• 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?

In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not. -Albert Eisenstein


Xerographica said:
I'm pretty sure that there's a correlation between homework and income.
Click to expand...

So then all you have to do is is have the money to manipulate society so that your tribe has greater access to education and you're theory flies out the window.

Xerographica said:
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.
Click to expand...

If education is the foundation upon which rational choices are made, do you think that everyone should be afforded equal accesses to education? If your answer is no, then your entire premise is lost.

You find yourself in a paradox.....You believe that how people spend their money is the most efficient way to allocate resources, but my point has always been that that assumes that people are making the most rational choices they can. So the only way to ensure that people are making the best choices is to ensure that each individual is educated to the extent that they can learn, but you don't think that people should be forced to pay for education so this leads back to a situation where people are making irrational choices based on a lack of education.

Xerographica said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's so important that society be willing to educate it's population.

Xerographica said:
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.
Click to expand...

In a system like this, over a long enough period of time, that you end up with 2 classes. Rulers and surfs.

Xerographica said:
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!"
Click to expand...

Ok, so that reference is so vague as to make it impossible to address your objection directly, I'll just point out that people, use their "limited resources" to manipulate the very government you malign. So your solution is to elminate government all together? You think that will stop the manipulation? Again, democracy isn't perfect, it has many flaws, but when compared to other choices it is, imo, the one with the fewest problems.

Xerographica said:
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.
Click to expand...

And how many times will the producers use their limited resources to manipulate an uneducated public into believing the problem lay somewhere else? All the money spent slandering climate change isn't about "truth". It's a complicated subject that lots of people have a vested interest in. Without sufficient education, not necessarily in climate change or any other specific subject, but in how to evaluate statements by those purporting to represent the facts, how can anyone "best allocate resources"?
 
csbrown28 said:
You find yourself in a paradox.....You believe that how people spend their money is the most efficient way to allocate resources, but my point has always been that that assumes that people are making the most rational choices they can. So the only way to ensure that people are making the best choices is to ensure that each individual is educated to the extent that they can learn, but you don't think that people should be forced to pay for education so this leads back to a situation where people are making irrational choices based on a lack of education.
Click to expand...

What's the demand for public education? Let's compare two answers...

Here's the answer provided by a Nobel prize winning liberal economist...

The very wealthy have little need for state-provided education or health care; they have every reason to support cuts in Medicare and to fight any increase in taxes. They have even less reason to support health insurance for everyone, or to worry about the low quality of public schools that plagues much of the country. They will oppose any regulation of banks that restricts profits, even if it helps those who cannot cover their mortgages or protects the public against predatory lending, deceptive advertising, or even a repetition of the financial crash. - Angus Deaton, The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality
Click to expand...

And here's the answer provided by a well respected liberal congresswoman...

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. - Elizabeth Warren
Click to expand...

In theory we pay for public education to make people more valuable. The thing is... liberals argue quite loudly that we really need to have a minimum wage. Not only do they argue that we need to have a minimum wage... but they loudly argue that we need to increase it. Either liberals are liars... or our public education is defective. I suppose both could be true.

If we created a market in the public sector... then the actual demand for education would determine the supply of education. The result would be an optimal supply of education.

What's the actual demand for education right now? You don't know. And not knowing the truth doesn't seem to bother you. Which is what makes you a liberal.
 
Xerographica said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two things.

One) You were panties? Each to their own. ;)

and Two) you evaded my question - somewhat.

I will ask it one more time.

What if America does as you say and taxpayers do not give enough money for children to be sheltered and fed AND what if charities fall short that year and children die of exposure/starvation?

I do not want to take that chance.

I am not talking about welfare checks - I am ONLY taking about providing emergency shelters where desperate people who need then can find a place to sleep, get clean and eat.

I do not totally disagree with your idea. But I think certain basics must be looked after no matter what and then all the other areas can be left to taxpayer will.

The government MUST look after those who cannot look after themselves (esp. the sick/children/elderly) who need help just to survive.
There is NOTHING you can say that could convince me that the government should not look after those people first...NOTHING.
 
DA60 said:
That answer speaks volumes about you.

We are done here.


Good day.
Click to expand...

A society that depends on voluntary transactions is a civilized society.
 
Xerographica said:
Socialism either has, or doesn't have, consumer choice. Which is it?
Click to expand...

It's not a one-or-the-other situation, and you would know that if you knew what socialism actually meant. Socialism has many flavors, but includes some collective ownership or control over some of the economy's production. It has nothing at all to do with monopolies, lack of choice, or anything else you have tried to label it.

Xerographica said:
Nobody? Really? What about David Boaz?
Click to expand...

A Libertarian Loonie. Says so right there in his mini-profile. It's no surprise that nobody has ever heard of him. Again, the market has spoken.
 
DA60 said:
What if America does as you say and taxpayers do not give enough money for children to be sheltered and fed AND what if charities fall short that year and children die of exposure/starvation?
Click to expand...

Let's imagine that only liberals could directly allocate their taxes. Do you think that you and JohnfrmClevelan would allocate your taxes exactly the same? Do you think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would allocate their taxes exactly the same? No? So how would you explain this variation in their allocation? And, would this variation be a good thing or a bad thing?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
It's not a one-or-the-other situation, and you would know that if you knew what socialism actually meant. Socialism has many flavors, but includes some collective ownership or control over some of the economy's production. It has nothing at all to do with monopolies, lack of choice, or anything else you have tried to label it.
Click to expand...
If I'm not free to choose where my taxes go... then somebody else is choosing for me... which makes me a marionette. You are perfectly happy with me being a marionette. This is what makes you a socialist.

JohnfrmClevelan said:
A Libertarian Loonie. Says so right there in his mini-profile. It's no surprise that nobody has ever heard of him. Again, the market has spoken.
Click to expand...

So I guess that Democracy Journal is just a publication for libertarian loonies?
 
Xerographica said:
What's the demand for public education? Let's compare two answers...

Here's the answer provided by a Nobel prize winning liberal economist...



And here's the answer provided by a well respected liberal congresswoman...



In theory we pay for public education to make people more valuable. The thing is... liberals argue quite loudly that we really need to have a minimum wage. Not only do they argue that we need to have a minimum wage... but they loudly argue that we need to increase it. Either liberals are liars... or our public education is defective. I suppose both could be true.

If we created a market in the public sector... then the actual demand for education would determine the supply of education. The result would be an optimal supply of education.

What's the actual demand for education right now? You don't know. And not knowing the truth doesn't seem to bother you. Which is what makes you a liberal.
Click to expand...

How does that have anything to do with what I've said?

1) We agree that a science based education is the best way to help people make rational choices. You don't support education over any other endeavor, therefore, in most cases, societies that employ your model won't make educated (and therefore rational) choices.

2)The "demand" for education is irrelevant. The more people that are educated the stronger society will be. Therefore the opposite is also true.
 
csbrown28 said:
How does that have anything to do with what I've said?

1) We agree that a science based education is the best way to help people make rational choices. You don't support education over any other endeavor, therefore, in most cases, societies that employ your model won't make educated (and therefore rational) choices.

2)The "demand" for education is irrelevant. The more people that are educated the stronger society will be. Therefore the opposite is also true.
Click to expand...

Right now people can't choose how much of their taxes they give to the EPA. This means that people don't have an incentive to research and study how effectively/efficiently the EPA is protecting the environment. With the current system, which you strongly approve of, it really doesn't make sense to spend hours and hours researching and studying the EPA. If you learn that the EPA is doing a wonderful job... it's not like you can give more money to the EPA. And if you learn that the EPA is doing a terrible job... it's not like you can boycott the EPA.

Eliminating people's choices eliminates their incentive to become informed. Why? Because eliminating choices eliminates any possible benefit of making the effort to acquire information.

Imagine there's a big mountain. At the top of the mountain is the winning lottery number. Are you going to climb the mountain? Yeah? Ok, but the "minor" detail is that, for whatever reason, you won't be able to submit the winning lottery number. You'll have it... but you won't be able to put it to good use. Are you still going to climb the mountain anyways?
 
Xerographica said:
Right now people can't choose how much of their taxes they give to the EPA. This means that people don't have an incentive to research and study how effectively/efficiently the EPA is protecting the environment. With the current system, which you strongly approve of, it really doesn't make sense to spend hours and hours researching and studying the EPA. If you learn that the EPA is doing a wonderful job... it's not like you can give more money to the EPA. And if you learn that the EPA is doing a terrible job... it's not like you can boycott the EPA.

Eliminating people's choices eliminates their incentive to become informed. Why? Because eliminating choices eliminates any possible benefit of making the effort to acquire information.

Imagine there's a big mountain. At the top of the mountain is the winning lottery number. Are you going to climb the mountain? Yeah? Ok, but the "minor" detail is that, for whatever reason, you won't be able to submit the winning lottery number. You'll have it... but you won't be able to put it to good use. Are you still going to climb the mountain anyways?
Click to expand...

You just keep deflecting. In order for people to make rational choices about all of these topics, they would have to have in depth knowledge of each of these things. We could spend a lifetime just trying to understand the things that we should care about.

Now in a representative democracy, ideally, we appoint representatives who have the full time resources and to study different policy positions on a breathtaking array of topics. A good representative will seek out help from experts in their fields and make decisions. Then make their case to their constituents and fight for the things they need in Congress. This is why representative government was created. The problem, ironically, is that people who have large pools of "limited resources" have used their influence to corrupt our system with money. Your ideas simply remove any possibility that those with the most money will corrupt the system.

'
 
csbrown28 said:
You just keep deflecting. In order for people to make rational choices about all of these topics, they would have to have in depth knowledge of each of these things. We could spend a lifetime just trying to understand the things that we should care about.
Click to expand...
If markets depended on people having perfect knowledge then we'd all be screwed. Markets are based on a division of labor. A division of labor results in greater productivity. And a division of labor means a division of information.

csbrown28 said:
Now in a representative democracy, ideally, we appoint representatives who have the full time resources and to study different policy positions on a breathtaking array of topics. A good representative will seek out help from experts in their fields and make decisions. Then make their case to their constituents and fight for the things they need in Congress. This is why representative government was created.
Click to expand...
As I explained in the pragmatarianism FAQ... congress will still be there. If you're so confident in the competence of congress... then you should have absolutely no problem with giving taxpayers the option to shop for themselves. If you're a smart guy, then you shouldn't have a problem working out the different possibilities. But... maybe I should give you a hand...

A. Everybody acknowledges the competence of congress and nobody chooses to shop for themselves. For some reason you're really not predicting this possibility. Which is strange because you really seem confident in the competence of congress. Evidently you're not confident that other people share your confidence in the competence of congress.

B. Nobody acknowledges the competence of congress and everybody chooses to shop for themselves. Well... everybody except for you... right? Which is kinda strange. Are you really going to predict that you're the only one in the entire country who's capable of recognizing the competence of congress? Not even the president of the United States recognizes the competence of congress?

C. Some people choose to shop for themselves... while other people choose to have congress spend their money for them. The people who choose to shop for themselves clearly doubt the competence of congress. How many people do you think will choose to shop for themselves? And, more importantly, what percentage of the purse will they control? Are you really going to be critiquing pragmatarianism so much if you're predicting that these doubters would only control 1% of the purse? Perhaps you're predicting that these doubters would control 99% of the purse? Then you'd be arguing that nearly all of our country's doctors, lawyers, business owners, professors, scientists, bankers, engineers, architects, accountants and other professionals/experts doubt congress's competence.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want to argue that people trust congress? Yeah? Ok. But then you can't argue that people shouldn't have the option to directly allocate their taxes.

csbrown28 said:
The problem, ironically, is that people who have large pools of "limited resources" have used their influence to corrupt our system with money. Your ideas simply remove any possibility that those with the most money will corrupt the system.
Click to expand...
How does money corrupt the system? Do you mean that some people get more than they give? If so, then that logically means that other people must give more than they get. It's called "concentrated benefits and dispersed costs". This problem would be eliminated by pragmatarianism. Nobody is going to voluntarily give their money to some department if they expect that the benefit will be smaller than the cost. The only way that people's cost is consistently and regularly smaller than their benefit is if they don't have a choice in the matter. The current system doesn't give people the choice where their money goes.... so it's a given that for far too many people the cost will greatly exceed the benefit.
 
DA60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A better question is how can those who are truly in need be identified? It is patently obvious that government agencies do a horrendous job of filtering those who simply want freebies from those truly in need.

The real issue ultimately comes down to the morality of force. Do you feel it is morally acceptable to force individuals to forfeit a portion of their wealth in order to support others? My answer is no. Millions of people around the globe are starving, but it is not my responsibility to ensure they are fed. I would certainly like to help others when I am able, but I highly resent being coerced into being "charitable."
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Of course, those laborers would have to accept far less than they earn now, with the most desperate workers setting the wage floor.
Click to expand...

It is very common to assume a bias of power exists in favor of business owners. With exception to those dealing in menial labor, this is simply not true. The costs of locating, training, and retaining quality laborers are amazingly high. Every business competes with other employers for highly qualified laborers. This causes wages to be bid higher. Desperate workers will absolutely bid these wage rates lower, but desperate laborers are very rarely highly skilled laborers.

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.
Click to expand...

This is one of the main reasons why I dislike the term "capitalism." The phenomenon you describe is the result of massive intervention in the price mechanism. Left to its own devices, a truly free market would tend towards uniform profit margins across all industries and between every company. We find enormous variations in the economy because of the large quantities of barriers to trade. Major companies support price floors, licensing schemes, enforced standards, and other regulations because they serve to prevent new competition from entering the market.

So you're right, the current form of capitalism (cronyism) doesn't distribute resources in an efficient manner because virtually every business is engaged in rent seeking. Rent seeking is simply impossible in a free market.
 
csbrown28 said:
Why would we assume that?
Click to expand...

We assume that when coercion is removed, individuals will determine for themselves what conditions denote favorable versus unfavorable terms. We assume this because it is demonstrably true.

So instead of people being "manipulated" by government, they can be manipulated by the handouts from private citizens because "low wages" aren't enough to provide a family the money they need to have a decent quality of living.
Click to expand...

The most ignorant point of defense for the minimum wage is the assumption that all workers require a "living wage." What this does is prevent unskilled workers from obtaining work experience, casual workers from supplementing other income sources, low priority jobs from being completed, a general increase in prices, a decline in standards of living, and an increase in unemployment (among other things). The simple fact is that people will either be charitable or they won't. Your pessimism suggests you don't think highly of your fellow man. I tend to believe that most people would be better off if we were no longer forced to help those we don't believe need help, thus freeing up resources to help those who truly need it.
 
Xerographica said:
Which part is a "horrible assumption"?
Click to expand...

The part where you assume a lack of consumer choice necessitates socialism. There are a half dozen systems which restrict consumer choice. The U.S., for example, more closely resembles a fascist system, but is more accurately described as cronyism.
 
TNAR said:
The part where you assume a lack of consumer choice necessitates socialism. There are a half dozen systems which restrict consumer choice. The U.S., for example, more closely resembles a fascist system, but is more accurately described as cronyism.
Click to expand...

You're really muddying the waters when what we need most is clarity. From the economic perspective... what's the difference between fascism, dictatorships and socialism? Maybe there's a political difference... but that's why politics is crap. From the economic perspective there's no real difference between these systems because they are all characterized by a restriction of consumer choice. People are more or less marionettes. These systems all disregard difference. Which is a problem because progress depends on difference.

Allowing people to choose where their taxes go would flood the public sector with difference. Demand diversity would quickly diversify the supply. Rather than having too many eggs in too few baskets... we'd have the best possible hedge. Any bad bets would be more than covered by all the good bets. Just saw a Ted Talk that kinda covers this concept... Trial, error and the God complex.
 
TNAR said:
A better question is how can those who are truly in need be identified? It is patently obvious that government agencies do a horrendous job of filtering those who simply want freebies from those truly in need.

The real issue ultimately comes down to the morality of force. Do you feel it is morally acceptable to force individuals to forfeit a portion of their wealth in order to support others? My answer is no. Millions of people around the globe are starving, but it is not my responsibility to ensure they are fed. I would certainly like to help others when I am able, but I highly resent being coerced into being "charitable."
Click to expand...

Oh, come on now.

There are about 45 million Americans on food stamps (no doubt most would not starve to death without them...but let's assume that they would for this example). They each get a maximum of roughly $125 per month. That equals about $67 billion per year. That represents less then 1.8% of the entire US federal budget.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is immoral to 'force' Americans to allocate a minuscule 1.8% of their tax dollars to feed Americans who might otherwise starve?

Yes or no only please?


And my answer to your highlighted question? Yes, I do....VERY, VERY MUCH I DO. The day America no longer looks after those Americans who need help just to survive is the day I wish no part of America.
To knowingly allow innocent children to starve to death is disgusting. I would literally rather die then to knowingly do such a thing.
 
Last edited:
TNAR said:
A better question is how can those who are truly in need be identified? It is patently obvious that government agencies do a horrendous job of filtering those who simply want freebies from those truly in need.

The real issue ultimately comes down to the morality of force. Do you feel it is morally acceptable to force individuals to forfeit a portion of their wealth in order to support others? My answer is no. Millions of people around the globe are starving, but it is not my responsibility to ensure they are fed. I would certainly like to help others when I am able, but I highly resent being coerced into being "charitable."
Click to expand...

Your tax dollars aren't taken and given to other people. Now that you know that, do you feel better?

It is the act of concurrent spending an taxation that gives the illusion that the two are inextricably linked. This illusion is strengthened by the by the analogy of the government as business or household. Businesses and households are constrained in their borrowing by how much creadit they are willing to take on and the willingness of creditors to extend credit.

The government has no such constraint.
 
Last edited:
Xerographica said:
You're really muddying the waters when what we need most is clarity.
Click to expand...

If you want clarity, using terms properly should be your first step. How do you expect anyone to focus on the details of your idea when you do not even present the high level concepts in an accurate manner?

From the economic perspective... what's the difference between fascism, dictatorships and socialism? ... From the economic perspective there's no real difference between these systems because they are all characterized by a restriction of consumer choice.
Click to expand...

Both economic and political differences are quite stark. The bottom line is that the U.S. does not have a socialist economy so why label it as such? I understand where you're coming from. Most government services are owned and operated by the state and no competition is presented, but this is a myopic understanding of socialism. Replace it with cronyism and your descriptions will be much more accurate with fewer arguments able to be raised against it.
 
DA60 said:
Are you seriously suggesting that it is immoral to 'force' Americans to allocate a minuscule 1.8% of their tax dollars to feed Americans who might otherwise starve?
Click to expand...

The amount confiscated and the intended use of the wealth is completely irrelevant. Every single dollar the government spends is supported by a segment of society, else it would not be spent in such fashion. Simply because some percentage of society supports whatever expenditure does not remove the fact that the confiscation of wealth in the first place is theft. My short answer to your question is yes. My follow-up question for you is this: Is it considered extortion to demand an individual remit an amount of money or face imprisonment? I'll answer it for you; this is the very definition of the term! I do not object to helping those who are experiencing hard times. I do not object to spending money on projects one deems appropriate and beneficial. What I do object to is the extortion of money. One cannot defend the use of taxpayer money on projects such as "helping the poor" without implicitly supporting theft on a massive scale.

To knowingly allow innocent children to starve to death is disgusting. I would literally rather die then to knowingly do such a thing.
Click to expand...

What are you actively doing for the millions of innocent children who are currently starving in other nations? Are you sending 1.8% of your taxable income to these children as well? If so, I applaud you. The difference is free will versus extortion. You cannot see the forest for the trees, my friend.
 
csbrown28 said:
Your tax dollars aren't taken and given to other people. Now that you know that, do you feel better?
Click to expand...

Whew! Here I thought that the citizenry was taxed by the government in order to pay off its own bills. Glad to see that taxation is unnecessary!
 
TNAR said:
Whew! Here I thought that the citizenry was taxed by the government in order to pay off its own bills. Glad to see that taxation is unnecessary!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, where did I say that it was unnecessary?
 
csbrown28 said:
I'm sorry, where did I say that it was unnecessary?
Click to expand...
If taxes aren't paid out to others, what purpose do they serve? Either the money is paid to others, as I said, or it sits in a vault and is unnecessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom