Survival of the Fittest Government Organizations?

[VanceMack]

See...this is why i cant be a 'real' Libertarian...

some services exist for the public good. They are needed. If they didnt exist simply because people didnt want to pay them the public would suffer. Roads, schools, police, fire...all valid public expenditures. All should be paid for from taxes.

Those services should however be EFFECTIVE. They should provide effective services and the local and state governments should fund them and manage them. Citizens of the state should be responsible for their annual budgets and the citizens should hold their politicians and accountants fiscally responsible.

 

[Mach]

Does anybody have any interesting arguments against subjecting government organizations (GOs) to survival of the fittest? The process would simply involve allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes among the various GOs at anytime throughout the year.

That's called libertarianism right?
You never take that tax in the first place, and each individual determines where that money is spent.
And aside from reasonable hurdles with zero government, in general that's why a more libertarian styled culture works better. Evolutionary economics beats planned, and in the very few regimes it doesn't, you plan them, but not the reverse!

See...this is why i cant be a 'real' Libertarian....

Real libertarianism needs to become as you prefer, that's their big issue right now. Because there is no doubt that there are certain societal functions that can be solved effectively and while maximizing freedom, via government...or at least a form of government.

 

[VanceMack]

Real libertarianism needs to become as you prefer, that's their big issue right now. Because there is no doubt that there are certain societal functions that can be solved effectively and while maximizing freedom, via government...or at least a form of government.

but if 'real' Libertarians start demonstrating responsible and realistic ideals with regard to government they are likely to loose all the political pull the party has managed to accumulate over the last 3 decades!

 

[Xerographica]

Never suggested it was a vacuum.

But you certainly suggested that people wouldn't have access to public goods information even though 1/6 Americans work in a sector that receives federal funding.

Congratulations. You've just added 20% additional overhead to everything the government does. How very efficient.

Ok, ok, but to prove your point you still have to send me $400. Then I'll concede that it is very inefficient.

Most Americans do not have the information required to judge the cost of any number of things the government does. Off the top of your head, how low can you drop the FAA's funding before air safety is compromised?

Errr...so just because I don't know something means that that information doesn't exist? Again, you're implying that the person who does have access to this information wouldn't want to make this information available. Again, no public goods occur in a vacuum.

Competition?
List the competitors to the Federal Aviation Administration I can go to for my Air Traffic Control needs.

Of course competition...you could allocate your individual taxes however you wanted among the various government organizations. This would force you to consider the opportunity costs of your individual tax allocation decisions. It would force you to consider all the other public goods you would have to forgo if you allocated all of your taxes to the FAA. That's the basis of efficiency. That's the only way we can guarantee the best possible use of limited resources.

You don't have a choice. You can't decide to forgo national defense and just get social security instead.

Now we can't decide that...but anybody who understands how the invisible hand works would support giving taxpayers the choice to decide how their individual taxes were spent.

 

[Xerographica]

VanceMack, do you realize that you just gave a list of needed public goods that taxpayers would forget to pay for? Hmmm...just how exceptional do you think you are?

 

[KevinKohler]

VanceMack, do you realize that you just gave a list of needed public goods that taxpayers would forget to pay for? Hmmm...just how exceptional do you think you are?

Therine lies the crux of the question, yes? We ALL think that WE are different, that WE are special, that WE see things that others don't.

 

[Xerographica]

Mach, uhhh...it's kind of hard to decipher your response.

Anarcho-capitalism = no taxes/government + capitalism
Libertarianism = few taxes and very limited scope of government
Liberalism = moderate taxes and broader scope of government
Socialism = public ownership of the modes of production

If you get a chance you should check out these political ideology diagrams to help keep your labels straight.

What I described in my original post was pragmatarianism. Taxes wouldn't be changed but we would apply the invisible hand to the public sector in order to determine the ideal scope of government.

 

[VanceMack]

VanceMack, do you realize that you just gave a list of needed public goods that taxpayers would forget to pay for? Hmmm...just how exceptional do you think you are?

Im not even sure if I follow your logic. What are you suggesting? If you are thinking I DONT think they, as public services, should be paid for by taxes then you didnt at all read what I said.

 

[KevinKohler]

Mach, uhhh...it's kind of hard to decipher your response.

Anarcho-capitalism = no taxes/government + capitalism
Libertarianism = few taxes and very limited scope of government
Liberalism = moderate taxes and broader scope of government
Socialism = public ownership of the modes of production

If you get a chance you should check out these political ideology diagrams to help keep your labels straight.

What I described in my original post was pragmatarianism. Taxes wouldn't be changed but we would apply the invisible hand to the public sector in order to determine the ideal scope of government.

Question.


And this will result in how I self indetify....

Does libertarian mean anarcho communsim, or just limtited government...? It's SO confusing these days. I USED to be a libertarian...but found the party to be a bunch of anarchists, which was ironic, to say the least....

 

[Xerographica]

KevinKohler...taxpayers are all alike in that they believe that some public goods are essential...but they all have unique values and perspectives so of course they are going disagree on how essential the various public goods are.

It would be ridiculous if we were all forced to purchase the same private goods just like it's ridiculous that we're all forced to purchase the same public goods. What's also ridiculous is how few people realize or understand why it's ridiculous. Another thing that's ridiculous is my inability to help people understand why it's ridiculous. It reminds me of this poem by Stephen Crane...

I saw a man pursuing the horizon;
Round and round they sped.
I was disturbed at this;
I accosted the man.
"It is futile," I said,
"You can never — "

"You lie," he cried,
And ran on.

Here's my interpretation....

I saw two men arguing over whose values were more valuable;
Round and round they argued.
I was disturbed at this;
I accosted the men.
"It is futile," I said,
"Your values are equally valuable..."

"You lie," they cried,
And argued on.

The public goods we each "purchase" should be determined by our own individual values...it's as simple as that. No need to argue...no need to debate.

 

[Xerographica]

VanceMack...no...you didn't follow my logic. You just gave me a list of public goods that taxpayers would forget to fund. So either A. you are not a taxpayer or B. somehow you are the only taxpayer to remember that those essential public goods needed funding. Case B would imply that you are a very exceptional taxpayer...all the other taxpayers forgot about the essential public goods...except for you.

Hmmm. Uh...now I'm not sure which I've heard more often..."I'm not like all the other girls..."....or..."I'm not like all the other taxpayers..." LOL

 

[KevinKohler]

VanceMack...no...you didn't follow my logic. You just gave me a list of public goods that taxpayers would forget to fund. So either A. you are not a taxpayer or B. somehow you are the only taxpayer to remember that those essential public goods needed funding. Case B would imply that you are a very exceptional taxpayer...all the other taxpayers forgot about the essential public goods...except for you.

Hmmm. Uh...now I'm not sure which I've heard more often..."I'm not like all the other girls..."....or..."I'm not like all the other taxpayers..." LOL

Nice........

 

[Xerographica]

KevinKohler, regarding your self-identity...

Well...it's tricky. Here in America you're generally safe to call yourself a libertarian. When somebody says "libertarian" on the TV...99% of the time they are referring to limited government libertarian. The problem is that anarcho-capitalists also want to use the term libertarian. Over on wikipedia they've given undue weight to their perspective on the entry for libertarianism and they've overrun the Ron Paul forums.

The Libertarian Party on facebook doesn't seem to be too infiltrated with anarcho-capitalists though.

Anarcho-capitalism used to give me the heebie-jeebies but now that I'm a pragmatarian I just offer them this challenge... If it's true that the private sector can produce all public goods better than the public sector can...then pragmatarianism will allow it to gradually happen over time. Only a few anarcho-capitalists have understood the challenge enough to accept it. Meaning...those are the few that actually understand how the invisible hand works.

 

[Reg]

Would libertarians really be libertarians if they did not allow an "invisible hand" to bastardize their ranks with anarcho-capitalists?

 

[VanceMack]

VanceMack...no...you didn't follow my logic. You just gave me a list of public goods that taxpayers would forget to fund. So either A. you are not a taxpayer or B. somehow you are the only taxpayer to remember that those essential public goods needed funding. Case B would imply that you are a very exceptional taxpayer...all the other taxpayers forgot about the essential public goods...except for you.

Hmmm. Uh...now I'm not sure which I've heard more often..."I'm not like all the other girls..."....or..."I'm not like all the other taxpayers..." LOL

Yes...Im afraid you absolutely missed the core of my post. Start with the first line. As a registered Libertarian we are 'supposed' to be opposed to such things. My point is not that I differ from all other taxpayers but that I differ from 'real' Libertarians and believe that we should in fact be taxed for essential public services.

 

[Mach]

but if 'real' Libertarians start demonstrating responsible and realistic ideals with regard to government they are likely to loose all the political pull the party has managed to accumulate over the last 3 decades!

Or gain more moderates than they lose, it's all a gamble!

Honestly, I can't tell youhow many times I've heard people say things like:
I really like libertarians but what's with the legalize drugs crap?
I really like libertarians but cutting all federal regulation seems absurd!
I really like Ron Paul but he goes too far on some issues making me think he can't really be supported
I really like libertarians but pulling out of all foreign engagements seems drastic
I really like libertarians but going back to gold standard would be insane.

And I don't think any of those things, are necessary for a strong libertarian party to make enormous change in our current government...
You maybe right, that without those extreme issues they can't get enough foaming at the mouth support...but damn I'd at least like to see it tried in a big way.

 

[VanceMack]

Or gain more moderates than they lose, it's all a gamble!

Honestly, I can't tell youhow many times I've heard people say things like:
I really like libertarians but what's with the legalize drugs crap?
I really like libertarians but cutting all federal regulation seems absurd!
I really like Ron Paul but he goes too far on some issues making me think he can't really be supported
I really like libertarians but pulling out of all foreign engagements seems drastic
I really like libertarians but going back to gold standard would be insane.

And I don't think any of those things, are necessary for a strong libertarian party to make enormous change in our current government...
You maybe right, that without those extreme issues they can't get enough foaming at the mouth support...but damn I'd at least like to see it tried in a big way.

Most of those things can be intelligently stated or even moderately adjusted to the point where they are effective and dont alienate folks. I'm not for legalizing drugs...I am for ending the federal laws on drugs and allowing the states to decide individually on which and if to legalize drugs. The federal governments only position should to enforce the illegal importation of drugs. If Iowa wants to legalize drugs then it should be Iowa's business to import and manage their own drug programs. Killing federal social programs would ensure that if Iowa became a fiscal and medical trainwreck because they allow drugs, the citizens of Iowa...the ones responsible for the legalization of said drugs, are on the hook for the bills.

 

[Xerographica]

VanceMack and Mach...if we set all other considerations aside...should the amount of money that the drug war receives accurately reflect how much society values the drug war?