• 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!

Ask a Pragmatarian!

megaprogman, I'm kind of guessing that you're saying that congress people have a far higher probability of listening to experts than tax payers. If my interpretation is correct...why do you think that congress people are more inclined to listen to experts than the average tax payer? Can you offer any examples of the experts that congress people listen to?
 
Xerographica said:
megaprogman, I'm kind of guessing that you're saying that congress people have a far higher probability of listening to experts than tax payers. If my interpretation is correct...why do you think that congress people are more inclined to listen to experts than the average tax payer? Can you offer any examples of the experts that congress people listen to?
Click to expand...

Just look at any congressional hearing, they bring in experts in various fields all the time.

A more concrete example would be the CBO.
 
megaprogman, would you listen to those experts?
 
Do you know what the department of interior does and how much money they need to do their jobs? How about the national infrastructure bank? Can you accurately state the research the national science foundation givings grants for? Do you know what projects the DOD would pursue if given more funding? How about classified departments?

The answer is that you have no idea about the function and requirements of most federal departments. I am not calling your ignorant either. It simply isn't possible for a single person to understand the entire budget, even if it was their full time job. Even congress needs subcommittees to break up the work. You can't have people decide a budget they can't understand. The whole reason we have representative rather than direct democracy is to handle the complexity of government.
 
Xerographica said:
megaprogman, I'm kind of guessing that you're saying that congress people have a far higher probability of listening to experts than tax payers. If my interpretation is correct...why do you think that congress people are more inclined to listen to experts than the average tax payer? Can you offer any examples of the experts that congress people listen to?
Click to expand...

Congresspeople listen to experts, yes. They hear testimony from them regularly, as well as talk to lobbyists and political advisers.

It's completely ridiculous to expect people to make an informed decision on how much funding to give Veteran's Affairs or the Department of Energy. Most of the population isn't even aware that most of our nuclear weapons research and maintenance is under the purview of DoE, much less able to judge how much funding that requires. You're suggesting the least informed people about a particular subject be the ones who manage its finances.

You should change the name of this particular viewpoint because it's not at all pragmatic.
 
Last edited:
rathi, actually, when I was in Afghanistan every significant activity in the country was tracked on an excel spread sheet. Does that strike you as absurd? It obviously didn't strike the general at the time as absurd. I received a minor award for updating the entire system while the general's driver received a bronze metal. LOL

So I have an EXTREMELY good idea how much money the DOD wastes. It's not just the DOD...it's the same with most government organizations. There is no efficiency without competition.

Now, the part you're having trouble with is the subjectivity involved. I can say with certainty that a $10,000 database program would have improved information management in Afghanistan by leaps and bounds. That's honest to god expert testimony. So what? Who's to say that the $10,000 couldn't be better spent providing a scholarship for a deserving student?

The only two criteria to be a congress person are age and citizenship. That's because deciding how much taxes should be spent on education, defense, entitlement programs, etc is completely subjective. Just like you don't need a committee to decide whether you spend $1000 on a vacation or on a new computer.

If you watched congress debating the budget it was all based on values...republicans wanted to cut welfare, medicare, social security and democrats wanted to cut defense. We all have values...and we should be able to support the public goods we value with our taxes.

As I probably mentioned in earlier posts, I'm definitely not advocating getting rid of congress. People who preferred the value judgements of congress over their own could still give as much of their taxes as they wanted to congress.
 
Deuce, why would people completely uninformed on a particularly subject have the least bit interest in financially supporting that governmental organization? That doesn't even make any sense. It will be the Veterans themselves and their friends and family who will concern themselves with how much of their taxes to give to Veterans Affairs. It will be the people interested in sustainable energy who will concern themselves (and their friends and family) with how much of their taxes should go towards the department of energy.

Everybody cares about some public good. Rather than arguing back and forth trying to cut funding for public goods that we don't care about...or going ridiculously in debt trying to fund every public good with borrowed money...we should focus on financially supporting the government organizations that are responsible for providing the goods that we do care about. Citizens will be empowered to champion the public goods that they value. Imagine that...once we see and have direct control over where our taxes are going...taxes will no longer have a negative connotation!
 
rathi, actually, when I was in Afghanistan every significant activity in the country was tracked on an excel spread sheet. Does that strike you as absurd? It obviously didn't strike the general at the time as absurd. I received a minor award for updating the entire system while the general's driver received a bronze metal. LOL
Click to expand...

Organizing data on computer is trivial. Understanding the context behind the data is incredibly difficult. If you gave that data to the general public, do you think they could understand it and vote on a decent battle strategy? Or would officers do a better job of it?

So I have an EXTREMELY good idea how much money the DOD wastes. It's not just the DOD...it's the same with most government organizations. There is no efficiency without competition.
Click to expand...

So would create another military to compete? The waste of government departments is a problem, but your solution isn't viable.

Now, the part you're having trouble with is the subjectivity involved. I can say with certainty that a $10,000 database program would have improved information management in Afghanistan by leaps and bounds. That's honest to god expert testimony. So what? Who's to say that the $10,000 couldn't be better spent providing a scholarship for a deserving student?
Click to expand...

And I"d say you could use an open source SQL database and save the money. Unfortunately, the majority of the general public couldn't even voice an opinion because they don't know anything about databases.

If you watched congress debating the budget it was all based on values...republicans wanted to cut welfare, medicare, social security and democrats wanted to cut defense. We all have values...and we should be able to support the public goods we value with our taxes.
Click to expand...

You can vote for congressmen who share you values on how to spend tax dollars. That is way for citizens to influence the system. We choose our representatives to handle the details of things like creating the budget.
 
rathi, there was nothing trivial about it...poor information management was why we were in Afghanistan in the first place and one of the reasons that we've been there for so long. If the information is not organized in an intelligible and accessible format then it doesn't matter if General Patton or Joe Schmoe is analyzing it.

Anyways, I'm not quite sure why you still seem to believe that tax payers will run the government organizations just because they financially support them. Just because I purchased a Nikon camera in no way means that I can have input in the operating decisions of Nikon. A good is a still a good whether it is public or private.

No, I wouldn't create another military to compete. The efficiency of each government organization would be rated on various websites. Here's one such website for Non-Profits....Charity Navitgator. The rating of a government organization would influence how much money I gave to that organization. Organizations with low ratings would receive less funding and be forced to reduce overhead costs.

Yes, I can vote for a congress person but there is no guarantee that they will be elected or that they will follow through with their campaign promises once elected. Plus, no two people would allocate their taxes alike...why would you want a system that only very partially reflects the values of citizens when you could have a system that 100% accurately reflected citizens' values?

A command economy was an abject and total failure each and every time...yet we use a command economy for our public goods? It doesn't even make sense. The only reason we need to coerce people to pay taxes is because of the free-rider problem. Once we coerce them to allocate a percentage of their income to public goods then the invisible hand can take it from there.
 
Xerographica said:
Deuce, why would people completely uninformed on a particularly subject have the least bit interest in financially supporting that governmental organization? That doesn't even make any sense.
Click to expand...

Not only does it make perfect sense, it's exactly my point. What percentage of public services can you even name? How many people are going to put enough thought into this to support weather monitoring satellites, GPS system maintenance, air traffic control, or water filtration?

Do you know what happens when the air traffic control system doesn't have the funds to operate?
 
Deuce, do you know what non-profits do BEFORE they don't have enough funds to operate? They fund raise. What comes to mind is the episode of South Park...Starvin' Marvin in Space...where the Christian non-profit is trying to raise funds to purchase a space ship in order to bring Christianity to the new alien planet.
 
Alright, this has little to do with previous discussions, but the title of the thread is "Ask a Pragmatarian!" so I am going to assume you are offering to answer any question posed.. so here's one for you: How does the population density of the area in which one lives affect political outlook, in terms of both self interest and the public good?
 
Xerographica said:
Deuce, do you know what non-profits do BEFORE they don't have enough funds to operate? They fund raise. What comes to mind is the episode of South Park...Starvin' Marvin in Space...where the Christian non-profit is trying to raise funds to purchase a space ship in order to bring Christianity to the new alien planet.
Click to expand...

Oh, sounds great, we'll just shut down water filtration until enough donations come in next april.
 
You libertarians have no answer to the kkkapitalism problem.
 
Just1Voice, errrr...country folk vs city folk?
 
Deuce, if your source for filtered water was about to be shut down due to lack of funds...would you wait until April to send in your donation?
 
AtlantaAdonis, actually I'm a pragmatarian...hence the title of this thread. Perhaps if you described the kkkapitalism problem then I might be able to try and formulate an answer.
 
Xerographica said:
Deuce, if your source for filtered water was about to be shut down due to lack of funds...would you wait until April to send in your donation?
Click to expand...

Because my taxes aren't due yet. Don't have the W-2 yet. I'm sure somebody else will take care of it.

My point is that your theory depends on people being way better informed and a lot more rational and a lot less lazy and selfish than they actually are. It makes the exact same error that communism and libertarianism make: Failing to account for human nature.
 
Last edited:
Xerographica said:
Just1Voice, errrr...country folk vs city folk?
Click to expand...
In lower (i.e. more rural) populations densities you must be more self-reliant, because help is further away. Cooperation is harder work and so you tend to reserve it for those you know better and trust more.

But there is a tipping point between rural and urban population densities when you can no longer afford to help only those you know and trust well. There are too many people to keep track of and it is in your own self-interest to see to it that as few people slip through the cracks as possible.

The greater the density of population in which you were raised, the more likely it is that you will reach a point when the public good becomes synonymous (or nearly so) with self interest. What happens to your neighbor affects you (and all of your other neighbors, for that matter) to a greater degree the closer we pack ourselves in together. Eventually you begin to realize (if you are smart enough to make the connection) that if you can increase the likelihood of your neighbors success alongside your own, it leads to greater stability for the group, and thus the standard of living for the whole group rises. Moreover, you discover that not working this way increases the statistical probability that one or more of your neighbors will decide to to increase the likelihoods of their own success at the expense of others.
 
Deuce, what you're failing to take into account is signals. Each and every good has its associated signals. Your stomach growling is a signal that you need to eat. If you're having trouble fitting into your pants then it's a signal that you either need to purchase larger pants or hire a personal trainer or eat less or...

Who consumes public goods? Obviously the public. It should be up to the public to decide how much and which public goods they want. There's a huge amount of signals for all the public goods and there's no way that 535 congress people can observe and respond to all these signals as effectively as 300,000,000 people can.

Let's play a numbers game. We can say that each congress person responds to 1,650 signals. How many signals would each citizen need to respond to in order to outperform congress?

535 * 1650 = 300,000,000 * x
882,750 = 300,000,000 * x
882,750/300,000,000 = x
0.0029425 = x

Obviously each person observes way more than .003 signals. For congress to respond to as many signals as the American public is capable of responding to as a whole they would have to be nearly omniscient!
 
Xerographica said:
Deuce, what you're failing to take into account is signals. Each and every good has its associated signals. Your stomach growling is a signal that you need to eat. If you're having trouble fitting into your pants then it's a signal that you either need to purchase larger pants or hire a personal trainer or eat less or...

Who consumes public goods? Obviously the public. It should be up to the public to decide how much and which public goods they want. There's a huge amount of signals for all the public goods and there's no way that 535 congress people can observe and respond to all these signals as effectively as 300,000,000 people can.

Let's play a numbers game. We can say that each congress person responds to 1,650 signals. How many signals would each citizen need to respond to in order to outperform congress?

535 * 1650 = 300,000,000 * x
882,750 = 300,000,000 * x
882,750/300,000,000 = x
0.0029425 = x

Obviously each person observes way more than .003 signals. For congress to respond to as many signals as the American public is capable of responding to as a whole they would have to be nearly omniscient!
Click to expand...

You're trying to put human behavior into a grossly simplified math formula and you're equating obvious biological signals like hunger to highly complicated and subtle signals like "the projected rate of failure for GPS satellites and the cost to replace them." Ridiculous. Can you tell me, right now, how many GPS satellites are expected to fail over the next 10 years and how much it costs to replace them?

No. You can't. You have no idea. You don't receive that signal at all until 10 years from now when the GPS in your car, and every other car, stops working. Meanwhile, the air traffic system in our country suffers tremendously because it never occurred to the average American just how important a particular constellation of satellites is to our entire economy.

I'm failing to account for signals? No, you're failing to account for the fact that 90% of this country doesn't pay the least bit of attention to any of this. How is this information going to get to them? Is every single action taken by every single government body going to have to advertise and try to persuade people that they're important? How much is that going to cost?

You've also completely missed the fact that it's not just congress that deals with this. They delegate.
 
Last edited:
Deuce, yeah, if it was just me trying to keep track of all the public goods that needed to be funded then we'd be screwed. But you seem to have this idea that these public goods exist in some type of vacuum. They really don't though. Garmin and all the other companies that manufacture products that utilize GPS technology probably aren't going to forget about the cost of keeping GPS satellites in space. Boeing, which receives the government funds to manufacture the satellites, probably won't forget either.

Dang, this one sentence that you wrote is so spectacular that I'm going to copy and paste it...
Is every single action taken by every single government body going to have to advertise and try to persuade people that they're important?
Click to expand...
YES! YES! YES! It's called accountability.

Regarding the cost...I'm sure Boeing will probably pay for a few advertisements. So will quite a few other companies that receive government contracts. For other government organizations...here's a passage from the paper "Is Crowding Out Due Entirely to Fundraising?"...

Another interesting finding of our analysis is that charitable fund-raising is highly profitable, with over $5 raised per dollar spent on fund-raising. While this number may strike economists used to profit maximization as somewhat high, it is perfectly in line with ideals of best practices promulgated by the charity watchdog groups and fund-raising professionals, as we show below.
Click to expand...
 
Xerographica said:
Deuce, yeah, if it was just me trying to keep track of all the public goods that needed to be funded then we'd be screwed. But you seem to have this idea that these public goods exist in some type of vacuum. They really don't though. Garmin and all the other companies that manufacture products that utilize GPS technology probably aren't going to forget about the cost of keeping GPS satellites in space. Boeing, which receives the government funds to manufacture the satellites, probably won't forget either.

Dang, this one sentence that you wrote is so spectacular that I'm going to copy and paste it... YES! YES! YES! It's called accountability.

Regarding the cost...I'm sure Boeing will probably pay for a few advertisements. So will quite a few other companies that receive government contracts. For other government organizations...here's a passage from the paper "Is Crowding Out Due Entirely to Fundraising?"...
Click to expand...

Oh wow, only a 20% overhead.

So everything the government does will cost 20% more because it has to advertise.

Awesome. Sign me up.
 
Deuce, heh, if you genuinely don't believe it's an awesome return on investment then send me $5 and I'll send you $1. Better yet...send me $500 dollars and I'll send you a $100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom