How we rank each other matters.

My comment on Once more for the people at the back: abortion rights and trans rights are the same struggle by Zoe Stavri. 

************************************

Bodily autonomy?  You and I don't have the same body.   We have different bodies.  You know how I can tell?  It's because we have different DNA.  You know who else has different DNA?  Your mom.  My mom.  Every mom.  Mothers and children have different DNA.  Otherwise everybody would be clones.  Are you happy that we're not all clones?  I sure am. 

Imagine if I invite you over to see my really nice garden... it's brimming with nature.  Of course I'd first have to give you my address.  This is my property's unique ID.  When you find, and walk onto, my property, what happens to your bodily autonomy?  Do you lose any of your bodily autonomy?  Of course not.  That would be absurd.   In no case does any of my property, to include my own body, negate or diminish your bodily autonomy. 

By this same token, if you get pregnant, in no case does your bodily autonomy negate or diminish the bodily autonomy of the unique individual that is inside you. 

Let's say that, for whatever reason, I decide I no longer want you on my property.  Should I be free to eject you?  Sure, as long as doing so doesn't harm you.  If my property happens to be a boat that is surrounded by sharks, then I shouldn't be free to eject you. 

In a perfect world, ejecting unborn individuals at any time wouldn't at all be harmful.  Like, your fetus could be instantly and safely teleported across the galaxy into the womb of some other lady.   It wouldn't be like Adam and Eve getting ejected from the Garden of Eden into a harsh environment.  It would be like God moving them to another wonderful garden. 

Why would this be ideal?  Here's why...

We’ve spent the last few hundred years throwing out every Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk or Tim Berners-Lee who didn’t happen to be white, and didn’t happen to be a man. That’s a terrible thing to have done to those brilliant and now lost people. It’s a much worse thing to have done to the rest of humanity, including our white selves. When I think, “why don’t I have a jet car and live in Alpha Centuri by now?” I think this is because the people that would have invented sky cars and interstellar travel were born black in Detroit, or in rural India or in the medina in Algiers in the 1950s, and spent too much time figuring out how to eat and not get killed to invent my damned skycar. - Quinn Norton, How White People Got Made 

All progress depends on difference, which is why it's wonderful that we're not all clones.  Every unique individual contributes to humanity's diversity... and more diversity means more progress. 

Difference inherently means inequality.  The only way we could all be equal is if we were clones.  You naturally rank a woman and her unborn child very differently,  and so do I.  You also rank authors very differently, and so do I.   I'm sure we also rank economists very differently.   Personally, I rank economists much higher than feminists.  Since difference matters, it matters how we rank each other.  The question is whether voting (cheap signal) or spending (costly signal) is the best way to rank each other.   The answer to this question is clearly revealed by the top-ranked videos on Youtube.   Once we replace all cheap signals with costly signals, then it will be heaven on earth. 

Questions For Vitalik Buterin

Here's the comment that I just posted on Tyler Cowen's blog entry... What should I ask Vitalik Buterin?

*********************************************

Yes! This! What does Buterin think about Cowen's critique of quadratic voting (QV)? I perceive QV to be a hybrid between voting and spending. How will Buterin determine whether QV is better than its parents at ranking things?

Is Buterin familiar with the idea of donation voting (DV)? DV is most commonly associated with using donations to decide who will kiss a pig, or get a pie in the face, or get dunked into a tank of water. Sometimes zoos use DV to decide what to name a baby animal.

The thing is, whenever anybody makes a donation, each dollar they donate is essentially a vote. This means that DV is used to rank/sort/order/prioritize all the non-profits. The Red Cross, for example, receives very many donation votes, which allows it to use a huge amount of society's limited resources.

Personally, I would be very surprised if QV is more effective than DV at ranking things. I can't imagine why it would be beneficial to arbitrarily diminish the Red Cross's control over society's limited resources. Perhaps though I'd be singing a very different tune if the Red Cross and the KKK were switched in the rankings.

My best guess is that it would be maximally beneficial if we used DV to rank potential people for Cowen to interview. DV should also be used to rank potential questions for Cowen to ask people that he plans to interview. All the money raised could be given to me. Alternatively, it could be given to Marginal Revolution University, which would allow it to compete more resources away from other uses.

It can be said that DV gives too much influence to the wealthy.  But it can also be said that it gives the smallest amount of influence to the biggest free-riders.

Who Are Your True Representatives?

Ever watch Tosh.O?  A while back he made this statement regarding politics..."The idea that any of these candidates represent my interests is absurd."  So who are Tosh's true representatives?

From my perspective, it seems pretty straightforward that whoever Tosh gives his money to are the people who represent his interests.  Because, it wouldn't make sense for Tosh to give his money to somebody who didn't represent any of his interests.  What does make sense though is that the more money he gives to somebody...the greater he values their representation.

With that in mind...what percentage of your income do you voluntarily give to politicians?  Honestly I've never voluntarily given any of my money to any politicians.  That's why it's a funny joke when Tosh pointed out how absurd it is to refer to politicians as representatives.  Yet, it's not funny when people who do not represent my interests get to spend my money.  But maybe it's my fault for not voting?  Or maybe the problem is that the power of voting is diminished by all the money in politics?

We engage in two types of voting...literal and figurative.  Literal voting is conducted with ballots while figurative voting is conducted with dollars.  How often do you engage in each type of voting?  Personally, every day I engage in figurative voting...I give my money...the product of my labor...to the people who represent my interests.  This is why taxpayers are our true representatives.  

Yet, even though we all figuratively vote for taxpayers on a daily basis...and even though we voluntarily give them considerably more of our money than we voluntarily give to congresspeople...it's extremely difficult to persuade people that our true representatives should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.  This problem boils down to failing to understand economics.

Figurative voting involves sacrifice...while literal voting does not.  When you spend your money on one thing...you can't spend that money on another thing...

By contrast, if a consumer wants a new TV set and a new washing machine and he can afford only one of these without drawing on his savings (which he dislikes), he is in a cross-road situation. He must deliberate until he arrives at a decision as to which course of action he prefers. Thus, while we have reason to assume that preference functions for alternative uses of private funds (including the savings alternative) have some firmness and consistency, our findings raise doubt whether the corresponding concept of a preference function for alternative fiscal policies is fruitful. - Eva Mueller, Public Attitudes Toward Fiscal Programs

Figurative voting requires that you decide between a new TV and a new washing machine.  Literal voting does not require that you spend any money.  You can simply indicate on a ballot that you support the candidate that promises you both a new TV and a new washing machine.  That's why figurative voting holds infinitely more weight than literal voting.  Figurative voting reveals your actual priorities and all our priorities determine how resources are used.  That's how economics works.  If you take our true priorities out of the picture...then resources will be misallocated...which leads to recessions and/or depressions.

Let's go back to your cross-road situation.  What happens if you choose to spend your money on a TV?  Then you would be figuratively voting for all the taxpayers who produced/supplied that TV.  For simplicity sake we'll refer to all of them as Mr. TV.  You would be indicating with your hard earned money that Mr. TV represents a portion of your interests.  In a pragmatarian system, Mr. TV would then take a portion of his income and choose which government organizations he gave his taxes to.

Which government organizations would he give his taxes to?  He'd give his taxes to whichever government organizations represent his interests...just like you give your money to whichever private organizations represent your interests.  It stands to reason though...that Mr. TV would be motivated to give his taxes to whichever government organizations help him represent your interest.  This is because your interest is his livelihood.  For example, if he doesn't give any of his taxes to repairing the roads...then you won't be able to drive to his store to purchase his TV.

So the next time you spend your money...please try and understand that you are figuratively voting for your true representatives.  If you value your interests...then you will support giving your true representatives the freedom to use their taxes to better serve your interests.  Nobody knows your interests better than they do.

Troy Camplin's Critique of Pragmatarianism

In a recent post of mine...What Are Taxes Worth?...I commented on Peter Boettke's post highlighting  Don Boudreaux's perspective on Ludwig Lachmann.  Among the comments on Boettke's post...I found this one to be particularly agreeable...

What Austrian believes any free market economy could ever be "optimal"? That's the mistake made by mainstream economists, believing such nonsense, not Austrians. Complexity implies messiness, redundancy, etc. Complexity implies both coordination and discoordination. That is, it implies equilibrium is impossible to achieve. Which, again, is what all the Austrians I have ever read have ever said. If Austrians believe anything, it's that the economy is a far-from-equilibrium process. Thus, Lachmann's ideas are rightly understood to be Austrian. - Troy Camplin

...so I visited Camplin's blog...Interdisciplinary World...and really enjoyed reading his entries.  Figured it wouldn't hurt to ask him for his perspective on pragmatarianism...and he was nice enough to oblige me...  Troy Camplin's Critique of Pragmatarianism

In this first part of the critique he recognizes that people would be forced to put their taxes where their mouths are.  But he doesn't necessarily seem to find much value in this.  How much value is there in only being able to spend your own taxes?  How much value is there in preventing other people from spending your own taxes?  From my perspective this is priceless.  This would allow 150 million of our most productive citizens to ask themselves whether it was worth it to give their own hard-earned money to the government.  How many taxpayers would truly believe that they would be getting their money's worth of public goods?

The second part of his critique leaned heavily on the political party heuristic...liberals vs conservatives...in order to guesstimate the values of 150 million taxpayers.  According to his analysis, conservatives would spend their taxes on national defense and liberals would spend their taxes on welfare.  Well...this strikes me as a much too hasty generalization that does not accurately represent myself...nor anybody that I've ever met.  Don't get me wrong...it's not that I don't rely on this heuristic myself...but perfect caricatures of political ideologies are exceptions rather than the rule.

Pragmatarianism is the epitome of political pluralism.  Rather than having 3 or 4 or 10 political parties...we would have 150 million completely unique political parties.  From my perspective...a much more effective heuristic to consider would be Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs...

This can help us grasp the idea that taxpayers would allocate their taxes according to their priorities.  If a liberal felt like another country genuinely threatened their safety...then chances are pretty good that their priorities would change...they would sacrifice funding welfare in order to spend their taxes on solutions that might peacefully resolve our disagreements with the other country.

Basically, there's more than one way to skin a cat.  The idea of giving 150 million of our most productive citizens the freedom to directly allocate their taxes is based on that simple concept.  We all have limited perspectives....therefore we all make mistakes.  Yet, we all have unique perspectives...therefore we can see problems from different angles.

Perhaps the individual taxpayer feels better about where their money is going, but I also see how this can result in much deeper divisions in the country, where people become resentful that their neighbors are not supporting their pet projects. 

Well...our society is based on the idea of a division of labor...which I addressed in my post on a taxpayer division of labor.  But do a substantial number of people really become resentful when their neighbors don't invest in their pet projects?  Here's kind of a ridiculously oversimplified version of how I see it playing out between neighbors.

Bob: Hey Sally...you should really spend more of your taxes on the EPA
Sally: Actually...the news said that Canada might try and invade us
Bob: Oh, that would be no good.  I better check the fundraising progress bar on the DoD website

In my post on Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson...I pointed out that persuasion is instrumental in ensuring the dissemination of partial knowledge throughout society.  People would certainly debate which government organizations needed the most funding...and that debate would be priceless.

The next critique Camplin offers has to do with corruption.  How could decentralizing power and control increase corruption?  Right now if you want to "corrupt" the government it's relatively easy to do given that we have too many eggs in one basket.  You only need to go to one location...Washington DC.  If you wanted to engage in some "corruption" in a pragmatarian system you'd have to buy an ad on TV just like the rest of the organizations that want to persuade us change our priorities.

Regarding subsidies...a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  Farmers would only be shooting themselves in the foot if they ignored other links that were essential to the successful operation of their business.  To quote the bible, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" What good is it to subsidize your own industry...if there are no roads to transport your products...no police to protect your property...no courts to handle disputes...no military to prevent Canada from invading?  In my post on the opportunity costs of public transportation I address this concept from the aspect of public transportation.

Pragmatarianism is also valuable because it begs the question of what organizations should qualify as tax recipients.  Should farming really qualify if only farmers allocate their taxes to it?  How many taxpayers would have to allocate their taxes to something for it to be considered a genuine "public" good?  That important debate would certainly be a positive externality of considering pragmatarianism.

Lastly, Camplin suggests a more acceptable system...where private donations would be 100% tax deductible.  Sure, I would have no problem with this compromise...but I doubt many liberals would find it acceptable.  This was the point I addressed in my entry on Libertarianism and the Free-rider Problem.

But what I didn't quite get from Camplin was an explanation as to why pragmatarianism wouldn't result in anarcho-capitalism.  Given that Austrian economists believe that the private sector does everything better than the public sector...why wouldn't giving self-interested, utility maximizing, psychic profit-seeking consumers (taxpayers) the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to shrink the scope of government down to nothing?  Why would consumers give their taxes to public organization B if private organization A offered them more bang for their buck?  If no government organizations are truly fit...then why wouldn't applying survival of the fittest to the public sector result in the mass extinction of all government organizations?

In the beginning of his critique, Camplin acknowledged that pragmatarianism would force taxpayers to put their money where their mouths are...but I don't think he quite recognized that pragmatarianism itself represents an opportunity for socialists, liberals, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists to put their money where their political ideologies are.  What does it mean when people aren't willing to allow 150 million taxpayers to use their hard-earned taxes to determine the proper scope of government?  Socialists, liberals, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists can't all be right...so perhaps the possibility of being right is far better than the possibility of being proved wrong.

The proof is in the pudding.

Anarcho-capitalism and Pragmatarianism

Anarcho-capitalists can be divided into two groups...consequentialist and deontological.  The consequentialist anarcho-capitalists believe that the private sector can do everything better than the government.  For example, anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman and Peter Boettke make economic arguments for eliminating the government.  Perhaps they might say that their favorite political philosopher was Adam Smith.

Deontological anarcho-capitalists...more commonly known as "natural rights" anarcho-capitalists...make moral arguments for eliminating the government.  For example, the "taxes are theft" argument is an argument that "natural rights" anarcho-capitalists would make.  They'll also frequently use words like "aggression" and "violence" and "rape"...and "hate".  If "natural rights" anarcho-capitalists had to choose one of their favorite political philosophers chances are really good that they'd choose Murray Rothbard...Do You Hate the State?

Personally, I've never heard a consequentialist anarcho-capitalist make the "taxes are theft" argument...but plenty of deontological anarcho-capitalists have no problem making consequentialist arguments.  In theory though...a "natural rights" anarcho-capitalist should support abolishing the government no matter what the consequences would be.  Just like a consequentialist anarcho-capitalist should support a little government if it can be proven that the consequences are better than abolishing government.

When it comes to pragmatarianism...so far, all the "natural rights" anarcho-capitalists that I've proposed the idea to have vociferously rejected it.  On the other hand, only two consequentialist anarcho-capitalists have had anything to say about it.  James E. Miller seemed open to the idea while David Friedman did not see the value....

I don't think that letting taxpayers allocate their taxes among options provided by the government solves the fundamental problems of government. - David Friedman

Unfortunately, that's all he said.  He never substantiated his claim...and the suspense is killing me.  Well...not quite...but I would really love to hear his critique.  Some thing with Peter Boettke!  Any other consequentialists...anarcho-capitalist or otherwise...are certainly welcome to share their critique of pragmatarianism as well.

In the meantime...I'll try and figure out what's going on with all these "natural rights" anarcho-capitalists.  For example, when I posted my libertarian pudding image on the Ron Paul Forums...one of the anarcho-capitalists who wrote this critique of pragmatarianism...modified my image in a way that made his opinion on pragmatarianism quite clear.

Here was my response...

Anarcho-Capitalist, if the government is truly shit...then wouldn't allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes help them understand that the government is shit? Most of the people I talk to fanatically believe that the government is not shit. They believe that the government helps flush shit down the toilet.  

Both sides of the debate can't be 100% correct. What I don't understand is...if you're so dogmatically certain that your perspective absolutely reflects reality...then why wouldn't you tirelessly promote allowing taxpayers to see exactly how their own, individual, hard-earned taxes are being spent? What else could more effectively open their eyes? You say that their money is just being flushed down the toilet yet you don't want them to open their eyes. It just doesn't follow. 

The other side believes that you're nuts...and you believe that they're nuts...so why not just empower 150 million self-interested, utility maximizing, purposefully acting, psychic profit seeking taxpayers to use their hard-earned taxes to prove which side is truly nuts? What are you afraid of? The more you fight against pragmatarianism the less credible your position becomes.

With that in mind, here's the illustration that I came up with.  Feel free to disseminate it and modify it

Here's a snippet of what I had written earlier over on the libertarian forum...Taxes Are Not the Problem...

The goal of pragmatarianism is to highlight the folly of committees determining funding. You can think whatever you want about taxes and still agree with the fundamental premise of pragmatarianism. Anarcho-capitalists, minarchists and libertarians can argue for days about whether taxes are truly necessary...but they should all be able to support the key premise of pragmatarianism: it's a myth to believe that a committee can determine the optimal level of funding for an organization. If you believe that a committee can determine the optimal level of funding for any organization...then that is the same thing as believing in socialism.

Pragmatarianism is something that we should all be able to support.

Priorities in Peril

David Friedman is a bit skeptical regarding the evidence shared by those who are concerned with global warming.  Here are a couple of my comments on his global warming entries.

**************************

Nordhaus on Global Warming

Speaking of partial knowledge. My guess is that none of you know the significance of my username. It refers to an epiphytic species of plant in the bromeliad family (ie pineapples)...Tillandsia xerographica.

For as long as I can remember I've been fascinated with epiphytes. Epiphytes, unlike parasites (ie mistletoe) do not derive any nutrients from their hosts, which is why they can grow on rocks as well as on trees and in quite a few instances...on cacti even!!! How cool is that? Talk about a marvelous adaptation in the ever constant conquest of space.  (Nerd alert - read the short Environmentalism and Ecology section for the Wikipedia article on Frank Herbert's classic sci-fi novel Dune)

The Orchidaceae, with around 30,000 species, is probably the largest plant family. It also has the greatest number of epiphytic species. What's unique about the orchid family is that their seeds are so tiny that they do not contain enough nutrients to germinate on their own. In order for the seed to germinate...it has to be penetrated by a certain species of fungus. The seed then manages to derive enough nutrients from the fungus to germinate. The fungus persists in and out of the roots of the orchid...and as far as I can tell...the orchid roots help the fungus colonize the tree that it is growing on...which is a mutually beneficial relationship.

Here we can see the opportunity cost concept. The orchid seed forgoes the weight of a "pack lunch" in order for the wind to carry it greater distances away.

The orchids that I study are the epiphytic, eurythermal, xerophytic species. In other words...they grow on trees/cactus/rocks and can tolerate wide fluctuations in temperature as well as extended periods of drought. This group represents perhaps anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 species of orchids...depending on where you draw the line.  These species of plants make do with ridiculously limited resources. Relatively speaking...how many resources...nutrients/moisture...can there be on the surface of a cactus?  Economics is the study of scarcity...so if you want to study economics then you should study xerophytic epiphytes!

On the other end of the tolerance continuum...you'll find the species of orchids that have exact and extremely narrow temperature/moisture requirements. Some of them only grow in one valley...at a specific elevation...in a very specific microhabitat. These are the kinds of orchids that I have no interest in trying to grow outdoors here in Southern California.

That being said, it's bad enough that countless numbers of undiscovered species are lost from deforestation...but to lose species as a direct result of our impact on the climate only compounds the problems of unintended consequences. No species is an island...it's all a complex web of interdependent relationships.

We all have ridiculously limited perspectives...just like it's a fatal conceit for planners to try and impose their priorities on the use of limited resources...it's also a fatal conceit for us to impose our priorities on the environment. Both can have fatal and unseen and unintended consequences.  Should we err on the side of development or conservation?  What should our priorities be?

As I've mentioned before...my big picture solution is to allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. This would give people the ability to allocate their individual taxes according to their partial knowledge and opportunity costs (priorities/values). Of course we're going to make mistakes...aka... fallibilism...which is exactly why we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket.

David Friedman...the problem has never been with the taxing...it's always always always been with the spending. Of course...I might be wrong! Hopefully some day you'll see some value in making the effort to try and prove me wrong :D

**************************

Richard Lindzen on Global Warming

Can't really contribute much in the way of critical analysis...but it really tugs at my heartstrings to see the polar bears sitting on tiny rapidly shrinking slabs of ice slowly drifting away. I think that's what they are going to do to me when I get old...if not sooner.

Oh wait...I thought of some critical analysis. We should always be very wary of the fatal conceit and unintended consequences. We overestimate our own intelligence if we think we can truly grasp the impact our activities have on the planet. Therefore, if we do err, it should be on the side of caution.

Then again, I might just be saying that because I'm biased towards polar bears. Then again...I REALLY hate the cold. When I spent a month doing military training up in the Andes...it was the worst. There was no water pressure so taking a shower was pretty much like standing naked under an icicle that was slowly melting. That being said, one of my fondest memories was when I took a break from chopping wood and I briefly saw an Andean condor soaring high up in the clouds.

Well...my point was that my biases probably cancel each other out...but then I started to talk about nature again...so I guess that they really do not.

Prioritizing Public Goods

It's always interesting to juxtapose how various people respond to the same thing.  Take for example the Sandra Fluke - Rush Limbaugh controversy.

• Noah Smith's response: In which Steve Landsburg makes me lose my lunch
• Ira Stoll's response: Sandra Fluke's Amazing Testimony

My response, which I posted on Smith's blog, is probably pretty easy to guess.  If you've read my post on the Ostrich Response to Pragmatarianism...then it should also be pretty easy to guess that Smith has not responded to my response.  But...another reader choose to.  Here's our exchange...starting with my response to Smith...

*********************

Public goods are wonderful...but it's just so bizarre that you never talk about opportunity costs.

Do you think this stems from receiving your college degree in physics rather than economics? It's been so long since I took Econ 101 but I'm pretty sure it covered the part about how economics is the study of scarcity.

Do you think that just because the government can print as much money as it wants that this somehow means that the government can just buy voters whatever they want? Or do you think that if we taxed the rich at a higher rate then the idea of scarcity would somehow lose its relevance?

Who cares if Rush Limbaugh said something that was politically incorrect. What I care about is understanding your perspective on how scarce resources are efficiently allocated.  Please make an economic argument that explains exactly why I should trust congress with my taxes.  Help me understand why they can spend my taxes better than I can.

You could even just critique my own perspective on the efficient allocation of scarce resources...Partial Knowledge and Opportunity Costs. Where am I going wrong?

The bottom line is...if you can't explain how scarce resources are efficiently allocated then Steve Landsburg and Rush Limbaugh will always have the upper hand.  No matter how politically incorrect they are...I'll stand by their argument that less taxes are ALWAYS better than inefficiently allocated taxes.

*********************

JohnR said...
@xeographica: I'm genuinely impressed by your ability to define Limbaugh's (and his enthusiast's) remarks as "politically incorrect". My speculations on your upbringing and socialization success would not serve to advance the discussion so I'll keep them to myself. I do wonder idly what you would regard as "morally repugnant" or "offensive", but of course those are such subjective and indeed loaded terms. At any rate, with regard to your argument, I intend to simply disregard it. Anything that is proposed by someone whose moral structure is so malformed becomes highly suspect to me. It's similar in my opinion to the sort of argument that you hear people propose who find Ayn Rand to be an exciting and important philosopher. In other words, it's like listening to 12-year-olds discuss whether BloedSnaeke or MegaSplatterDethKult was the Greatest Band Of All Time - there's a very strong likelihood that it will be a near-complete waste of time, and God knows I'm already too far behind on things that are important.

*********************

JohnR, obviously I was raised to focus on substance rather than style. Why don't I find what Limbaugh said to be "morally repugnant"? Well, in an Afghan village a distraught woman told us that the Taliban had recently beat her husband to death because he refused to give them his family's meager supply of food. In my book that's what qualifies as "morally repugnant" behavior. Limbaugh's behavior, in comparison, only qualifies as politically incorrect.

"there's a very strong likelihood that it will be a near-complete waste of time, and God knows I'm already too far behind on things that are important."

Oh the irony. If you had gotten off your moral high horse you might have understood that your point forms the basis of my argument. God knows your priorities...and you know your priorities...but does congress have any idea what your priorities are?

Does congress listen to your prayers like God listens to your prayers? Do you think that you are the little sparrow that congress has its eyes on?

Help me understand why you have such strong faith that public funds will be efficiently allocated when congress has no idea what any of our priorities are. In case anybody wasn't aware of this...in economic terms the "opportunity cost" concept helps reveal what our priorities are. Whether you decide to have or eat your cake reveals your priorities. Putting your time/money where your mouth is reveals your priorities. Allowing people to reveal their priorities is what helps ensure the efficient allocation of scarce resources.

Given that you value your limited time...and I'm guessing that you also value your limited money...it might be worth it to at least understand my argument regarding partial knowledge and opportunity costs.

*********************

That's what makes pragmatarianism pretty darn awesome.  If somebody says..."I have better things to do with my time than debate pragmatarianism"...then they automatically prove your point regarding opportunity costs.

The guy who most frequently comments on my blog, Black Flag, likes to remind me that taxes are theft.  Are taxes theft?  Is that really the debate we need to be having?  Maybe it truly is?  But how long has that debate been around for?  Let's try a new debate!  Let's debate how public funds are efficiently allocated.

Sandra Fluke...for some reason...had the opportunity to tell congress what our priorities should be.

Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: a women's reproductive healthcare isn't a necessity...isn't a priority. - Sandra Fluke, Opening Statement

Is this how public funds are efficiently allocated?  One random lady gets to tell congress what our priorities should be?  That wouldn't be a very efficient allocation of public funds if congress decided to spend all of our taxes on women's reproductive healthcare.  So...let's say that Noah Smith also had the opportunity to tell congress what our priorities should be.  If you subscribe to Smith's blog then you could probably guess that he would tell congress that our priorities should be education, research, infrastructure, transportation, healthcare, the environment, national defense and so on and so on.  Perhaps it would save time for Smith to just tell congress what they should't spend our taxes on.

Do you get the sense that public funds would be more efficiently allocated each time somebody else testified in front of congress?

But before you line up for your turn to give congress a piece of your mind...let's consider how effectively Fluke and Smith communicated their priorities.  We know that Fluke cares enough about women's productive healthcare to take the time to testify in front of congress...but...she also argued that she shouldn't be forced to choose between education and healthcare.

Huh.  I guess Fluke didn't read my post on an economy based on wife swapping.  In that entry I argued that  taxpayers should be forced to decide whether they spend their taxes on public healthcare or public education.  Why force people to decide whether they spend their individual taxes on public healthcare or public education?  In other words...why force taxpayers to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions?  Because that's exactly how resources are efficiently allocated.

Does anybody have any arguments against the efficient allocation of public funds?  That's the thing about pragmatarianism...it's really not much of a debate.  What's somebody going to say?  Are they going to say, "In these circumstances it's a good idea to flush your money down the toilet."?

That being said...just because I can't think of any good reasons why we would want to waste scarce resources doesn't mean that they do not exist.  Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist.  The moral of the story is tolerance.  You spend your taxes on your priorities and I'll spend my taxes on my priorities.

Partial Knowledge and Opportunity Cost

This is my response to the comments that Anonymous shared on my post on An Economy Based on Wife Swapping...

************************

If you read through all the responses to pragmatarianism that I shared on this page...Unglamorous but Important Things...it should be clear that Swit, and many others, made the same type of argument that you did.  Therefore, I addressed your concern by showing you that others share your concern.  Perhaps you think that because others share your concern it validates your concern?  It doesn't.  It just creates a picture of you and Swit pointing your fingers at each other and saying, "this guy is too myopic to fund FEMA during years when there are no disasters".  In other words...you guys think that you are atypical taxpayers when in reality you're just typical taxpayers.

"Citizen allocation of taxes won't result in efficient levels of disaster relief."

A better word to use is "adequate".  You're concerned that tax choice would not result in adequate levels of disaster relief.  Conservatives are concerned that tax choice would not result in adequate levels of national defense.  Liberals are concerned that tax choice would not result in adequate levels of social programs.  Yet, I'm not advocating that we reduce the tax rate.  Therefore, given that the tax revenue would be exactly the same, where would the money go if not towards programs that liberals care about and programs that conservatives care about?

Who is to say what constitutes "adequate" levels of funding for government programs?  If you couldn't care less about space exploration then should you be in charge of determining what constitutes "adequate" levels of funding for NASA?  Conversely, if I believe that we should already have colonies on Mars...then should I be in charge of determining what constitutes "adequate" levels of funding for NASA?  Perhaps Newt Gingrich should be in charge of determining what constitutes "adequate" levels of funding for NASA?

You believe that 538 congresspeople can somehow know what constitutes "adequate" levels of funding for government programs.  But here's what Hayek would say about your belief...

The problem is thus in no way solved if we can show that all the facts, if they were known to a single mind (as we hypothetically assume them to be given to the observing economist), would uniquely determine the solution; instead we must show how a solution is produced by the interactions of people each of whom possesses only partial knowledge. To assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind in the same manner in which we assume it to be given to us as the explaining economists is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world. - Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

What solution are we trying to determine?  We're trying to determine what constitutes adequate levels of funding for FEMA, for NASA, for the EPA and so on and so on.  You believe that 538 congresspeople have access to enough facts to determine the solution.  My argument is that the solution is "produced by the interactions of people each of whom possesses only partial knowledge".

What I struggle to understand is how we are on such different pages on this concept.  Do you think that Hayek was saying that the solution could be determined by the interactions of 538 congresspeople each of whom possesses only partial knowledge?  The point of Hayek's essay was to demonstrate why socialism fails.  What is socialism?  Socialism is a committee of government planners that think they have enough facts to determine adequate levels of funding for organizations.  But what is congress if not a committee of government planners?  So why would Hayek argue that 538 government planners can have access to enough facts to determine the solution?  Why would he argue that 538 people could overcome the knowledge problem?  Why would he argue in favor of socialism?  He wouldn't.  Hayek was arguing that the solution can only be determined by the interactions of millions and millions of people each of whom only possess partial knowledge.

Bastiat, in his essay on the Seen vs the Unseen was pretty much saying the same thing as Hayek...but from the angle of values/priorities.

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them. - Bastiat, The Seen vs the Unseen

As I argued before...538 congresspeople have no idea which public goods you value most.  Without knowing what all our priorities are it's impossible for them to know how much funds NASA should receive relative to the EPA or FEMA.  As individuals we can say that space colonization is more important than disaster relief or environmental protection.  We can point our fingers at other taxpayers and say, "you are being myopic if you can't see that we only have a finite amount of time left in this solar system before our sun dies."   But when it comes to public goods....our priorities cannot be accurately determined by a king...and they cannot be accurately determined by 538 congresspeople...and they certainly cannot be accurately determined by voters.  In order to accurately determine what our priorities should be each and every taxpayer should be allowed to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions.

Economics is the study of scarcity.  Hayek's partial knowledge concept and Bastiat's opportunity cost concept are powerful tools that can help us understand how scarce resources are efficiently allocated.  When we add fallibilism into the mix we get the idea that allowing 538 congresspeople to allocate 150 million people's taxes is the equivalent of putting all our eggs in one basket.  As I argued in my post on Fallibilism vs Fairness...the equation is as follows...

Scarcity + Fallibilism = Hedge Our Bets = Tax Choice = Pragmatarianism