• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Demand For Defense?

csbrown28 said:
LOL, yes, and that one element does not ensure more rational choices. So is it true or false?
Click to expand...
Right now I think you're making an irrational choice by opposing pragmatarianism. So I'm endeavoring to share my information with you.

If we created a market in the public sector... would you agree or disagree with the demand for defense? If you agreed with the demand for defense then it would reflect all the information that you have. If you disagreed with the demand for defense then it wouldn't reflect all the information that you have.

You demand X amount of defense. Society demands Y amount of defense. The disparity between X and Y reflects the disparity between your information and society's information. The greater the disparity between X and Y... the more incentive for you to share your information with society and learn society's information...

csbrown28: Hey Xero... you're spending way too much on defense! You should spend more tax dollars on combating global warming!
Xero: Combating global warming? Uh, I guess you didn't get the memo that Godzilla is heading our way?
csbrown28: Godzilla!?? Oh ****!?? *allocates lots of money to the DoD*

When we can choose where our money goes... we have the strongest possible incentive to be informed and share our information with others. When we can't choose where our money goes... then why bother making the effort to be informed?
 
Jetboogieman said:
It's literally like you took a week or so of an economics course, latched onto a single idea that was discussed in passing, quit the course on that basis, have now taken it to an absurd extreme... And at this point there is no chance of you being able to see how ridiculous this all sounds.

This is pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook.
Click to expand...
You think pragmatarianism is a stupid idea. Therefore, you should be forced to fund it? Or you should be free to boycott it? I'm guessing that you want to be free to boycott it. But that's exactly what pragmatarianism is. It's the freedom to boycott stupid ideas.
 
Xerographica said:
You think pragmatarianism is a stupid idea.
Click to expand...

Most definitely.

Therefore, you should be forced to fund it? Or you should be free to boycott it? I'm guessing that you want to be free to boycott it. But that's exactly what pragmatarianism is. It's the freedom to boycott stupid ideas.
Click to expand...

Oh good, because it's not an idea, it's a crap stain on the underbelly of economics.
 
Jetboogieman said:
It's literally like you took a week or so of an economics course, latched onto a single idea that was discussed in passing, quit the course on that basis, have now taken it to an absurd extreme... And at this point there is no chance of you being able to see how ridiculous this all sounds.

This is pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook.
Click to expand...

If we ignore the last paragraph, this is essentially an explanation of how prices allow supply and demand forces to economize scarce resources. Very basic - and universally accepted - stuff.
 
Xerographica said:
What if Frank the business owner doesn't buy enough computers? What if he hires too many accountants and not enough lawyers? What if he hires too many janitors and not enough secretaries? Nothing? Frank would still rank in the cash even if he spends all his revenue on staplers?

The market would really suck if those with more income/influence were the worst at getting the balance right. Fortunately, those with the most income/influence are the best at getting the balance right. What the market does is reward those who get the balance right and punish those who don't. If Bob the baker consistently orders too much flour... then he will lose income/resources/influence to Brad the baker... who doesn't consistently order too much flour.

Markets are constantly taking society's limited resources out of less capable hands and putting them into more capable hands. The market is a selection process. Consumers use their money to select for the most capable producers.
Click to expand...

You make these grand, sweeping statements as if everything consumers did was smart, which is obviously not the case at all. Consumers do lots of very, very stupid things every single day. Is Kim Kardashian "more capable" than a scientist who makes a tiny fraction of her income? Is a rich consumer "smart" when they buy a $100 bottle of wine, while a poor consumer is stupid when they buy a pack of cigarettes?

Xerographica said:
Poverty is the result of too many of society's limited resources ending up in the wrong hands. Socialism puts society's limited resources into the wrong hands. Our public sector is a socialist economy. Therefore, our public sector is the cause of poverty. Replacing the socialist economy in our public sector with a market economy would eliminate poverty.
Click to expand...

Society has plenty of resources for everybody, but it isn't the government preventing a more even distribution of those resources, it's capitalism. That's how capitalism works - you basically said that yourself, when you espoused the advantages of good decision-making, and how money/resources are taken from "less capable hands" and put into "more capable hands." Capitalism, with plenty of help from automation and cheap foreign labor, has put a very large share of the national income into a fairly small number of hands, and left many hands completely empty.

You have given exactly zero proof/logic/reasoning to support your assertion that the public sector is somehow responsible for this. Declaratory statements don't fly here.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You make these grand, sweeping statements as if everything consumers did was smart, which is obviously not the case at all. Consumers do lots of very, very stupid things every single day. Is Kim Kardashian "more capable" than a scientist who makes a tiny fraction of her income? Is a rich consumer "smart" when they buy a $100 bottle of wine, while a poor consumer is stupid when they buy a pack of cigarettes?
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think that Kardashian is more capable than most people... which is why I choose not to put my money into her hands. And I really really really value having the freedom to not put my money into her hands. I value my freedom to not put my money into her hands so much that I strongly support other people's freedom to put their money into her hands.

What about you? Do you value your freedom to not put your money into Kardashian's hands? Or do you wish that you didn't have this freedom?

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Society has plenty of resources for everybody, but it isn't the government preventing a more even distribution of those resources, it's capitalism. That's how capitalism works - you basically said that yourself, when you espoused the advantages of good decision-making, and how money/resources are taken from "less capable hands" and put into "more capable hands." Capitalism, with plenty of help from automation and cheap foreign labor, has put a very large share of the national income into a fairly small number of hands, and left many hands completely empty.

You have given exactly zero proof/logic/reasoning to support your assertion that the public sector is somehow responsible for this. Declaratory statements don't fly here.
Click to expand...
The public sector is socialism. Where's your proof/logic/reasoning to support socialism? All you've said was "Kardashian... therefore you're wrong!"

Kardashian... therefore socialism? It's a non-sequitur. If you don't like Kardashian then you should really love consumer choice. Consumer choice is the opposite of socialism. Right now Elizabeth Warren spends my money regardless of what I think of her. Even if I thought that she was the next Hitler... it wouldn't make a difference. She would still be able to spend my money.

Isn't that a scary thought? It sure scares me. If you think some elected representative is the next Hitler... then I really want you to have the freedom to keep your money out of their hands. Socialism doesn't give you that freedom... but markets do. Which is part of the reason why it's so important that we create a market in the public sector.
 
Xerographica said:
Personally, I don't think that Kardashian is more capable than most people... which is why I choose not to put my money into her hands. And I really really really value having the freedom to not put my money into her hands. I value my freedom to not put my money into her hands so much that I strongly support other people's freedom to put their money into her hands.

What about you? Do you value your freedom to not put your money into Kardashian's hands? Or do you wish that you didn't have this freedom?


The public sector is socialism. Where's your proof/logic/reasoning to support socialism? All you've said was "Kardashian... therefore you're wrong!"

Kardashian... therefore socialism? It's a non-sequitur. If you don't like Kardashian then you should really love consumer choice. Consumer choice is the opposite of socialism. Right now Elizabeth Warren spends my money regardless of what I think of her. Even if I thought that she was the next Hitler... it wouldn't make a difference. She would still be able to spend my money.

Isn't that a scary thought? It sure scares me. If you think some elected representative is the next Hitler... then I really want you to have the freedom to keep your money out of their hands. Socialism doesn't give you that freedom... but markets do. Which is part of the reason why it's so important that we create a market in the public sector.
Click to expand...

The market only works if you have enough money. Which means it is working for fewer and fewer people every day. I demonstrated (using your own words) why capitalism is the cause of wealth inequality, and why it excludes more and more people from the game. You have utterly failed to demonstrate your assertion about the public sector. (You also don't seem to know the correct definition of "socialism".)
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The market only works if you have enough money. Which means it is working for fewer and fewer people every day. I demonstrated (using your own words) why capitalism is the cause of wealth inequality, and why it excludes more and more people from the game. You have utterly failed to demonstrate your assertion about the public sector. (You also don't seem to know the correct definition of "socialism".)
Click to expand...
Socialism is the absence of consumer choice. We don't have consumer choice in the public sector... therefore we have socialism in the public sector. For some reason you think that socialism is helping to eliminate poverty. Might want to read up on the Great Leap Forward.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You make these grand, sweeping statements as if everything consumers did was smart, which is obviously not the case at all. Consumers do lots of very, very stupid things every single day.
Click to expand...

Every actor in the market is guilty of doing "stupid" things. This is why businesses go bust and individuals lose money. But that is the entire point as you will see.

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Society has plenty of resources for everybody, but it isn't the government preventing a more even distribution of those resources, it's capitalism. That's how capitalism works - you basically said that yourself, when you espoused the advantages of good decision-making, and how money/resources are taken from "less capable hands" and put into "more capable hands." Capitalism, with plenty of help from automation and cheap foreign labor, has put a very large share of the national income into a fairly small number of hands, and left many hands completely empty.
Click to expand...

First off, capitalism has a strong negative pejorative tone in many circles (and, in fact, was coined in such a circle) so I'll use the more proper term free market.

Your first problem is that you assume "society has plenty of resources for everybody." Resources, by their very nature, are limited in quantity, location, and ease of appropriation and are generally owned privately by individuals. Society itself is simply a mental construct which is incapable of owning or acting or anything else beyond simply being. Thus, the main problem of economics as a science is to describe how scarce resources are discovered, transported, manipulated, and ultimately transformed into something which another individual desires.

The crux of the free market is that prices are pieces of information which allow buyers and sellers to communicate. They show to both buyers and sellers that a particular good is either desirable or undesirable at a particular price. When consumers demand a particular good, the resources necessary to create that good must be obtained in an efficient enough manner in order to derive a price which is acceptable to consumers. Thus, prices themselves are the most important feature of a market economy.

When people talk about "less" and "more capable hands," they refer to the efficiency with which an entrepreneur creates those things which are desirable by consumers. If a business attempts to sell a good which few individuals choose to purchase at a particular price, the market is essentially showing the business that those scarce resources would be better utilized in the manufacture of other goods. Thus, prices allow scarce resources to be utilized in their most efficient manner by being channeled into those goods which are most desired by consumers.

Automation is highly desirable, but I do not have time to get into this right now. Perhaps in a few hours.
 
Xerographica said:
Socialism is the absence of consumer choice. We don't have consumer choice in the public sector... therefore we have socialism in the public sector.
Click to expand...

That is a horrible assumption. Review your terminology, please.
 
Henrin said:
They go where help is provided. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And what if no other and/or insufficient help is provided?

What if charities do not receive enough funds to house/feed all the children that need shelter/food? Do you propose that the government should just let them die?
 
Xerographica said:
What if Frank the business owner doesn't buy enough computers? What if he hires too many accountants and not enough lawyers? What if he hires too many janitors and not enough secretaries? Nothing? Frank would still rank in the cash even if he spends all his revenue on staplers?

The market would really suck if those with more income/influence were the worst at getting the balance right. Fortunately, those with the most income/influence are the best at getting the balance right. What the market does is reward those who get the balance right and punish those who don't. If Bob the baker consistently orders too much flour... then he will lose income/resources/influence to Brad the baker... who doesn't consistently order too much flour.

Markets are constantly taking society's limited resources out of less capable hands and putting them into more capable hands. The market is a selection process. Consumers use their money to select for the most capable producers.

Poverty is the result of too many of society's limited resources ending up in the wrong hands. Socialism puts society's limited resources into the wrong hands. Our public sector is a socialist economy. Therefore, our public sector is the cause of poverty. Replacing the socialist economy in our public sector with a market economy would eliminate poverty.
Click to expand...

Lots of theories, but you did not answer any of my specific questions.

What if charities do not provide enough food/shelter to children to make up for the lack of government funding (assuming the latter existed in your system)?

Do you propose to just let those children die of exposure/starvation?
 
Xerographica said:
Right now I think you're making an irrational choice by opposing pragmatarianism. So I'm endeavoring to share my information with you.

If we created a market in the public sector... would you agree or disagree with the demand for defense? If you agreed with the demand for defense then it would reflect all the information that you have. If you disagreed with the demand for defense then it wouldn't reflect all the information that you have.

You demand X amount of defense. Society demands Y amount of defense. The disparity between X and Y reflects the disparity between your information and society's information. The greater the disparity between X and Y... the more incentive for you to share your information with society and learn society's information...

csbrown28: Hey Xero... you're spending way too much on defense! You should spend more tax dollars on combating global warming!
Xero: Combating global warming? Uh, I guess you didn't get the memo that Godzilla is heading our way?
csbrown28: Godzilla!?? Oh ****!?? *allocates lots of money to the DoD*

When we can choose where our money goes... we have the strongest possible incentive to be informed and share our information with others. When we can't choose where our money goes... then why bother making the effort to be informed?
Click to expand...

Again, you still haven't addressed the point I made in my original post. The flaw in your idea is predicated on the idea that people have all the information necessary to make rational choices and those choices will lead to the best outcomes.

It sounds like you value the freedom to make the choice more than you value the results of those choices.
 
DA60 said:
And what if no other and/or insufficient help is provided?

What if charities do not receive enough funds to house/feed all the children that need shelter/food? Do you propose that the government should just let them die?
Click to expand...

A big part of the problem is the regulatory structure of employment itself. We can assume that in a system which allows individuals to determine the flow of money, private contract would rule over arbitrary price floors (e.g. minimum wage) and barriers to entry. Thus, unemployment itself would likely decline dramatically as it would be possible to perform menial tasks for low wages in replacement of taxpayer handouts. Furthermore, history suggests that private philanthropy has always and will always exceed government largess.
 
TNAR said:
A big part of the problem is the regulatory structure of employment itself. We can assume that in a system which allows individuals to determine the flow of money, private contract would rule over arbitrary price floors (e.g. minimum wage) and barriers to entry. Thus, unemployment itself would likely decline dramatically as it would be possible to perform menial tasks for low wages in replacement of taxpayer handouts. Furthermore, history suggests that private philanthropy has always and will always exceed government largess.
Click to expand...

Fine, but what if it doesn't? What if one year charities have a major shortfall?

Do you let children die of exposure/starvation?


I am big on freedom of choice. But I am even bigger on governments need to look after those who cannot look after themselves (especially the sick-disabled/elderly/children).
IMO, their needs must always come first, everything else (funding wise) is second.
 
Last edited:
Xerographica said:
Socialism is the absence of consumer choice. We don't have consumer choice in the public sector... therefore we have socialism in the public sector. For some reason you think that socialism is helping to eliminate poverty. Might want to read up on the Great Leap Forward.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

Socialism is a political ideology and movement[1] which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies[2] and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
Click to expand...

You might want to read up in general.

You can't just make up definitions to suit your political ideology. Your arguments are completely vacuous, consisting of (incorrect) declaratory statements and completely devoid of any logic or reasoning.
 
TNAR said:
Every actor in the market is guilty of doing "stupid" things. This is why businesses go bust and individuals lose money. But that is the entire point as you will see.



First off, capitalism has a strong negative pejorative tone in many circles (and, in fact, was coined in such a circle) so I'll use the more proper term free market.

Your first problem is that you assume "society has plenty of resources for everybody." Resources, by their very nature, are limited in quantity, location, and ease of appropriation and are generally owned privately by individuals. Society itself is simply a mental construct which is incapable of owning or acting or anything else beyond simply being. Thus, the main problem of economics as a science is to describe how scarce resources are discovered, transported, manipulated, and ultimately transformed into something which another individual desires.

The crux of the free market is that prices are pieces of information which allow buyers and sellers to communicate. They show to both buyers and sellers that a particular good is either desirable or undesirable at a particular price. When consumers demand a particular good, the resources necessary to create that good must be obtained in an efficient enough manner in order to derive a price which is acceptable to consumers. Thus, prices themselves are the most important feature of a market economy.

When people talk about "less" and "more capable hands," they refer to the efficiency with which an entrepreneur creates those things which are desirable by consumers. If a business attempts to sell a good which few individuals choose to purchase at a particular price, the market is essentially showing the business that those scarce resources would be better utilized in the manufacture of other goods. Thus, prices allow scarce resources to be utilized in their most efficient manner by being channeled into those goods which are most desired by consumers.

Automation is highly desirable, but I do not have time to get into this right now. Perhaps in a few hours.
Click to expand...

Let's start off by saying that I have no problem with capitalism. I think it is a very useful tool. But it is a tool, not a solution in and of itself. Capitalism and free markets do distribute some things very well, but free marketeers take this way too far.

For example, in your reply to DA60 you suggest that govt. regulation (and a minimum wage in particular) blocks ownership and labor from freely contracting; if they were allowed to contract freely, unemployment would be eliminated. Of course, those laborers would have to accept far less than they earn now, with the most desperate workers setting the wage floor.

The free market, left to its own devices, also leads to ever-increasing income inequality and wealth piling up in a few hands, leaving many other hands empty. Capitalism doesn't distribute resources in the "most efficient" manner, it distributes resources to a small number of people. And it is not always on the basis of production or innovation; capitalism ends up as a game of leverage. Ownership wins in the end. What you like to think of as the market making all of these great choices is often just ownership making selfish choices.

Demand is what makes the production/consumption cycle grow. A more even distribution of income would lead to greater demand, as the rich have a lower marginal propensity to spend their income; yet the free market, by concentrating income in a few hands, works against maximizing demand. It does not lead to the best outcome.
 
TNAR said:
A big part of the problem is the regulatory structure of employment itself. We can assume that in a system which allows individuals to determine the flow of money, private contract would rule over arbitrary price floors (e.g. minimum wage) and barriers to entry.
Click to expand...

Why would we assume that?

TNAR said:
Thus, unemployment itself would likely decline dramatically as it would be possible to perform menial tasks for low wages in replacement of taxpayer handouts.
Click to expand...

First there are no "taxpayer handouts", there are only government expenditures. Second, when you say "low wages", what it sounds like you are saying is wages lower than current minimums, which leads to your next point.


TNAR said:
Furthermore, history suggests that private philanthropy has always and will always exceed government largess.
Click to expand...

So instead of people being "manipulated" by government, they can be manipulated by the handouts (here the term fits) from private citizens (who have extra money to give) because "low wages" (from above) aren't enough to provide a family the money they need to have a decent quality of living. It's only a matter of time before those handouts and the control they give those doing the handing out, would be leveraged. Except there would be no constraint of the people as a whole (government), there would only be those in the private bureaucracy leveraging the power that philanthropy would inevitably lead to.
 
Last edited:
TNAR said:
That is a horrible assumption. Review your terminology, please.
Click to expand...

Uh, what? Here's what I said...

Socialism is the absence of consumer choice. We don't have consumer choice in the public sector... therefore we have socialism in the public sector.

Which part is a "horrible assumption"?

Socialism is also known as a command economy. A command economy is the opposite of consumer choice. Not sure what, exactly, you consider to be a horrible assumption. I'm not a mind reader.
 
DA60 said:
And what if no other and/or insufficient help is provided?

What if charities do not receive enough funds to house/feed all the children that need shelter/food? Do you propose that the government should just let them die?
Click to expand...

If no one is willing to help them then they do without.
 
DA60 said:
Lots of theories, but you did not answer any of my specific questions.

What if charities do not provide enough food/shelter to children to make up for the lack of government funding (assuming the latter existed in your system)?

Do you propose to just let those children die of exposure/starvation?
Click to expand...
What if the EPA did not provide enough environmental protection? What if the DoD did not provide enough defense?

Right now we don't know the demand for welfare, environmental protection or national defense. Right now this strikes you as normal and perfectly acceptable. But it really shouldn't. It should bother the heck out of you that you don't know how much your fellow citizens demand welfare, environmental protection or national defense.

Step 1: We figure out where people's hearts truly are
Step 2: We decide whether their hearts are in the right place
Step 3: If their hearts aren't in the right place, we start a "heart correction" campaign

Right now you want me to get my panties in a bunch over the possibility that my fellow citizens might not demand enough welfare. Sorry, it's not going to happen. First we discover the truth... and then we get all hot and bothered if we're not happy with the truth.

Also, it's important to recognize that neither of us might be in the right country. What if American taxpayers don't spend enough money on sanitation? Then there will be **** everywhere. Do you want to live in a country with **** everywhere? No? Neither do I. So if we can't convince our fellow citizens to spend more money on sanitation... then we'll move to the country whose citizens do spend the optimal amount of money on sanitation.

But I'm not going to accuse or assume that Americans are dirty dirty dirty bastards until we have concrete evidence that this is indeed the case. And the only way to have concrete evidence is by allowing people to choose where their taxes go. This will clearly reveal whether Americans are heartless and/or dirty bastards.
 
csbrown28 said:
Again, you still haven't addressed the point I made in my original post. The flaw in your idea is predicated on the idea that people have all the information necessary to make rational choices and those choices will lead to the best outcomes.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that there's a correlation between homework and income. People who do more homework earn a higher income.... which gives them more influence over how society's limited resources are used. In a market... people who are more informed have more influence than people who are less informed. Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector. This would give more influence to the people who do more homework. It would give people an incentive to do their homework.

When it comes to representative democracy... which is what you support... it's one person one vote. Somebody who's never done any homework in their life has the same influence over determining our representatives as somebody who always does their homework. Giving unequally informed people equal influence has logically detrimental consequences.

It's really sad and embarrassing that you don't realize that your critique is applicable, and only applicable, to the system that you support.

csbrown28 said:
It sounds like you value the freedom to make the choice more than you value the results of those choices.
Click to expand...
In a market, bad choices decrease your influence over how society's limited resources are used. Good choices, on the other hand, increase your influence over how society's limited resources are used. Beneficial behavior is rewarded. Detrimental behavior is punished. Mistakes are punished. It's a really stupid idea to reward mistakes. But that's exactly what happens in our public sector. When an agency ****s up... it doesn't go bankrupt... it goes to congress and gets even more money. An agency never says, "We failed because we failed to do our homework". Instead they say, "We failed because we didn't have enough money!"

If we created a market in the public sector... then consumers are going to reward the producers who make the least mistakes (aka do the most homework) and punish (boycott) the producers who make the most mistakes. This is the only way to ensure that society's derives the maximum possible value from its limited resources.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You can't just make up definitions to suit your political ideology. Your arguments are completely vacuous, consisting of (incorrect) declaratory statements and completely devoid of any logic or reasoning.
Click to expand...
I said that socialism is the absence of consumer choice. Are you arguing that socialism isn't the absence of consumer choice? Are you arguing that socialism is all about consumer choice? Bernie Sanders wants people to have the freedom to choose where their taxes go? Hillary Clinton wants people to have the freedom to choose where their taxes go? LOL

You're absurd. Neither Sanders nor Clinton want you to have the freedom to shop for yourself in the public sector. They don't want you to have the freedom to choose which public goods you put into your shopping cart. When somebody opposes consumer choice... then they are a socialist. You oppose consumer choice... therefore you are a socialist.
 
Xerographica said:
I said that socialism is the absence of consumer choice. Are you arguing that socialism isn't the absence of consumer choice? Are you arguing that socialism is all about consumer choice? Bernie Sanders wants people to have the freedom to choose where their taxes go? Hillary Clinton wants people to have the freedom to choose where their taxes go? LOL

You're absurd. Neither Sanders nor Clinton want you to have the freedom to shop for yourself in the public sector. They don't want you to have the freedom to choose which public goods you put into your shopping cart. When somebody opposes consumer choice... then they are a socialist. You oppose consumer choice... therefore you are a socialist.
Click to expand...

Socialism is not "the absence of consumer choice." That is a leap you have made all on your own. Alone. Like you are all alone in thinking you have a good idea here.

The market has spoken. Pragmatarianism is a loser. Nobody is investing in it because it is a dumb idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom