Libertarian Pudding Tastes Good!!

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Xerographica, Mar 21, 2012.

  1. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    But that's the most likely outcome, when it comes to preferences most folks would rather spend their dollars to maximize their own utility and would be reluctant to fork over money especially if they perceive others aren't donating as readily.

    Not at all, I'm quite aware that no one knows that. Trouble is, public goods necessarily result in market failure, the market will not provide these types of goods at and adequate level.

    Price is typically the best indicator, but it's often difficult or impossible to capture the full social value of a public good so the price would necessarily be higher than where it'd be set by the market.

    This is what grows tiresome, the answer was correct which means you either didn't understand it or your going to go back to the making up definitions game.
     
  2. parcus

    parcus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think you can actually prove that, especially when you consider that "public goods" is subjective.
     
  3. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Hmmm...as far I can tell your response would make perfect sense if I was advocating that taxes should be optional. There's a name for that...anarcho-capitalism. But...that's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating pragmatarianism.

    In a pragmatarian system...taxes would not be optional. However, you would have the option to directly allocate your taxes rather than indirectly allocating your taxes via congress.

    So unlike libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism...I'm not advocating that we kick any public goods over to the private sector. I'm merely advocating that we apply free-market principles to the public sector. In other words, taxpayers would have the freedom to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to.

    For example, as I mentioned in my original post, at anytime throughout the year you could visit the EPA website and directly submit a tax payment. They would then notify the IRS of your payment.
     
  4. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    In a pragmatarian system...if nobody gave their taxes to FEMA...then we would definitively prove that the Red Cross adequately satisfies the demand for disaster relief. The same concept applies to all the other goods in the public sector. Utility maximizing taxpayers would not "purchase" something in the public sector that's available for less money in the private sector.

    You don't buy a laptop from Dell and then immediately buy a laptop from HP. If somebody does do that then it's a sure sign that their need/demand for a laptop was not adequately satisfied by Dell. Which would make sense though...because Dell laptops really suck.
     
  5. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No need to prove it, it's the nature of the market in that it will fail to create sufficient supply of goods which are difficult to capture the actual costs/value of. It's just doing what it's supposed to do.

    Ok, yes I've clearly misunderstood your position.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  6. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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 :D

    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.

    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.
     
  7. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  8. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So why is it that on overall costs, the private sector costs more than government (by overall, I mean including any and all subsidies)?
     
  9. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good example of government providing a service cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector.
     
  10. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For example?
     
  11. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    geofree, the Land Value Tax says absolutely nothing about the spending and pragmatarianism says absolutely nothing about the taxing.

    Does your perspective matter?
     

Share This Page