the democratic process to allow those organizations to receive tax revenue as well?

Wait, I'm confused all of the sudden. Where the democratic literal vote go?

The literal vote determines...
1. whether or not a good should be public
2. whether drugs/abortion/euthanasia etc should be legal
3. who our politicians are

 

[gavinfielder]

Congress would determine the tax rate by evaluating how many government organizations were in the public sector. The more government organizations in the public sector...the higher the tax rate. The less government organizations in the public sector...the lower the tax rate.

That's it? I'm not sure I agree, but let's not bother with it for now, since unless I'm mistaken, that can change without altering the basic premise of the system.

The protections are voters...who would determine whether or not a good was public...and taxpayers...who would have the freedom to withhold their taxes from all but one government organization.

What RGacky and I have been going on about is that the second "protection" isn't a protection at all because even if 99% of the population withheld tax contributions, the wealthiest 1% could still adequately fund it. The first protection, I'll grant, but you also earlier admitted that mistakes are sometimes made in the democratic process.

And this would be more prevalent if tax-receivable organizations (ok, let's just call them PGOs for public good organizations? You like that?), if PGOs which exist to promote the advocacy of other PGOs on the literal ballot, were allowed to be PGOs in the first place. Basically, if the wealthiest 1% can give money to an organization which will then run an enormous ad campaign promoting other PGOs, then the system can develop into a functional oligarchy, much like America is today.

 

[Xerographica]

What RGacky and I have been going on about is that the second "protection" isn't a protection at all because even if 99% of the population withheld tax contributions, the wealthiest 1% could still adequately fund it. The first protection, I'll grant, but you also earlier admitted that mistakes are sometimes made in the democratic process.

And this would be more prevalent if tax-receivable organizations (ok, let's just call them PGOs for public good organizations? You like that?), if PGOs which exist to promote the advocacy of other PGOs on the literal ballot, were allowed to be PGOs in the first place. Basically, if the wealthiest 1% can give money to an organization which will then run an enormous ad campaign promoting other PGOs, then the system can develop into a functional oligarchy, much like America is today.

The option to boycott isn't a protection? All the anti-war groups might disagree. People should never have to fund something they believe is unethical or unnecessary.

A PGO responsible for promoting other PGOs? Like all PGOs...it would want to maximize its revenue. It's hard to imagine that it would maximize its revenue by promoting only the PGOs that only benefited the wealthy. It's especially hard to imagine because I have trouble seeing voters allow for the existence of a PGO that only benefited the wealthy. It's also hard to imagine a PGO that all the wealthy would agree to fund.

 

[Xerographica]

You believe in the inherent goodness of society, then.

I don't. That's simply not what we are seeing today with the financial giants in America. Microsoft is one thing. I'd agree Microsoft is a great company that would indeed use this system responsibly. But there are also those who would use it irresponsibly, which is why we need checks against infringements upon the freedoms of other groups.

Any inherent goodness/badness of a society is defined by that society. So voters would designate which goods they perceived to be good for society. So it's hard to imagine how even the baddest individuals would use good to do harm.

When I try and evaluate pragmatarianism...I tend to imagine if there had been a pragmatarianism system in Germany under Hitler. Clearly, voters still would have been duped...given that voters can vote for politicians in a pragmatarian system. But would taxpayers have been duped as well? At this point I'm probably biased...but I really don't think that taxpayers would have been duped. Especially since a good portion of the taxpayers were Jews.

This is simply because actions speak louder than words. It's one thing to voice your support for an idea...but it's another thing to put your money where your mouth is. It doesn't cost the majority anything to vote...but it does cost taxpayers to support the things they value. And taxpayers definitely do not value all the same things. This is the fundamental check and balance of pragmatarianism.

 

[gavinfielder]

The option to boycott isn't a protection? All the anti-war groups might disagree. People should never have to fund something they believe is unethical or unnecessary.

And if they're duped? What if biased media completely drowns out intelligent conversation? It would seem that the torrent of information that people would receive simply depends on the relative ad expenditure on each side. No society can be completely intellectual.

 

[Xerographica]

And if they're duped? What if biased media completely drowns out intelligent conversation? It would seem that the torrent of information that people would receive simply depends on the relative ad expenditure on each side. No society can be completely intellectual.

How would taxpayers ALL be duped? If somebody can dupe all the taxpayers...then they don't need to go into the public sector to do so. Given that congresspeople are taxpayers...if somebody can dupe ALL the taxpayers......then certainly it is far easier to dupe 538 congresspeople than it is to dupe 150 million taxpayers.

If you want to corrupt our government...where do you have to go? Washington DC...that's where the power and control is centralized. All our eggs are in one basket. But what about in a pragmatarian system? Then where would you go if you wanted to corrupt government? Power and control would be decentralized so you'd have to go on TV. You'd have to buy commercials just like everybody else does and hope that 150 million of our most productive citizens have nothing better to do with their time than sit around watching TV.

 

[gavinfielder]

How would taxpayers ALL be duped?

They don't have to ALL be duped, only enough to skew the democratic process. Which is easy when 1) the advocate has extraordinary disposable income and 2) politics is not the primary job of a nation's people--jobs are. Families are. Politics isn't the primary concern of a majority of society, by a long shot, and those that are less concerned are more likely to be affected by the loudest voice in media.

 

[Xerographica]

They don't have to ALL be duped, only enough to skew the democratic process. Which is easy when 1) the advocate has extraordinary disposable income and 2) politics is not the primary job of a nation's people--jobs are. Families are. Politics isn't the primary concern of a majority of society, by a long shot, and those that are less concerned are more likely to be affected by the loudest voice in media.

Oh, you lost me. Let's review...

1. "The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it." - Henry David Thoreau
2.



Let's say that 150 million taxpayers currently exchange 1/4 of their lives for public goods. Aren't they going to be concerned with choosing which public goods they exchange 1/4 of their lives for?

Did you ever see the movie The Names of Love? I really liked it...it's kinda like Amelie. In the movie...one of the main characters says..."As he likes painting, Dad becomes a painter. He works hard so we want for nothing. So we want for nothing...but the presence of my father who works hard so we want for nothing."

In economic terms...this is known as opportunity cost. Taxpayers work so they can provide for their families...but it costs them time that they could have spent with their families. Then the government comes along and takes away 1/4 of the time they spent providing for their families. They sacrifice a good portion of their own lives...and the lives of their family...for public goods.

This isn't exactly right...but if everybody is taxed at a rate of .1% of their income...then how their taxes are spent will occupy .1% of their concern. If everybody is taxed at a rate of 10% of their income...then how their taxes are spent will occupy 10% of their concern. If everybody is taxed at a rate of 50% of their income...then how their taxes are spent will occupy 50% of their concern.

You're right that the large majority of taxpayers are not currently interested in politics. Why should they be? They have absolutely no control over how their taxes are spent. But give them control over how their taxes are spent in the public sector...and their interest in the public sector will reflect their opportunity to choose what exactly the government produces that is worth their sacrifices.

 

[gavinfielder]

So in other words, you're betting that because they have the opportunity, they're going to be more interested than to allow for-profit media to skew their opinions on tax spending?

That's an incredible assumption without a lot of data to back it up.

Of course, I just opened up a new door: remove the for-profit media as the primary means of taxpayer education. What do you think of that, @RGacky3?

 

[Xerographica]

So in other words, you're betting that because they have the opportunity, they're going to be more interested than to allow for-profit media to skew their opinions on tax spending?

That's an incredible assumption without a lot of data to back it up.

Of course, I just opened up a new door: remove the for-profit media as the primary means of taxpayer education. What do you think of that, @RGacky3?

There's a lot of data to back it up. Just evaluate what influences your spending decisions in the private sector. I just told you that The Names of Love was a good movie. Did you immediately go out and buy it?

I really don't understand why you would want to limit media companies from trying to influence how people spend their money in the public sector. If I can't show you the value in a public good that I want you to spend your money on...then you just wont contribute to it. If you do contribute to it and discover that you were duped...then you won't contribute to it again.

But we're not all going to make the same mistakes because we all have really diverse interests and values. This is the point of heterogeneous activity. It hedges our bets. You might want me to give my taxes to the PGO for bicycles...but I might be rather skeptical that bicycles are more important than public healthcare or environmental protection. Then you might point out that an once of prevention is worth two of cure. Then you might also point out that bicycles give people transportation at no cost to the environment. Those are really good reasons to give taxes to the dept of bicycles...but I still might be skeptical...because maybe I think that the kids who get the bicycles just go out and sell them for drugs.

Consider the defense industry...that's a billion dollar industry. In a pragmatarian system...I'm sure defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and so on are going to shell out more than a few bucks to purchase ads that remind taxpayers why they should give their taxes to the Dept of Defense. Who will their ads influence though? Liberals or conservatives? Well...I'm sure it would influence all the employees of those corporations...who probably wouldn't need to be influenced in the first place.

But will Bill Gates be motivated to give his taxes to the DoD on the basis of a commercial he saw? Philanthrocapitalists don't just randomly invest their money because they saw a commercial. They research which areas will give them the most bang for their buck. They're all about due diligence.

 

[gavinfielder]

There's a lot of data to back it up. Just evaluate what influences your spending decisions in the private sector.

For me? Availability, quality, and price. None of that determines whether the good or service I buy is a public good. If you think the way I spend my money buying basic necessities is directly related to whether I think the goods and services I buy are, in the long run, beneficial to society as a whole, then you think way too highly of consumers.

I really don't understand why you would want to limit media companies from trying to influence how people spend their money in the public sector. If I can't show you the value in a public good that I want you to spend your money on...then you just wont contribute to it. If you do contribute to it and discover that you were duped...then you won't contribute to it again.

I don't think there's a need to limit media. In fact, there is no limiting that absolutely needs to happen here. I would instead advocate the funding of a public media institution that 1) limits airtime for PGO ads, and 2) aims to replace mainstream media as the dominant source of information for PGO awareness.

That's cool, right?

But we're not all going to make the same mistakes because we all have really diverse interests and values. This is the point of heterogeneous activity. It hedges our bets. You might want me to give my taxes to the PGO for bicycles...but I might be rather skeptical that bicycles are more important than public healthcare or environmental protection. Then you might point out that an once of prevention is worth two of cure. Then you might also point out that bicycles give people transportation at no cost to the environment. Those are really good reasons to give taxes to the dept of bicycles...but I still might be skeptical...because maybe I think that the kids who get the bicycles just go out and sell them for drugs.

Let's expand this. Let's add three half-interested taxpayers, paid media, and a drug cartel. Does your view now have the same opportunity to penetrate to the taxpayers as the cartel-funded media campaign supporting bicycles?

Who will their ads influence though?

The half-interested taxpayers. You claim they won't be an issue, but there's no evidence to suggest that education of the specifics behind goods and services will be incentivized by the opportunity of independent allocation of resources, beyond the face value of the good or service they provide. This goes back to the essay excerpt I shared with you in which it talks about confusing process and substance.

 

[Xerographica]

For me? Availability, quality, and price. None of that determines whether the good or service I buy is a public good. If you think the way I spend my money buying basic necessities is directly related to whether I think the goods and services I buy are, in the long run, beneficial to society as a whole, then you think way too highly of consumers.

As I look around my room and try to mentally catalog the ridiculously wide variety of goods that I see...then it's really hard to imagine that I think too highly of consumers and producers. It's hard to imagine that I think too highly of you just doing what you do.

Let's pretend that 200 years ago we set up a congress for the private sector. The private congress would consist of 538 elected representatives who would take 75% of our income and choose which private companies and organizations they gave our money to. Do you think the variety of private goods would be larger or smaller than it currently is?

It's really hard for me to imagine that allowing 150 million taxpayers to choose how their taxes are spent in the public sector won't eventually yield a variety of public goods that matches the variety of interests, concerns, worries, hopes and dreams of 150 million people. Will that be beneficial to society as a whole in the long run? It will certainly be more beneficial than allowing 538 people to try and represent 150 million people's interests, concerns, worries, hopes and dreams.

I don't think there's a need to limit media. In fact, there is no limiting that absolutely needs to happen here. I would instead advocate the funding of a public media institution that 1) limits airtime for PGO ads, and 2) aims to replace mainstream media as the dominant source of information for PGO awareness.

That's cool, right?

Noooo, you never limit people's freedom to try and protect their interests. If I'm REALLY concerned about the environment and give 100% of my taxes to the EPA and then some...then I really wouldn't want the EPA's freedom to try and increase awareness of environmental problems to be limited. The keyword here is always "try"...because there's never any guarantees that the opposition won't try harder/smarter. And it doesn't matter how much I value the environment...I would never want to limit the opposition's freedom to try and protect their own interests.

Let's expand this. Let's add three half-interested taxpayers, paid media, and a drug cartel. Does your view now have the same opportunity to penetrate to the taxpayers as the cartel-funded media campaign supporting bicycles?

Nope...it certainly might not. Just like my view on pragmatarianism does not have the same opportunity to penetrate to as wide an audience as Ed Miliband's view on predistribution does. But if I try hard/smart enough then it's very possible that I might eventually be able to change that. One of the earliest stories I remember my mother reading to me was the little train that could. Then when I was a little bit older I remember us reading the story of David and Goliath. But I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that good always triumphs over evil...and I'm definitely smart enough to grasp the implications of fallibilism. So on one hand...I'm pretty sure that pragmatarianism is worth my effort...and on the other hand I'm absolutely certain that I'm just a blind man touching something I'm certain is not an elephant...when it actually is. That's why I would never try and limit my opposition's ability to try and protect their own interests...even if their own interests are contrary to my own.

The half-interested taxpayers. You claim they won't be an issue, but there's no evidence to suggest that education of the specifics behind goods and services will be incentivized by the opportunity of independent allocation of resources, beyond the face value of the good or service they provide. This goes back to the essay excerpt I shared with you in which it talks about confusing process and substance.

One person's trash is another person's treasure. It's really not easy to try and step outside yourself...but it's really necessary if you're going to embrace enough tolerance to allow people to go down the "wrong" path. Because you might actually be the one on the "wrong" path. That's why it's absolutely essential to give people the freedom to spend their own taxes on what they perceive to be substantive. Worst comes to worst...they end up wasting their taxes...but at least they did not waste yours as well.

 

[gavinfielder]

It's really hard for me to imagine that allowing 150 million taxpayers to choose how their taxes are spent in the public sector won't eventually yield a variety of public goods that matches the variety of interests, concerns, worries, hopes and dreams of 150 million people. Will that be beneficial to society as a whole in the long run?

That's another thing I was vaguely thinking. I think another thing we have to consider is the desaturation of resources. If tax revenue is spread out over such a wide denominator of public services, would it inhibit a vast majority of them in not being able to garner enough funding to achieve even baseline productivity? Any business acumen would acknowledge that there's a minimum funding necessary to support any service before being productive; Unless a PGO can overcome its overhead, allocated tax dollars are just going to be poured down the bottomless pit of public servant salaries.

Noooo, you never limit people's freedom to try and protect their interests. If I'm REALLY concerned about the environment and give 100% of my taxes to the EPA and then some...then I really wouldn't want the EPA's freedom to try and increase awareness of environmental problems to be limited. The keyword here is always "try"...because there's never any guarantees that the opposition won't try harder/smarter. And it doesn't matter how much I value the environment...I would never want to limit the opposition's freedom to try and protect their own interests.

Here's a concept. In order to purport that a voice can always overcome other voices in market mindshare simply by putting enough effort into it, you must first assume that adspace is infinite. Mathematically, that can't be the case. Suppose that a person receives media stimulus from an average of 5 different things at once, at all waking hours of the day, at hell, let's even say that the average 5 commercials at any given moment change at an average of every 60 seconds. 18 x 5 x 60 = 5400 average media stimulus minutes per person per day. Multiplying by a population of 150 million: 5400 x 1.5E+08 = 8.1E+11 media stimulus minutes per day, i.e., media reception per day of the entire population. The input numbers can be changed all you want; ultimately, the result is a mathematically finite number, and having a finite number here entails that large buyouts of adspace will begin to marginalize other opinions as soon as society puts in enough gross effort into it.

And, at that point also, the inherent and unavoidable lack of supply with rising demand will drive the price of PGO market mindshare to potentially prohibitive levels.

Nope...it certainly might not. Just like my view on pragmatarianism does not have the same opportunity to penetrate to as wide an audience as Ed Miliband's view on predistribution does. But if I try hard/smart enough then it's very possible that I might eventually be able to change that.

Doesn't matter. You just admitted that the equal right to opportunity is compromised. Yes things can change, but not as easily as it could change than if you had more disposable time/money/life.

Of course...the rest of that paragraph suggests that you're ok with not having an equal right to opportunity.

One person's trash is another person's treasure. It's really not easy to try and step outside yourself...but it's really necessary if you're going to embrace enough tolerance to allow people to go down the "wrong" path. Because you might actually be the one on the "wrong" path. That's why it's absolutely essential to give people the freedom to spend their own taxes on what they perceive to be substantive. Worst comes to worst...they end up wasting their taxes...but at least they did not waste yours as well.

Hm. I suppose there's merit in that, but, pragmatically, doesn't that introduce a huge amount of waste into the entire system of governance? I would think that a primary goal of introducing systemic changes would be to improve societal efficiency.

 

[Xerographica]

That's another thing I was vaguely thinking. I think another thing we have to consider is the desaturation of resources. If tax revenue is spread out over such a wide denominator of public services, would it inhibit a vast majority of them in not being able to garner enough funding to achieve even baseline productivity? Any business acumen would acknowledge that there's a minimum funding necessary to support any service before being productive; Unless a PGO can overcome its overhead, allocated tax dollars are just going to be poured down the bottomless pit of public servant salaries.

Liberals like to focus on market failure and libertarians like to focus on government failure. Pragmatarianism focuses on both. Wherever taxpayers spend their taxes in the public sector will reveal exactly where the government is succeeding and the market is failing. Wherever people spend their money in the private sector will reveal exactly where the market is succeeding and the government is failing. Perhaps in some areas...the public sector will have a comparative advantage while in other areas it will have an absolute advantage. In other words...pragmatarianism will reveal the most efficient division of labor between the private and public sectors.

The division of labor between both sectors will determine the division of funding between both sectors. The sector that does more will get more. The sector that does less will get less.

Here's a concept. In order to purport that a voice can always overcome other voices in market mindshare simply by putting enough effort into it, you must first assume that adspace is infinite. Mathematically, that can't be the case. Suppose that a person receives media stimulus from an average of 5 different things at once, at all waking hours of the day, at hell, let's even say that the average 5 commercials at any given moment change at an average of every 60 seconds. 18 x 5 x 60 = 5400 average media stimulus minutes per person per day. Multiplying by a population of 150 million: 5400 x 1.5E+08 = 8.1E+11 media stimulus minutes per day, i.e., media reception per day of the entire population. The input numbers can be changed all you want; ultimately, the result is a mathematically finite number, and having a finite number here entails that large buyouts of adspace will begin to marginalize other opinions as soon as society puts in enough gross effort into it.

And, at that point also, the inherent and unavoidable lack of supply with rising demand will drive the price of PGO market mindshare to potentially prohibitive levels.

Well...I just look at my web traffic statistics for my blog. Each hit is like a seed planted in somebody's mind. Maybe it will germinate into a tree that will spread the seeds to other people's minds...and maybe it won't. Sometimes I've noticed that I have to hear the same suggestion from three different people before I act on the suggestion. Personally...I'm really not a salesman. I just really find merit in the idea of taxpayers having the freedom to choose exactly what the government does that merits their taxes.

Doesn't matter. You just admitted that the equal right to opportunity is compromised. Yes things can change, but not as easily as it could change than if you had more disposable time/money/life.

Of course...the rest of that paragraph suggests that you're ok with not having an equal right to opportunity.

Capitalism is constantly redistributing resources to the people who have the skills that other people value enough to voluntarily pay for. And people with new and better skills are constantly entering into the market. The vetting process is ruthless but the alternative is not to have a vetting process. That means that other people would have to buy my album even though I'm completely overestimating my singing skills. That means that other people would have to hire me as an attorney even though I'm completely overestimating my legal skills. It would be fair but we wouldn't make any progress by giving resources to people who wouldn't make the most of them.

Hm. I suppose there's merit in that, but, pragmatically, doesn't that introduce a huge amount of waste into the entire system of governance? I would think that a primary goal of introducing systemic changes would be to improve societal efficiency.

But how many people tinkering in their garages does it take to actually come up with something that a huge chunk of society would actually exchange a portion of their lives for? The vast majority of entrepreneurs will most certainly fail. That's why venture capitalists tend to hedge their bets. If you want new and innovative ideas and products though...if you want to improve society in any measurable way...we absolutely must give these visionary risk takers the profit motive to gamble on their ideas.

And without giving consumers the opportunity to be the ultimate judges...the idea of "success" has absolutely no meaning. Allowing the government itself to determine whether it has succeeded where the market has failed would be as absurd as allowing entrepreneurs to determine how much money consumers gave to them. That would be ridiculous. Yet, I struggle to show people the value of giving taxpayers the opportunity to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to! Haha...that's ridiculous as well.

Perhaps every failed entrepreneur consoles themselves with the thought that their idea was ahead of its time. Posthumous success is for the birds though!

 

[gavinfielder]

Liberals like to focus on market failure and libertarians like to focus on government failure. Pragmatarianism focuses on both. Wherever taxpayers spend their taxes in the public sector will reveal exactly where the government is succeeding and the market is failing. Wherever people spend their money in the private sector will reveal exactly where the market is succeeding and the government is failing. Perhaps in some areas...the public sector will have a comparative advantage while in other areas it will have an absolute advantage. In other words...pragmatarianism will reveal the most efficient division of labor between the private and public sectors.

The division of labor between both sectors will determine the division of funding between both sectors. The sector that does more will get more. The sector that does less will get less.

The only solid answer I saw to the issue I brought up is that "government will fail, and then we'll know."

Well...I just look at my web traffic statistics for my blog. Each hit is like a seed planted in somebody's mind. Maybe it will germinate into a tree that will spread the seeds to other people's minds...and maybe it won't.

You're avoiding my point entirely. Your blog is one of millions of media artifacts out there. One moment spent reading your blog is a moment lost reading another. It's a finite total mindshare. In a finite total mindshare, once completely saturated, the opportunity to propagate opinion towards a PGO will no longer be a simple problem of putting enough effort into it, but very likely a problem of how much disposable income you can throw at it.

Capitalism is constantly redistributing resources to the people who have the skills that other people value enough to voluntarily pay for. And people with new and better skills are constantly entering into the market. The vetting process is ruthless but the alternative is not to have a vetting process. That means that other people would have to buy my album even though I'm completely overestimating my singing skills. That means that other people would have to hire me as an attorney even though I'm completely overestimating my legal skills. It would be fair but we wouldn't make any progress by giving resources to people who wouldn't make the most of them.

We weren't talking about skills, or the efficient distribution of goods and services. We were talking about ideas. Do you want to argue that there exist people who are inherently better at coming up with the right ideas than everyone else, and that everyone else should be appropriately marginalized? Because then it's a functional oligarchy, no?

But how many people tinkering in their garages does it take to actually come up with something that a huge chunk of society would actually exchange a portion of their lives for? The vast majority of entrepreneurs will most certainly fail. That's why venture capitalists tend to hedge their bets. If you want new and innovative ideas and products though...if you want to improve society in any measurable way...we absolutely must give these visionary risk takers the profit motive to gamble on their ideas.

Ok. I'd like to keep society running and improving in the process, and I think that's predicated more on the reduction of wasted resources than on the liberation of the taxpayer.

And without giving consumers the opportunity to be the ultimate judges...the idea of "success" has absolutely no meaning.

I don't agree. I think there are many considerations above popular decision making that indicate good social progress. Standard of living, for example. Access to education. Equal opportunity, economic mobility, the rate of technological advancement. Peace and diplomacy, the decline of poverty, and eventually, real progress towards the advancement of the human race as a civilization. Planetary Resources, Inc. is a damn good measure of social progress as far as I'm concerned, which actually incorporates a lot of ideas in common with pragmatarianism. It most certainly looks to the greater social input of the population in achieving its goals.

 

[Xerographica]

The only solid answer I saw to the issue I brought up is that "government will fail, and then we'll know."

The issue you brought up was that the total amount tax revenue would be thinly spread among many PGOs...

That's another thing I was vaguely thinking. I think another thing we have to consider is the desaturation of resources. If tax revenue is spread out over such a wide denominator of public services, would it inhibit a vast majority of them in not being able to garner enough funding to achieve even baseline productivity?

My response was that the quantity of PGOs would determine the tax rate...

The division of labor between both sectors will determine the division of funding between both sectors. The sector that does more will get more. The sector that does less will get less.

If the private sector only ends up supplying A...while the public sector ends up supplying B to Z...then it wouldn't make sense for the tax rate to only be 50%. If the tax rate was 50% then yes...the tax revenue would be thinly spread among many PGOs. But the job of congress would be to set the tax rate so that it accurately reflected the balance of labor between the private and public sectors. That's why I said before...the more things the public sector does...the higher the tax rate should be. We definitely should not put the cart before the horse. What the government does should determine the tax rate...not the other way around.

You're avoiding my point entirely. Your blog is one of millions of media artifacts out there. One moment spent reading your blog is a moment lost reading another. It's a finite total mindshare. In a finite total mindshare, once completely saturated, the opportunity to propagate opinion towards a PGO will no longer be a simple problem of putting enough effort into it, but very likely a problem of how much disposable income you can throw at it.

Honestly, a couple times I very very very very unseriously considered sacrificing my own life on Youtube to indicate how strongly I felt about pragmatarianism. Would that cause pragmatarianism to go viral without throwing disposable income at it? Consider the case of Mohamed Bouazizi who set himself on fire to protest how government officials were treating him. Why did I only unseriously contemplate such an extreme measure? Because there's always more than one way to skin a cat. And neither Jesus nor Gandhi nor Socrates nor Buddha got their messages out there by throwing disposable income at it. They certainly threw their lives at their messages though.

We weren't talking about skills, or the efficient distribution of goods and services. We were talking about ideas. Do you want to argue that there exist people who are inherently better at coming up with the right ideas than everyone else, and that everyone else should be appropriately marginalized? Because then it's a functional oligarchy, no?

If I can't persuade you to invest your time promoting my idea...then...what? Would it help if I threw my disposable income at you? Heh...it depends how much...right? But then how would that be any different from paying you to promote pragmatarianism? Why would I pay you to promote pragmatarianism if you were a lousy salesman? Doing so would be wasteful.

Ok. I'd like to keep society running and improving in the process, and I think that's predicated more on the reduction of wasted resources than on the liberation of the taxpayer.

But liberating taxpayers and reducing waste are the same exact thing. The fundamental rule of economics is that everybody wants more for less. In our society...we all use our dollars to figuratively vote for the people who give us more for less. Taxpayers are the people who give us more for less. They are the most resourceful / least wasteful people in our society. Because it surely, absolutely and fundamentally wouldn't be logical to give our money to the least resourceful / most wasteful people in our society...which is exactly why we never intentionally do so.

Again, consider how Henry David Thoreau described it..."The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it." Why buy the same exact product for more of your life when you could buy it for less of your life? Why needlessly waste your life? If one person produces a product for $100 and another person produces the same exact product for $80...then all things being equal...who do you purchase the product from? Of course you're going to purchase the product from the person who produced the product using less resources...and by doing so...requires less of your life.

Liberating taxpayers would allow our most resourceful / least wasteful citizens to choose which public goods were worth exchanging a portion of their lives for. This would reduce waste far greater than any other option we currently have available to us.

I don't agree. I think there are many considerations above popular decision making that indicate good social progress. Standard of living, for example. Access to education. Equal opportunity, economic mobility, the rate of technological advancement. Peace and diplomacy, the decline of poverty, and eventually, real progress towards the advancement of the human race as a civilization. Planetary Resources, Inc. is a damn good measure of social progress as far as I'm concerned, which actually incorporates a lot of ideas in common with pragmatarianism. It most certainly looks to the greater social input of the population in achieving its goals.

When Deng Xiaoping took power in China...why did the standard of living greatly improve? It's really really really simple. He allowed people to decide for themselves what their lives were worth. If you truly want to greatly improve the standard of living for Americans...then you'll allow our most resourceful citizens to decide what their lives are worth in the public sector. What does the public sector supply that is worth exchanging a significant portion of their lives for? Trying to answer that question for them is the height of conceit...and supporting policies based on conceit is the most efficient way to greatly diminish the standard of living. Therefore...the only social input that truly matters...is how much of your OWN life you'll voluntarily exchange for the things you want. When you support policies that exchange OTHER people's lives for the things you want...then the standard of living, access to education, equal opportunity, economic mobility, the rate of technological advancement and human flourishing will all be adversely affected.

All this ties into Bastiat's bottom line..."treat all economic questions from the viewpoint of the consumer, for the interests of the consumer are the interests of the human race."