Block vs Flow

Xerographica · Mar 14, 2014

Discussion (context) on: 3 Things That Make Libertarian Heads Explode by Lynn Stuart Parramore

**************************************************

Xero

Which is better?

A. moving public goods over to the private sector
B. creating a market in the public sector (pragmatarianism)

ajaxthegreat

I'd go with the second one if I had to choose, hands down. But I'm not quite sure just how pragmatic that would be in reality. And this is coming from a strong supporter of direct democracy.

Xero

How pragmatic is it for you to choose which articles you allocate your time to?

Here we are, typing and typing away. What we type gets stored in a disqus database/server. More comments require more servers. More servers require more space.

Your comments help determine how space in Timbuktu is used.

1. You derive value from discussing this topic
2. You sacrifice the less valuable uses of your time
3. Space is allocated accordingly

Basically, your input influences the output. If your input is somehow blocked...then the output will not reflect it. The supply will shift away from your preferences (demand). Shifting away from demand is the destruction of value. Shifting towards demand is the creation of value.

So it's block vs flow.

If you're an American environmentalist...and Brazil is going to vote on whether to conserve or develop its rainforest...should your vote flow accordingly...or should it be blocked? What if the Brazilian EPA (BEPA) is doing an excellent job protecting the rainforest...should your tax dollars flow accordingly...or should they be blocked?

If any taxpayer in any country could freely flow their input (tax dollars) to the BEPA...how much influence would the BEPA have over how space was used in Brazil? Can you imagine BEPA having too much influence? What would that look like? They'd buy all the commercial property and restore it to its natural state? What's wrong with that? They wouldn't be taking the property...they would be buying it. If the owner of some property sold it then we have to surmise that it was a mutually beneficial exchange. What's really important to really appreciate is that it's a mutually beneficial exchange that wouldn't have occurred if the input of taxpayers had been blocked by arbitrary borders.

Of course it's a given that sometimes people will enter the "wrong" input. But if you perceive that somebody is entering the wrong input...then it must be the case that you have some information that influences your perception. If you have pertinent information...then the responsibility is on you to share it. Because people can't be responsible for sharing information that they don't have.

Right now, here I am sharing my information with you. Persuasion is a priceless process.

Are there times when blocking is appropriate? Sure, killing people is block worthy. Why? Because killing people is the ultimate block. No input can flow from dead people. Just like no input can flow from marionettes. But every appropriate block has an optimal allocation. It clearly wouldn't be an optimal allocation for every individual in this world to have as much protection as the American president. So determining the optimal block requires free flow. People's input (tax dollars) should be able to freely flow to any police departments.

The manufacturers first supply the neighbourhood, and afterwards, as their work improves and refines, more distant markets. - Adam Smith

When the buyer goes to the market, he wants to find it abundantly supplied. He wants the seasons to be propitious for all the crops; more and more wonderful inventions to bring a greater number of products and satisfactions within his reach; time and labor to be saved; distances to be wiped out; - Frédéric Bastiat

What would Bastiat say about today's distances? Yet, we still groan at the thought of "long" plane rides. Clearly we still have plenty of distance wiping to do.

But it's really not distance that prevents me from giving my taxes to the Brazilian EPA...it's you...ajaxthegreat! Oh wait, it's not you...it's me...Xero! I'm the one with the information... which is why I'm sharing it with you. Does my work need to be refined and improved? Of course...there's always room for improvement.

Where in the world are public goods being improved? Only in the US? The US has a monopoly on improvements? That makes as much sense as believing that elected representatives have a monopoly on identifying improvements. There's nothing pragmatic about nonsense.

csbrown28 · Mar 17, 2014

So the fact that I'm the only one to respond, is that considered a "block"? :mrgreen:

Or, paradoxically, have I induced flow? I'm so confused...:doh

Xerographica · Mar 18, 2014

csbrown28 said:
So the fact that I'm the only one to respond, is that considered a "block"? :mrgreen:

Or, paradoxically, have I induced flow? I'm so confused...:doh

Flow = facilitating input. I was free to post this thread...and everybody else is free to reply.

Block = limiting input. If an admin had locked this thread then it would have prevented you and anybody else from replying to it.

Previously, women and minorities were not allowed to vote. This was a block. It prevented them from sharing their input on issues that mattered to them. The block was removed and now their input can flow according to their preferences. Currently, children are not allowed to vote. This is a block. It's also the case that people cannot vote on matters in countries that they are not citizens of. This is also a block. If the Brazilian EPA is going to vote on whether to conserve or develop the rainforest...the votes of American environmentalists cannot flow accordingly.

Previously, in many countries (China, Russia, etc), citizens were not allowed to shop for themselves. This was a block. It prevented their resources (money) from flowing to the goods that matched their preferences. The block was removed and now their input can flow accordingly. Currently, citizens cannot shop for themselves in public sectors. You're not permitted to shop in America's public sector or Brazil's public sector or any other country's public sector. This is a block. Your money cannot flow to the public goods that match your preferences. If the Brazilian EPA is doing an excellent job protecting the rainforest...the taxes of American environmentalists cannot flow accordingly.

What about discrimination? What if the owner of a restaurant didn't want to serve Canadians? If he was forced to serve Canadians then it would be a block. His input wouldn't be able to flow according to his preferences. Same thing with arranged marriages. Forcing exchanges is block. Facilitating exchanges is flow.

When are blocks appropriate?

1. In response to blocks. If I steal from people (block) then I should be blocked.

2. In response to impaired judgement. If your friend is drunk and wants to drive...then you should be free to block him. If kids wants to engage in dangerous activity...then parents should be free to block them.

Have I cleared things up?

RGacky3 · Mar 18, 2014

Xerographica said:
Flow = facilitating input. I was free to post this thread...and everybody else is free to reply.

Block = limiting input. If an admin had locked this thread then it would have prevented you and anybody else from replying to it.

Previously, women and minorities were not allowed to vote. This was a block. It prevented them from sharing their input on issues that mattered to them. The block was removed and now their input can flow according to their preferences. Currently, children are not allowed to vote. This is a block. It's also the case that people cannot vote on matters in countries that they are not citizens of. This is also a block. If the Brazilian EPA is going to vote on whether to conserve or develop the rainforest...the votes of American environmentalists cannot flow accordingly.

Previously, in many countries (China, Russia, etc), citizens were not allowed to shop for themselves. This was a block. It prevented their resources (money) from flowing to the goods that matched their preferences. The block was removed and now their input can flow accordingly. Currently, citizens cannot shop for themselves in public sectors. You're not permitted to shop in America's public sector or Brazil's public sector or any other country's public sector. This is a block. Your money cannot flow to the public goods that match your preferences. If the Brazilian EPA is doing an excellent job protecting the rainforest...the taxes of American environmentalists cannot flow accordingly.

What about discrimination? What if the owner of a restaurant didn't want to serve Canadians? If he was forced to serve Canadians then it would be a block. His input wouldn't be able to flow according to his preferences. Same thing with arranged marriages. Forcing exchanges is block. Facilitating exchanges is flow.

When are blocks appropriate?

1. In response to blocks. If I steal from people (block) then I should be blocked.

2. In response to impaired judgement. If your friend is drunk and wants to drive...then you should be free to block him. If kids wants to engage in dangerous activity...then parents should be free to block them.

Have I cleared things up?

This is nonsense, what you consider a Block or a flow Depends on Your assumptions.

For example,

Private property over land is a Block since it prevents People from accessing it ... There we og.

Xerographica · Mar 18, 2014

RGacky3 said:
This is nonsense, what you consider a Block or a flow Depends on Your assumptions.

For example,

Private property over land is a Block since it prevents People from accessing it ... There we og.

What largely prevents people from breaking into my house isn't Hercules or locks or my dog...it's the knowledge that they will be blocked if caught. Should they be blocked if caught? Should somebody be blocked if they take your kidneys?

What's important to understand is that appropriate blocks have optimal allocations...and optimal allocations can only be determined by flow. So if we want the optimal amount of appropriate block then input should flow accordingly.

RGacky3 · Mar 18, 2014

Xerographica said:
What largely prevents people from breaking into my house isn't Hercules or locks or my dog...it's the knowledge that they will be blocked if caught. Should they be blocked if caught? Should somebody be blocked if they take your kidneys?

What's important to understand is that appropriate blocks have optimal allocations...and optimal allocations can only be determined by flow. So if we want the optimal amount of appropriate block then input should flow accordingly.

My Kidneys are my person, property is arbitrary and created by the state, the kidneys being part of my body is nature.

csbrown28 · Mar 18, 2014

Xerographica said:
What largely prevents people from breaking into my house isn't Hercules or locks or my dog...it's the knowledge that they will be blocked if caught. Should they be blocked if caught? Should somebody be blocked if they take your kidneys?

What's important to understand is that appropriate blocks have optimal allocations...and optimal allocations can only be determined by flow. So if we want the optimal amount of appropriate block then input should flow accordingly.

Are you claiming that in all instances there is an objective standard by which "block and flow" can be determined?

Xerographica · Mar 18, 2014

RGacky3 said:
My Kidneys are my person, property is arbitrary and created by the state, the kidneys being part of my body is nature.

What if you sell your kidneys and buy a car? Then is it ok if I steal your car? What if you work your fingers to the bone and buy some land? Then is it ok if I steal your land? What if you trade your sweat for a gold medal? Then is it ok if I steal your medal? What if God gives you a pony in exchange for your tears? Then is it ok if I steal your pony? What if the Red Cross gives you a lollypop for your blood? Then is it ok if I steal your lollypop?

Xerographica · Mar 18, 2014

csbrown28 said:
Are you claiming that in all instances there is an objective standard by which "block and flow" can be determined?

Not sure if I understand your question. "Block and flow" can be used to evaluate any given action. Every action either facilitates or limits input to some degree.

Making it illegal for women to shop. Block or flow? Clearly block. It would limit input.

Slavery. Block or flow? Clearly block. It would limit input.

Allowing people to comment on articles. Block or flow? Clearly flow. It would facilitate input.

Allowing children to vote. Block or flow? Clearly flow. It would facilitate input.

Block makes people more like marionettes...flow helps cut the strings.

Input is information about people's preferences, values and circumstances. If input is limited...then less information will be used to allocate society's limited resources.

"Leaping without looking" means to allocate a significant amount of resources without any information. That's what block does. Block prevents people from sharing their information. Without this information...it's a given that the puppet master will misallocate society's resources. As a society we will zig when we should have zagged. We will waste our blood, sweat and tears barking up the wrong trees. We will go on wild goose chases. We will tilt at windmills.

As I said in the OP...block shifts the supply (how society's limited resources are used) away from demand. This results in the destruction of value. The waiter serves you a knuckle sandwich when your preference was for a turkey sandwich. Flow shifts the supply closer to demand. This results in the creation of value.

Like I also said in the OP...it's a given that people will sometimes enter the wrong input. Nobody has perfect information. But if you perceive that society is going to enter the wrong input...then the responsibility falls on you to disseminate the right information. "Hey society, this is why we need to zag rather than zig."

csbrown28 · Mar 18, 2014

Xerographica said:
Not sure if I understand your question. "Block and flow" can be used to evaluate any given action. Every action either facilitates or limits input to some degree.

Making it illegal for women to shop. Block or flow? Clearly block. It would limit input.

Slavery. Block or flow? Clearly block. It would limit input.

Allowing people to comment on articles. Block or flow? Clearly flow. It would facilitate input.

Allowing children to vote. Block or flow? Clearly flow. It would facilitate input.

Block makes people more like marionettes...flow helps cut the strings.

Input is information about people's preferences, values and circumstances. If input is limited...then less information will be used to allocate society's limited resources.

"Leaping without looking" means to allocate a significant amount of resources without any information. That's what block does. Block prevents people from sharing their information. Without this information...it's a given that the puppet master will misallocate society's resources. As a society we will zig when we should have zagged. We will waste our blood, sweat and tears barking up the wrong trees. We will go on wild goose chases. We will tilt at windmills.

As I said in the OP...block shifts the supply (how society's limited resources are used) away from demand. This results in the destruction of value. The waiter serves you a knuckle sandwich when your preference was for a turkey sandwich. Flow shifts the supply closer to demand. This results in the creation of value.

Like I also said in the OP...it's a given that people will sometimes enter the wrong input. Nobody has perfect information. But if you perceive that society is going to enter the wrong input...then the responsibility falls on you to disseminate the right information. "Hey society, this is why we need to zag rather than zig."

Most of the instances you cite are simple and intuitive, but the world is much more complicated. You attempt to reduce things down to simple, easy to swallow bite sided morsels of common sense, but I suspect that if we dig deeper that there are a significant number of instances that will be much harder to swallow.

With that, I offer this question.....Is there ever as point in which a small group of people in the position of governance, be it the Federal, state, local governments, or even the board of directors in a government neighborhood ever have the authority (or should be given the authority) to block something that the majority clearly wants?

Xerographica · Mar 18, 2014

csbrown28 said:
Most of the instances you cite are simple and intuitive, but the world is much more complicated. You attempt to reduce things down to simple, easy to swallow bite sided morsels of common sense, but I suspect that if we dig deeper that there are a significant number of instances that will be much harder to swallow.

If you dig deep enough you'll embrace fallibilism. You'll allow Noah to build and board his boat even though his activity might strike you as absurd and wasteful.

csbrown28 said:
With that, I offer this question.....Is there ever as point in which a small group of people in the position of governance, be it the Federal, state, local governments, or even the board of directors in a government neighborhood ever have the authority (or should be given the authority) to block something that the majority clearly wants?

Personally, I've engaged in a ridiculous amount of due diligence regarding the point of government. As a result, I'm as certain as I'll ever be that taxpayers should be allowed to choose where their taxes go. This is not yet something that the majority wants though. Therefore?

If a magic genie is willing to grant me three wishes...should one of the wishes be for pragmatarianism to be imposed on society?

It's entirely possible that a small group of government planners might want the "right" thing while society wants the "wrong" thing. It's generally the case that "truth" is discovered by an extremely small minority. But "lies" also start with a small minority as well.

There is a basic philosophical explanation, which begins with the fact that the number of possible theories of any given phenomenon is enormous, if not infinite. Of these, all but one are false. So given just the information that T is a theory, the probability that T is correct is approximately zero. However, naive thinkers have often failed to realize this, because the theories that a typical human being can think of to explain a given phenomenon (and that will seem plausible to that person) are typically very few in number. It is not that we consider the truth and reject it; in the overwhelming majority of cases, when we first start thinking about how to explain some phenomenon, the truth is not even among the options considered. The ancient Greeks, for example, did not reject quantum mechanics; they just did not and could not have considered it. - Michael Huemer, In Praise of Passivity

Right now I think I have a truthful insight...pragmatarianism. And here I am bouncing it off of you. Or should I bypass you? Should I simply go around you? Do I really need you to vouch for this theory of mine? Is this vetting process really necessary? Why should I have to persuade you that my theory is superior?

If you get a chance you should watch this not-too-long video...Milton Friedman on the Scope of Government

The interviewer starts to ask him a hypothetical..."if you were dictator for a day" question and Friedman quickly interrupts him and says with considerable emphasis...

If we can't persuade the public that it's desirable to do these things, then we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it.

There's absolutely no guarantee that persuading the public that pragmatarianism is desirable will ensure that it's the right thing to do. But the persuasion process is priceless. If we're going to leap anywhere as a society...then we want as many people looking as possible.

Proverbs 11:14 says, "in the multitude of counsellers there is safety"

Linus's Law says, "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"

Throughout history, there have been many instances when government planners said, "your input is not needed". They said, "don't worry, we've got every angle covered". And they honestly believed that they did. It's like the parable of the blind men and the elephant..."I'm the only one who can see...everybody else is blind".

Like I said, when you do enough digging you embrace fallibilism. You'll recognize that we all have limited perspectives...which is why we form the most accurate picture possible when we add perspectives. So embracing the limits of your perspective means embracing fallibilism which means embracing other perspectives which means embracing flow.

csbrown28 · Mar 18, 2014

Xerographica said:
If you dig deep enough you'll embrace fallibilism. You'll allow Noah to build and board his boat even though his activity might strike you as absurd and wasteful.

Personally, I've engaged in a ridiculous amount of due diligence regarding the point of government. As a result, I'm as certain as I'll ever be that taxpayers should be allowed to choose where their taxes go. This is not yet something that the majority wants though. Therefore?

If a magic genie is willing to grant me three wishes...should one of the wishes be for pragmatarianism to be imposed on society?

It's entirely possible that a small group of government planners might want the "right" thing while society wants the "wrong" thing. It's generally the case that "truth" is discovered by an extremely small minority. But "lies" also start with a small minority as well.

Right now I think I have a truthful insight...pragmatarianism. And here I am bouncing it off of you. Or should I bypass you? Should I simply go around you? Do I really need you to vouch for this theory of mine? Is this vetting process really necessary? Why should I have to persuade you that my theory is superior?

If you get a chance you should watch this not-too-long video...Milton Friedman on the Scope of Government

The interviewer starts to ask him a hypothetical..."if you were dictator for a day" question and Friedman quickly interrupts him and says with considerable emphasis...

There's absolutely no guarantee that persuading the public that pragmatarianism is desirable will ensure that it's the right thing to do. But the persuasion process is priceless. If we're going to leap anywhere as a society...then we want as many people looking as possible.

Proverbs 11:14 says, "in the multitude of counsellers there is safety"

Linus's Law says, "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"

Throughout history, there have been many instances when government planners said, "your input is not needed". They said, "don't worry, we've got every angle covered". And they honestly believed that they did. It's like the parable of the blind men and the elephant..."I'm the only one who can see...everybody else is blind".

Like I said, when you do enough digging you embrace fallibilism. You'll recognize that we all have limited perspectives...which is why we form the most accurate picture possible when we add perspectives. So embracing the limits of your perspective means embracing fallibilism which means embracing other perspectives which means embracing flow.

One of the longer non-answers I've ever received.

So let me return with a rant of my own....

Xerographica said:
Right now I think I have a truthful insight...pragmatarianism.

You ignore moral arguments, claiming that no opinion is absolutely right; yet, of course, you claim that in you're opinion—that no opinion can be absolutely right—is (absolutely?) correct?

If I read fallibilism correctly, it simply states that we can be justified in an incorrect position based on information held at any given time. As new information is presented a wrongly held position can be corrected....I don't take issue with that at all.....Especially since, over a long enough timeline information leads to better and more accurate predictions as proof that the scientific method works as designed.

Is there any method of scientific inquiry that you believe has moved farther away from truth rather than towards it? IF yes, do you believe that new information will come to light that will eventually correct it? remember, it takes thousands, millions or even billions of pieces of information to prove something is consistent with the evidence and therefor represent the most reasonable position that one can hold, but it only takes one verifiable piece of information to tear it all down.

The only time that Noah's ark would have been considered possible is prior to the understanding of the physical properties of wood. We know now, that an ark as long as the one purported to have been built in the bible, was not only impossible during Noah's time, but it is impossible today. The only thing that would make it possible is the introduction of information to the contrary....Evidence of miracles, evidence of unknown design (that would have miraculously overcome the limitations of the building material) or of trees that existed then that are unknown today that have the properties necessary to build the ark as long as reported to have existed.....Given the information we have, it is correct to say that the ark could have never existed. Now, should we preface every statement we ever make with "given what we know about....."? Anyone with an ounce of intellectual capacity already knows this, it's understood and we only preface statements with, "given what we know now...." to people who don't understand the difference between truth and Truth.

Now, I'm not going to pretend like I know enough about pragmatarianism to stand here and have a deep intellectual debate, but it seems that living in a society that relies stricly on the allocation of resources based on where each person feels the resources should be expended ignores the fact that misleading people in a society that allocated resources in this fashion would be pervaded by misinformation to attract resources based on self interest rather than fact. The result result would be mass confusion among those without direct access to knowledge in any given field.

Should I give money to the EPA? The DEA, the Military? Are whales really in danger, or is that just what those soliciting for my resources want me to believe? Are homeopathic remedies based on good information, or just snake oil salesmen? .... Some people say yes, others say no.

It's very similar to the issue of climate change, where money is spent trying to convince people of the truth and money is spent trying to convince people of something that is false to the point that most people outside the field rely on the opinions of others.

The problem with your ideology is one of imperfect information. It relies on people having reasonable knowledge in virtually every given field that they would ever spend resources on. The problem with mine is the influence of those with wealth to corrupt those that I depend on to make informed decisions in a way that represents my interests.

I think there is a better chance of fixing my problem, then yours...

Xerographica · Mar 18, 2014

csbrown28 said:
You ignore moral arguments, claiming that no opinion is absolutely right; yet, of course, you claim that in you're opinion—that no opinion can be absolutely right—is (absolutely?) correct?

We all have unique, but limited, perspectives.

csbrown28 said:
Is there any method of scientific inquiry...

You said I gave a long non-answer...but then you ask a question which I'm pretty sure that I shared an answer to.

Proverbs 11:14: in the multitude of counsellers there is safety
Linus's Law: given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow

What's a bug? Literally it's a problem with the code that prevents a program from functioning correctly. Metaphorically it can be anything that can screw humanity up big time...famines, earthquakes, volcanoes, diseases, plagues, wars, asteroids and so on. With enough people looking...we find more of these "bugs". But with enough people looking...we don't just find more "bugs"...we also find more "Easter Eggs" as well. Easter Eggs are priceless innovations/discoveries like the wheel, electricity, the steam engine, flight and so on.

So these are our options...

Option 1: We tie the kids together and allow them to be guided by a visible hand. The visible hand represents government planners. In essence the kids are marionettes. Since the kids are all tied together...they cover less ground. This means that the chances of finding Easter Eggs is decreased while the harm of stepping on a landmine is increased.

Option 2: We allow the kids to run free guided by an invisible hand. The invisible hand represents self-interest. Since the kids are not tied together...they cover more ground. This means that the chances of finding Easter Eggs are increased while the harm of stepping on a landmine is decreased.

Option 1 works when government planners...

A. have a treasure map
B. are omniscient
C. have a crystal ball

Government planners have none of those things so option 2 is always better than option 1. If you look at history through the lens of block/flow you'll see that this is correct. Progress will increase at an amazing pace once enough people have this information...which is exactly why I endeavor to share it.

csbrown28 said:
The only time that Noah's ark would have been considered possible is...

Noah's story is Truth. It didn't actually happen but the moral we can derive from the story is timeless. And it doesn't seem like you understood it as I do. Both sides were certain that the other side was wrong. Yet, they didn't block each other's activities. For whatever reasons...they were tolerant. Going back to the Easter Egg analogy...one kid ran one direction and the other kid ran another direction. One kid (Noah) ran the correct direction while the other kid ran the wrong direction. If they had been tied together...then chances are good that Noah wouldn't have been allowed to build his boat...and humans would have been wiped out.

Heterogeneous activity = hedging bets, invisible hand, decentralization, market economy, kids run their own directions, bottom up approach

Homogeneous activity = too many eggs in one basket, visible hand, centralization, command economy, kids are tied together, top down approach

csbrown28 said:
Now, I'm not going to pretend like I know enough about pragmatarianism to stand here and have a deep intellectual debate, but it seems that living in a society that relies stricly on the allocation of resources based on where each person feels the resources should be expended ignores the fact that misleading people in a society that allocated resources in this fashion would be pervaded by misinformation to attract resources based on self interest rather than fact. The result result would be mass confusion among those without direct access to knowledge in any given field.

There are those who look before they leap...and those who don't. Which group has more control over society's limited resources? The market is a vetting/vouching process. If you want to start a business...does the loan officer at the bank just give you the money without asking questions? If you use your home as collateral...what happens if your business does not succeed?

csbrown28 said:
Should I give money to the EPA? The DEA, the Military? Are whales really in danger, or is that just what those soliciting for my resources want me to believe? Are homeopathic remedies based on good information, or just snake oil salesmen? .... Some people say yes, others say no.

If you don't want to waste the money that you sacrificed to earn...then you'll do your homework. Just like you do your homework if you don't want to waste your money in the private sector. But as I said in the FAQ...congress will still be there. I'm not going to force you to do your homework...just like I wouldn't force Bill Gates to give his taxes to Elizabeth Warren. But believe you me...nobody is going to try harder than you will to ensure that your money isn't wasted.

csbrown28 said:
The problem with your ideology is one of imperfect information. It relies on people having reasonable knowledge in virtually every given field that they would ever spend resources on.

You don't need to know how a smartphone works in order to buy a decent one. But if you don't want to buy a lemon then, again, you'll do your homework. Taxpayers are taxpayers because they're pretty decent at doing their homework. And allowing millions and millions and millions of people to do homework on the public goods we need will result in far more homework being done. Right now you're doing homework that Elizabeth Warren has no idea even exists. You're vetting pragmatarianism. By the time congress has to deal with pragmatarianism...how many people will have done homework on it?

Millions and millions and millions of people are going to be able to process far more information than 500 congresspeople can. This is why command economies fail. Millions and millions and millions of people are also going to have far more incentive to get the balance of inputs as correct as possible. Why? Because their income depends on it.

How many inputs do you think go into a smartphone? How many of them are private inputs and how many of them are public inputs? Why would it be stupid to allow Elizabeth Warren to determine which private inputs go into a smartphone? You'll know you've figured out the correct answer when it helps you understand why it would be just as stupid to allow Elizabeth Warren to determine which public inputs go into a smartphone.

csbrown28 said:
The problem with mine is the influence of those with wealth to corrupt those that I depend on to make informed decisions in a way that represents my interests.

Pragmatarianism, by clarifying the demand for public goods, would eliminate concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

csbrown28 said:
I think there is a better chance of fixing my problem, then yours...

You perceive that a division of labor is a problem with my system that needs to be fixed. It's funny because actually, a division of labor is a concept that supports pragmatarianism.

csbrown28 · Mar 19, 2014

Ok so this really all comes down to information. I think we'd agree that if people have perfect information, both systems would work (we can argue the details, but not the point of this response), but we know that's not the case.

You think (and as always I invite you to clarify) that because government have less than perfect information it is doomed to mis-allocate resources.

In contrast you think that individuals are rational actors that allocate resources based purely on their desire and that those desires are the best way to allocate societies resources. The problem is that individuals are, by necessity, the most self interested actors of all. Now I think its fair to say that those with excessive wealth, have more to lose and tend to be more forward thinking (because they can afford to spend time and hire people to protect their interests), however their forward thinking often comes at the expense of others.

You made the following statement:

Xerographica said:
So these are our options...

Option 1: We tie the kids together and allow them to be guided by a visible hand. The visible hand represents government planners. In essence the kids are marionettes. Since the kids are all tied together...they cover less ground. This means that the chances of finding Easter Eggs is decreased while the harm of stepping on a landmine is increased.

Option 2: We allow the kids to run free guided by an invisible hand. The invisible hand represents self-interest. Since the kids are not tied together...they cover more ground. This means that the chances of finding Easter Eggs are increased while the harm of stepping on a landmine is decreased.

I don't even know how this analogy is supposed to apply to society. it's oversimplified to the point of being useless imo....

Imagine me asking; what is better altruism or selfishness?

The answer is neither, it is a false dichotomy just as your example....

We can employ some of the best of each to come up with a better solution than either extreme.

People assign other people the task of making decisions for them on many subjects they have no information about. Those people (be it government or private individuals) have a responsibility to understand what the people want and ideally to research the best way to accomplish the goals they were elected to do. People elected to government and private boards aren't omniscient, but in most cases they are allocated resources to investigate the problems that a business, community or society faces in ways that most private individuals cannot.

So who is left with control of information? You claim that people will do their homework.....No they won't. They will be spoon fed information by those with excessive resources. Most of that information won't be based on evidence, but simple self interest. Those interests will be represented by those at the very top and just like we are watching society transform into an oligarchy, the system you advocate would, imo, do the same.

You analogize the purchase of a smartphone, as if that represents the extent of the consequences that people will face. Buy a bad smartphone, bad call reliability? What about deciding where our energy should come from, coal (pollution?), gas (fracking anyone?), nuclear (Fukashima?), wind (not in my back yard!)...ect...ect Where will the information come from to help people decide? Easy from those at the top of each industry who have a vested interest in lying to you. now, objectively one of the solutions above is better than the other. perhaps a mix of solutions, but I don't see how people allocating their money based on their feelings, especially feelings manipulated by self interest of each industry in question, is superior in any way.

Where will the money come from to research alternatives? Individuals aren't terrible forward thinking and because they can't see the results of R&D it won't be valued.

Most people spend 8 hours a day working, and the rest of it, taking care of children, maintaining our cars and homes, paying bills and dealing with our wider family and community and you expect that everyone should spend countless hours researching an endless deluge of topics so that we can all allocate our money optimally for society. I respectfully disagree.

In most cases cost will be the determining factor as to where people allocate their money, pollution, the potential for failure, where to build, these are issues are all subordinate to cost for those that live from paycheck to pay check (at least the bottom 50%?). People will reduce any costs they can on the front end and will deal with long term, and often more expensive, consequences later.

Xerographica · Mar 19, 2014

csbrown28 said:
People assign other people the task of making decisions for them on many subjects they have no information about.

How familiar are you with the work of Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson? What about the work of Nobel Prize winning market economist James M. Buchanan? How well do you understand the opportunity cost concept? Do you thoroughly grasp the implications of partial knowledge?

I have far more information than you do about economics. What I showed you wasn't even the tip of the iceberg. So do you want me to make a decision for you about pragmatarianism? Do you want me to decide for you how much of your time/money/energy you allocate to pragmatarianism? Let me know how you spend your time and I'll let you which uses can be sacrificed.

Right now you and I have a relationship. Here we are exchanging our limited time and perspectives with each other. Given that we're choosing to sacrifice the alternative uses of our time...it stands to reason that we each derive a certain amount of benefit from our relationship. Can you predict how long this will last? I sure can't. I didn't even predict that this relationship would begin.

How would you react if I told you that I'm not going to let you decide when this relationship ends? If I could somehow actually prevent you from ending our relationship...it wouldn't be a problem as long as you derived quite a bit of benefit from our interaction. So your inability to leave becomes a problem when the amount of benefit you derive starts to decrease.

From the Wikipedia entry on Albert O. Hirschman's book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty...

The basic concept is as follows: members of an organization, whether a business, a nation or any other form of human grouping, have essentially two possible responses when they perceive that the organization is demonstrating a decrease in quality or benefit to the member: they can exit (withdraw from the relationship); or, they can voice (attempt to repair or improve the relationship through communication of the complaint, grievance or proposal for change).

From the book itself...

The distinguishing characteristic of [public] goods is not only that they can be consumed by everyone, but that there is no escape from consuming them unless one were to leave the community by which they are provided. Thus he who says public goods says public evils. The latter result not only from universally sensed inadequacies in the supply of public goods, but from the fact that what is a public good for some - say, a plentiful supply of police dogs and atomic bombs - may well be judged a public evil by others in the same community. It is also quite easy to conceive of a public good turning into a public evil, for example, if a country's foreign and military policies develop in such a way that their "output" changes from international prestige to international disrepute. - Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

There are words in that quote that are italicized in the original...but you can't see which words because this forum italicized the entire quote. As you can see here ... I voiced my concern. But clearly it's not a big enough concern for me to exit from this forum.

Right now you're telling me that there are situations when it's ok for the exit to be blocked. Clearly you feel that this right here right now is not one of them. I'm sure you want to be free to exit from our relationship. And of course I also want you to have that freedom.

What do we want with a Socialist then, who, under pretence of organizing for us, comes despotically to break up our voluntary arrangements, to check the division of labour, to substitute isolated efforts for combined ones, and to send civilization back? Is association, as I describe it here, in itself less association, because every one enters and leaves it freely, chooses his place in it, judges and bargains for himself on his own responsibility, and brings with him the spring and warrant of personal interest? That it may deserve this name, is it necessary that a pretended reformer should come and impose upon us his plan and his will, and as it were, to concentrate mankind in himself? - Frédéric Bastiat

In the US we have a mixed economy...we have a market economy in the private sector and a command economy in the public sector. In the private sector people are free to enter into and exit from any relationships. Not so in the public sector...

But in the case of PGs they may not have an avenue for criticism nor a feasible exit opportunity. They may be compelled to consume a particular good. Therefore, it is important to ascertain whether a good’s publicness in form goes hand in hand with publicness in substance – actual enjoyment of the good by all. - Inge Kaul, Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century

In a pragmatarian system, people would be able to exit from specific government organizations. However, unlike anarcho-capitalism, people would not be able to exit from the public sector. Taxes would still be compulsory.

Should taxes be compulsory? Unlike with private goods, people can benefit from public goods without paying for them. So I don't think it's unreasonable for taxes to be compulsory. It's still a block though. It definitely limits input. Like I said in the OP...every appropriate block has an optimal allocation that can only be determined by free flow. In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers would be free to enter into and exit from relationships with congress and the IRS.

Right now I'm using society's limited resources to supply pragmatarianism. How many resources am I using? Not even a drop in the ocean. But that would change if more people started "buying" pragmatarianism. And that would only happen if people derived a benefit from doing so. So the amount of resources allocated to an activity is determined by the amount of benefit that the activity produces. More benefit means more resources.

The alternative is to believe that somehow planners can divine the benefit breakdown and allocate resources accordingly. If, in the absence of your input, planners can know how much benefit you derive from any given activity then there's absolutely nothing wrong with your input being blocked.

RGacky3 · Mar 20, 2014

Xerographica said:
What if you sell your kidneys and buy a car? Then is it ok if I steal your car? What if you work your fingers to the bone and buy some land? Then is it ok if I steal your land? What if you trade your sweat for a gold medal? Then is it ok if I steal your medal? What if God gives you a pony in exchange for your tears? Then is it ok if I steal your pony? What if the Red Cross gives you a lollypop for your blood? Then is it ok if I steal your lollypop?

Once I remove my kidneys from my person they are no longer part of me ....

you can't "steal" land, that's assuming you can "own" land.

Once you have a property system in Place, a legal system, breaking that system, or the social contract is "stealing" and thus wrong, but that doesn't mean you can't change the system or the social contract.

the "Block" or "Flow" talk presupposes a social contract property legal system, it doesn't defend it, it assumes it.

Xerographica · Mar 20, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Once I remove my kidneys from my person they are no longer part of me ....

you can't "steal" land, that's assuming you can "own" land.

Once you have a property system in Place, a legal system, breaking that system, or the social contract is "stealing" and thus wrong, but that doesn't mean you can't change the system or the social contract.

the "Block" or "Flow" talk presupposes a social contract property legal system, it doesn't defend it, it assumes it.

1. Flow results in the creation of value
2. Flow depends on property ownership
3. Therefore, flow defends property ownership

Right now your time (a limited resource) is flowing to this thread. Value is being created as a result. If somebody blocked you from directing your time to this thread then value would be destroyed. But if you don't own your time...then how could you possibly determine the direction it should flow? If you don't own your time, then you wouldn't be able to direct its flow...which is essentially a block...which would result in the destruction of value.

That's my flow (economic) defense of your right to own property. Now, what's your defense? Do you have a defense? Is your defense better than my defense? Why should you be free to direct your time to this thread?

RGacky3 · Mar 20, 2014

Xerographica said:
1. Flow results in the creation of value
2. Flow depends on property ownership
3. Therefore, flow defends property ownership

Right now your time (a limited resource) is flowing to this thread. Value is being created as a result. If somebody blocked you from directing your time to this thread then value would be destroyed. But if you don't own your time...then how could you possibly determine the direction it should flow? If you don't own your time, then you wouldn't be able to direct its flow...which is essentially a block...which would result in the destruction of value.

That's my flow (economic) defense of your right to own property. Now, what's your defense? Do you have a defense? Is your defense better than my defense? Why should you be free to direct your time to this thread?

1. Not flow doesn't result in the creation of value all the time.
2. No it doesn't.

You can't "OWN" time.

That isn't a defense Your making, it's total nonsense.

Xerographica · Mar 20, 2014

RGacky3 said:
1. Not flow doesn't result in the creation of value all the time.
2. No it doesn't.

You can't "OWN" time.

That isn't a defense Your making, it's total nonsense.

1. The goal is to determine the amount of resources that should be used for any given activity. T/F

2. The amount of resources an activity uses should be determined by the amount of benefit that the activity provides. T/F

3. The more benefit an activity provides the more resources it should use. T/F

RGacky3 · Mar 20, 2014

Xerographica said:
1. The goal is to determine the amount of resources that should be used for any given activity. T/F

2. The amount of resources an activity uses should be determined by the amount of benefit that the activity provides. T/F

3. The more benefit an activity provides the more resources it should use. T/F

If you quoted my post, why didn't you respond to any of the points in my post?

Xerographica · Mar 20, 2014

RGacky3 said:
If you quoted my post, why didn't you respond to any of the points in my post?

I did respond to your points. Your points all indicate that you have some superior method of determining how resources should be used. My reply was an attempt to get you to share your method.

Do we _______ benefit when determining how society's resources should be used?

A. ignore
B. assume
C. other?

RGacky3 · Mar 21, 2014

Xerographica said:
I did respond to your points. Your points all indicate that you have some superior method of determining how resources should be used. My reply was an attempt to get you to share your method.

Do we _______ benefit when determining how society's resources should be used?

A. ignore
B. assume
C. other?

Instead of trying to figure out what my Points "indicate" why not read what they say.

My point is you're making these categories of "Block" and "flow" arbitrarily, and ignoring pressupositions like property rights, then you're making assumptions like that flow always leads to economic Growth, then you're ignoring the Whole problem of externalities, systemic phenomenon and so on. My point is you're Whole analysis is flawed.

The question you're posting is stupid ... who's benefit? what externalities? long term or short term? societal or private?