It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Xerographica
The usual touchstone, whether that which someone asserts is merely his persuasion—or at least his subjective conviction, that is, his firm belief—is betting. It often happens that someone propounds his views with such positive and uncompromising assurance that he seems to have entirely set aside all thought of possible error. A bet disconcerts him. Sometimes it turns out that he has a conviction which can be estimated at a value of one ducat, but not of ten. For he is very willing to venture one ducat, but when it is a question of ten he becomes aware, as he had not previously been, that it may very well be that he is in error. If, in a given case, we represent ourselves as staking the happiness of our whole life, the triumphant tone of our judgment is greatly abated; we become extremely diffident, and discover for the first time that our belief does not reach so far. Thus pragmatic belief always exists in some specific degree, which, according to differences in the interests at stake, may be large or may be small. - Immanuel Kant , The Critique of Pure Reason
But have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much “God” sacrificed every time? If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law—let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals
So far as this is the case, it is evident that government, by excluding or even by superseding individual agency, either substitutes a less qualified instrumentality for one better qualified, or at any rate substitutes its own mode of accomplishing the work, for all the variety of modes which would be tried by a number of equally qualified persons aiming at the same end; a competition by many degrees more propitious to the progress of improvement than any uniformity of system. - J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy
I’m not necessarily sure we can attribute the improvements of boycotted governments to mass exodus / brain drain. Many people left China when Mao Zedong took control. But after Deng Xiaoping took control and improved China… I’m not sure if it was because so many people left or because so many of the surrounding countries were prospering while China was suffering. Now that so many of the brains have returned to China… I can’t help but wonder how much this increases China’s chances of further improvements.
But even if you’re correct… my point still stands regarding the rate of improvement. Right now everybody in the world dislikes one or more of their government’s policies. So why doesn’t everybody leave? Clearly it’s because the benefits (ie their family, friends, favorite restaurant, etc.) outweigh the costs. As a result, the bad traits continue to persist. We’d improve at a much faster rate if it was easy for people to boycott/divest from the bad traits without having to boycott/divest from all the traits in the geographical area.
When I left cable for Netflix… I left one bundle of content for another bundle of content. Obviously I do not prefer the components of the bundles equally. Neither cable nor Netflix knows which of their components I prefer more and which I prefer less. In the absence of this important information… they have to make these uniformed guesses. Improvements can be made… but improvements would be made a lot faster if they had a lot more accurate information regarding my preferences and everybody else’s preferences.
Maybe rating movies on Netflix helps provide information regarding people’s preferences? Well… if rating is an effective mechanism for communicating preferences… then couldn’t we say the same thing about voting?
I agree… but honestly I’m not very familiar with the entire concept. If an equivalently intelligent alien from another planet visited us would we also want to stick it in a box? What if it was a super smart human from the future? Box him too? Why stop there? Maybe we should have boxed Einstein and it’s not too late to box Hawking and Tao.
For some reason I’m a little stuck on the part where we reverse the idea that individuals are innocent until proven otherwise. Justice for me but not for thee?
It wouldn’t seem very rational to argue that every exceptionally intelligent individual should be incarcerated until they can prove their innocent intentions to less intelligent individuals. What’s the basis? Does more intelligence mean less morality?
When trying to figure out where to draw the line… the entire thought exercise of boxing up a sentient being by virtue of its exceptional intelligence… makes me feel a bit like a member of a lynch mob.
Is Pragmatarianism (Tax Choice) Less Wrong?
In several ways you’re really preaching to the choir. You might be interested in my recent post here… Is Pragmatarianism (Tax Choice) Less Wrong
As I explained in the FAQ it’s logically impossible for “important” things to be underfunded.
Let’s say that we implemented pragmatarianism. After a year we polled people to gauge their opinion on the EPA’s funding. What do you think the results of the poll would be? Would there be a disparity between the results of the poll and the EPA’s actual funding? If so, would you trust people’s words or their actions?
Right now I guess that most people don’t value the environment as much as I do. But it’s just a guess because in the absence of tax choice there’s no way that I can possibly truly know how much society values the environment. Does it really matter that I don’t have this information? Should I spend all my time hitting everybody over the head with pro-environment information anyways? Should I bark up a tree regardless of whether there’s a cat in it? Should I leap without looking?
If budgets are inconsistent then it’s because demand is inconsistent. Shall we supply something regardless of demand? If so, then how could you possibly object to anything that the government does with your tax dollars?
You started off with concern regarding what voters don’t realize… and then you ended with concern regarding advertising. For some reason I really love the idea of government organizations having to persuade me that I’m going to really benefit from how they are using society’s limited resources.
Errr.… “logically impossible” isn’t an argument. My argument is that, in economics, importance is a function of opportunity cost. But you’re certainly welcome to attack my semantics rather than my actual argument. Is that what this website is about? I thought its purpose was more… substantial.
Congress holds dearly the right to allocate the proceeds? Why are they holding onto the right so dearly? Did they miss the part where tax choice on facebook only has 79 likes? There’s a vanishingly small amount of pressure on congress to relinquish the right.
We live in a democracy… economic ignorance is the obstacle. People don’t understand how they benefit from other people’s freedom. If they did, then they would have voted this up rather than down.
If you perceive that there are important details missing from my tax choice model then I’m all ears.
My definition of “important” is either correct or incorrect. I looked over the parable of hemlock and didn’t see anything which leads me to believe that my definition is incorrect. Maybe I missed it though.
In a pragmatarian system, people would choose where their taxes go. Because of the opportunity costs involved, people’s choices would reveal what’s most important to them. Earner valuation would ensure that society’s limited resources were put to their most valuable uses.
Right now this post has −4 points. I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t congress who rated this post down. This means that there’s absolutely no reason for congress to hold onto the right so dearly. There’s absolutely no threat that anybody is going to take it from them. Voters don’t want the right for themselves.
If tax choice on facebook had millions and millions of likes then I can understand why you’d argue that congress was nervously holding onto their right so dearly. They would be confronted by a clear and present danger. But right now the tax choice facebook page only has 79 likes. Would you consider that to be a clear and present danger?
The challenge that’s in front of me really isn’t to convince congress to give up the right… it’s to convince people that they’ll really benefit from the creation of a market in the public sector. And the fact that I have to convince people of this means that they really don’t understand how or why markets work.
If people truly did understand how/why markets work then they would either vote this post up or explain what’s wrong with my understanding of how/why markets work.
But it’s kind of a disservice to other people if you’re capable of articulating the flaws in an argument in a public forum but you don’t bother to do so.
For example… it would have been a disservice to people interested in libertarianism/markets if I didn’t point out the problems in the best critique of libertarianism.
Do you understand how you benefit from other people’s freedom? If so, would you mind explaining it to me?
Honestly I didn’t quite understand your post. This is the closest I got...
“People do understand how they benefit from other people’s freedom… but they voted this down because they prefer to focus on style rather than substance.”
The second part can’t be right though so I just chose to respond to the first part.
Thanks for your feedback. From the FAQ…
How would it work?
At anytime throughout the year you could go directly to the EPA website and make a tax payment of any amount. The EPA would give you a receipt and you’d submit all your receipts to the IRS by April 15. Anybody who didn’t want to shop for themselves would have the option of giving their taxes to their impersonal shoppers (congress).
For sure my presentation is imperfect. And I definitely wish I could perfectly copy Hanson and Sumner. Unfortunately, I don’t have their skills. My skill set is in researching and thinking… definitely not writing. Do I wish it was the other way around? No way. I really wouldn’t want to be Moldbug!
In large part because I suck at writing… the reception to pragmatarianism has been less than positive. My perception of the immense benefits keeps me going as well as the fact that not a single critic has cited a single source which supports the idea of allowing a small group of people to allocate everybody’s taxes. Our system doesn’t exist because the evidence supports it… it exists because that’s how we’ve always done it.
Of course it was my hope that the majority of people on this website would seriously consider my evidence and arguments before they voted… but my webstats show that this is clearly not the case. Instead, people here simply showed their considerable bias. It doesn’t seem like whatever is going on here is really working. Yes, there are a few exceptions like yourself… but every forum I’ve participated on has roughly the same amount of thoughtful thinkers.
Anyways, because the evidence is on my side, it’s a given that eventually more and more people will realize this. It would happen sooner rather than later if I was a better writer but… I can’t cry over spilled milk.
You’re critiquing the idea of creating a market in the public sector. What’s the difference between a market in the public sector and a market anywhere else? There’s a difference… but your comment sure doesn’t address it. Instead, you’re simply critiquing a market.
Every day you participate in a market. You have your preferences and you spend your hard-earned money accordingly. The supply follows from your demand, and my demand and everybody else’s demand.
Anything else is a non-sequitur. The supply either follows from our preferences… or it does not.
Right now the public sector reflects exactly what happens when the supply does not follow from our preferences. It’s a given that this is going to change in logically beneficial and highly predictable ways...
Variety? Skyrocket
Quality? Skyrocket
Cost? Plummet
The public sector is going to transform from monolithic to modular. Marginal improvements are going to be quickly made as inferior components are swapped for superior components. This is exactly what happens in markets.
You think “pragmatarianism” sounds good? Have you said it out loud? My tongue usually trips over it. I’m not a writer or a wordsmith so anybody is more than welcome to come up with a better name. Preferably one that meets the google alerts standard.
From my perspective, giving your taxes directly to the EPA is as practical as giving a donation directly to the World Wildlife Fund. Having to convince millions and millions of voters in order for more of your own taxes to be spent on the environment is the epitome of impractical. Yet, we do it because that’s how we’ve always done it.
In terms of evolution, the problem with foot voting is that it isn’t a very precise selective pressure. When you leave government A (GovA) for government B (GovB)… GovA doesn’t know why you exited and GovB doesn’t know why you entered. In economic terms… the bundles are huge. In programming terms… the mechanism is monolithic.
If neither GovA nor GovB knows whether you foot voted because you wanted to get away from your crazy ex or because you preferred GovB’s public school system… then the rate of evolution is going to be super slow. The selective pressure is way too vague.
Foot voting should always be an option, but if the goal is to improve governments sooner rather than later, then you need a mechanism which doesn’t force you to throw the baby (good traits) out with the bath water (bad traits). In economic terms… you need to unbundle government. In programming terms… government has to be more modular.
“economy” already mentioned Tiebout model… Exit, Voice, and Loyalty is also relevant.