Thread: Libertarian Pudding Tastes Good!!

Originally Posted by Anikdote

I suppose that depend highly on the options available. The trouble is first, how do we know whatever marginal rate is decided upon is actually correct? How do we know that some amount of those dollars wouldn't have been better allocated in the private sector? You start with the problem that state planners can't correctly provision public goods, but then advocate what is essentially a arbitrary tax rate that isn't emergent. If you really believe that folks could correctly decide how much of which public goods they need, you'd advocate for a voluntary tax system, but your not so it gives a "I want to have my cake and eat it too" impression.

We start with the current rate and allow the invisible hand to determine the division of labor between the private and public sectors. It's impossible to guess which goods will end up where. All we can know is that the scope of government should determine the tax rate...and not the other way around. Might want to reread my original post

Originally Posted by Anikdote

But how do you know that X% is the right amount? Moreover, you claim it embraces the market but the choices are highly limited and the prices are not at all likely to reflect a market price as their is no competition between ideas, furthermore if there were it would lead to horrendous results, voters would likely be influenced to spend their dollars on things not in their interest due to their lack of information and lack of interest in finding said information.

People spend their money to address the shortages of the things that they value. We ONLY know what people value based on how they spend their time/money...in other words...their opportunity cost decisions. This is why we say, "put your money where your mouth is"...and "actions speak louder than words".

Pragmatarianism is actually the solution to the information problem. I added your response to my entry on Unglamorous but Important Things. Another post you might want to check out is partial knowledge and opportunity cost.

Originally Posted by Anikdote

Interesting though, in writing this I did stumble across your blog, I'm also perusing some of the critiques atm. I'll give it this much, at least it's unique and worth discussing.

Glad you think it's worth discussing! Hopefully I can encourage more people to discuss it as well. As far as I can tell...it's a reasonable compromise between liberals and libertarians. Taxes are still there for liberals...but the element of choice is there for libertarians. Unfortunately...when I share the idea with others...libertarians tend to only focus on the taxes and liberals struggle to understand the value of choice.

Originally Posted by Xerographica

Pragmatarianism is actually the solution to the information problem.

It is a backwards, nonsensical solution. Say that I allocate the bulk of my tax obligation to the department of transportation, in hopes that the road-way leading to my place of business gets improved. What if the department of transportation instead uses my tax money to broaden and resurface the road leading to my competitors place of business? In this likely scenario the government would have used my tax dollars to help my competitor, and at the expense of my own business.

The better solution is to abolish arbitrary taxation and just use a land value tax to charge individuals for what they are already getting from the public sector.

Your proposed system cannot guarantee that government spending will benefit me. I might give my money to the right department, but depending on how that department spends the money, it might benefit me or it could just as easily harm me.

I believe that if you pay taxes you should be guaranteed something equivalent in return, and the land value tax is the only tax system that can make that guarantee.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Companies change their plan with conditions, government try to force the condition to fit their plan.

Companies often reduce spending, and terminate products that are no longer viable. Government rarely reduces spending, and rarely only terminates program spending.

Over time, companies provide more value for the same, or less cost, or go out of business. The cost of government has little to do with it's value.

So why is it that on overall costs, the private sector costs more than government (by overall, I mean including any and all subsidies)?

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Exactly.

The best example I can think of is health insurance. Not post Obamacare, just post regulated to death....

Good example of government providing a service cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector.

Originally Posted by Shanty

So why is it that on overall costs, the private sector costs more than government (by overall, I mean including any and all subsidies)?

For example?

Originally Posted by Shanty

Good example of government providing a service cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector.

Then why are non-insured medical procedures, lasik, and comsmetic surgery going down in price, when the rest of healthcare is increasing?

Regulation, and to offfset the losses incurred when dealing with the government.

geofree, the Land Value Tax says absolutely nothing about the spending and pragmatarianism says absolutely nothing about the taxing.

Does your perspective matter?