Pragmatarianism Disproved?

A couple guys from the libertarian forum just started an anarcho-capitalist blog.  Their blog is off to an auspicious start given that their first post was an in-depth critique of pragmatarianism...Pragmatarianism Disproved.

They cover many of the relevant economic concepts...with graphs even!  But what's really funny is that they based most of their critique on a 100% tax rate!!  Ouch...my most of me!  As I mentioned in my entry on pragma-socialism...try as I might...it's impossible for even me to imagine a pragmatarian system with a 100% tax rate.   I just can't wrap my mind around it.

My bottom line rebuttal doesn't directly address their points.  It addresses the fact that they used a 100% tax rate as their example.  That's what's really fascinating.  The Magna Carta Movement gave taxpayers the keys to the car and for some reason they decided to drive us from our current tax rate all the way over to a tax rate of 100%.  How do the guys from the LibertarianAnarchy blog explain the taxpayer's behavior?  

The most universal economic principle is that everybody wants the most bang for their buck.  This is what Adam Smith considered "self-interest".  The neoclassical economists refer to this as "maximizing utility" and the Austrian economists refer to this as "people acting purposefully".   

If we somehow ended up at a 100% tax rate then....as far as I can tell...there are only two possibilities... 

1. All those economists were wrong...people do not want the most bang for their buck

2. A tax rate of 100% would give taxpayers the most bang for their buck

I can argue for days and days against a government committee setting a tax rate of 100%...but I've got absolutely no argument against millions and millions of self-interested...utility maximizing ...individual taxpayers acting purposefully to set a tax rate of 100%.  

At this point it might help for me to explain how taxpayers would indirectly determine the tax rate.  Basically...the tax rate reflects how much the government does.  The more things the government does...the greater the justification for a higher tax rate.  The less things the government does...the greater the justification for a lower tax rate.  In a tax choice system...people could vote for things that they wanted the government to do...but it would be up to taxpayers to use their own, individual, hard-earned taxes to indicate exactly what the government should do.  

For example...if taxpayers chose not to allocate any of their taxes to the drug war...then the scope of government would narrow....and people would pressure congress to decrease the tax rate.  If taxpayers chose to allocate their taxes to public healthcare...then the scope of government would expand...and people would pressure congress to increase the tax rate.  This is assuming of course that enough taxpayers allocate enough of their taxes to congress to maintain its existence.  

Regarding the moral arguments...

He truly doesn't care--at all--about the infringement of Natural Rights and libertarian ethic.

Here's what the anarcho-capitalist David Friedman has to say on the topic of moral/deontological arguments versus consequentialist arguments.  

The short version...

I generally prefer consequentialist arguments. I think I understand economics better than I understand moral philosophy, and possibly better than anyone understands moral philosophy. - David Friedman

The long version...

I guess the first thing is that it offers arguments which don't require that people already share your religion...using the term "religion" broadly. That as far as I can tell, nobody, whether deontological libertarians or communists or anyone else really has a really convincing argument to show that their moral views are right. Many people believe that they do but I don't think that they do. Ayn Rand, at least, presented an argument. Ayn Rand claimed in effect to have defeated David Hume's is ought problem. Hume argued that you couldn't derive on ought from an is. I have a discussion up on my webpage of the holes in Rand's arguments. As far as I can tell she simply didn't do it. I don't think it can be done as far as I know. So in order to persuade people by a natural rights argument there has to be some reason why they believe in natural rights to start with because you don't have any good arguments to show that they ought to believe it. Whereas my argument...it claims to show...it hopefully shows...that my system would be better in terms of the value that almost everybody already has. So I'm really saying if you regard natural rights to be really important...well look...in my system rights will rarely be violated. If you regard people being happy and being healthy and living long lives...look in my society people will be in effect wealthier than in societies with governments, therefore you should like the results of those things...and so forth and so on. So I think that I have an argument which does depend on convincing people that economics is relevant to human behavior but doesn't depend on convincing them of your particular right and wrong beliefs.

Now the further problem with at least the versions of deontological libertarianism that I'm familiar with is that in the form in which people often state them they lead to conclusions that nobody believes. I spend a chapter in Machinery and Freedom going through that and if you really believe that the solution to polution is to say that nobody is allowed to pollute anybody else's property without their permission well you can't really exhale because carbon dioxide is a pollutant and you can be sure that some of the carbon dioxide you exhale will go onto somebody else's property. And similiarly you can't turn on a lightbulb because your photons will trespass. And once you start trying to make a more sophisticated version of the theory which deals with those...pretty quickly you start running into the kind of arguments that you run into in the consequentialist defense of libertarianism. - David Friedman, Legal Systems Without Government

In my post on the opportunity costs of public goods...I shared a few videos of Rachel Maddow arguing for more spending on public goods.  In one of her videos she says...

Not every idea that is good for the country, is a profit making idea for some company somewhere.  It's never going to be a profitable venture for some company to come up with this idea and build it on spec.  That's not going to happen!  We need some government leadership, frankly, to get something done in common that's going to benefit the country as a whole. - Rachel Maddow, Lean Forward

Rachel Maddow was making a consequentialist argument.  Her goal is for the government to do things that "benefit the country as a whole".  The thing is...Rachel Maddow and I are not going to have a very productive discussion if she makes consequentialist arguments and I respond with deontological arguments.  It's like if she says something in English and I respond in Chinese.  If her target audience understands English...then why would I argue in Chinese?  If her target audience cares about benefiting the country as a whole...then why would I argue for property rights? 

Sure you could argue that property rights actually do benefit the country as a whole..but that would of course be a consequentialist argument.  If property rights do have any sort of measurable value/benefit...then why wouldn't the tax allocation decisions of millions and millions of taxpayers reflect this truth?

Here's what else the guys at the LibertarianAnarchy blog have to say about morality...

By analogy, the founder of pragmatarianism plays the role of a sort of amoral deity: concerning morality, he says that we ought to make no judgement.

Pragmatarianism is neutral on morality because everybody already has their own morals.  Pragmatarianism isn't a religion.  With regards to making judgments though...

Yesterday on Fox....Bill O'Reilly had Lt. Col Ralph Peters on his show.  During their discussion on Afghanistan...Peters said, "When we invest our blood and treasure I expect a positive return".  This is of course the universal "maximizing utility" concept that I discussed in the beginning.  Compare it to this quote that the guys at LibertarianAnarchy blog shared...

There is always open to each actor the prospect of improving his lot, of attaining a value higher than he is giving up, i.e., of making a psychic profit. What he is giving up may be called his costs, i.e., the utilities that he is forgoing in order to attain a better position. Thus, an actor’s costs are his forgone opportunities to enjoy consumers’ goods. - Rothbard

Coincidentally...David Henderson, over at the Econlog Blog, also saw the same show on Fox....Sunk Costs in War.  Here's a bit of my comment...

It's been a few years since I was stationed in Afghanistan, but looking through my photos in the folder which I dedicated to "crops"...I see figs, grapes, pomegranates, wheat, eggplant, etc...but by far the most common crop was the opium poppy. If a small village only had one crop then it would invariably be the opium poppy.

Whether it's a retired Colonel expecting a positive return from his taxes...or Rothbard discussing psychic profits...or Afghan farmers selecting the most lucrative crops...it should be self-evident that everybody wants the most bang for their buck.  This is the universal economic principle.

If we allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes...then we can be all but certain that they would behave according to this universal economic principle.  The question then becomes...why do so many supposed proponents of this principle struggle to recognize the value of pragmatarianism?  What am I missing?  Why wouldn't we want to give the taxpayers the keys to the car?  What are we afraid of?

That's the mystery!  The proof is in the pudding but neither side is willing to taste the pudding.  

OR...maybe I'm the one that is missing something obvious!  It kind of makes more sense that I'm the bonehead....versus everybody else being the boneheads.  Well...keep the critiques coming!  Eventually we'll solve the mystery.

A Fictitious Dialogue with a Ron Paul Supporter

fisharmor: It is completely unethical for the government to imprison, beat, torture, rape, and kill people for refusing to pay taxes!!
Xerographica: Would you want to be able to use your taxes to boycott the tax enforcement GOs?
fisharmor: No!!
Xerographica: No?
fisharmor: You don't get it...I find theft of my property to be unethical.
Xerographica: But...you wouldn't want to deprive the tax enforcement GOs of your taxes?
fisharmor: No! You're being unreasonable for not understanding how strongly I feel about taxes.
Xerographica: But in a pragmatarian system you'd be able to withhold your taxes from all but one GO...
fisharmor: Taxes are unethical and I could care less what my stolen money is used for
Xerographica: Even if your taxes paid for unnecessary wars?
fisharmor: Look, the problem here is that you've never heard of the self-ownership principle.
Xerographica: I'm pretty sure I understand and appreciate the concept...but I don't think you're grasping that pragmatarianism is a system that would allow you to allocate your taxes according to your moral principles
fisharmor: You don't truly understand the self-ownership concept if you support taxes
Xerographica: I'm not supporting taxes...I'm supporting freedom...
fisharmor: The only way to support freedom is by advocating for the total elimination of taxes
Xerographica: Even if advocating for the total elimination of taxes guaranteed that you wouldn't get any freedom?
fisharmor: Yes, that's what it means to be ethically principled...you never compromise your ethical principles even if doing so helps perpetuate the very thing that you're ethically opposed to.
Xerographica: But...I'm not asking that you compromise your ethical principles....
fisharmor: Are you advocating for the elimination of taxes?
Xerographica: Well...no...
fisharmor: Then you're asking me to compromise my ethical principles.

Deontological Ethics vs Pragmatic Ethics

Whether it's political or religious in nature...there's not much you can do with dogma.  Generally I try and steer clear of it but recently I got a bit tricked...twice no less!  The back to back instances involved a revolutionary communist and a natural rights libertarian.  What tricked me was that the communist in several of his blog entries referred to himself as "pragmatic" while the libertarian acknowledged some type of "fairness" principle.

Even though the communist and the libertarian are at nearly opposite ends of the political spectrum...their conclusions on pragmatarianism were strikingly similar.  The communist concluded that I was full of BS and the libertarian concluded that I was incoherent.

When two relatively intelligent people with widely different political views come to the same conclusion...then it's reasonable cause for doubt.  Doubt is nothing new for me though as it's been a fairly constant companion ever since I transitioned to advocating, rather than just considering, pragmatarianism.  That's ok though because, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr..."to have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man."

The concept of "doubt" is quite interesting.  As I mentioned in my post on the divine disparity...Adam and Eve were kicked from the Garden of Eden because the serpent introduced Eve to her very first doubt...which she then passed on to Adam.  In my post I also mentioned the story of Abraham...who didn't seem to express any doubt when he was about to sacrifice his son Issac.  Then of course there was doubting Thomas.

Jesus himself had this to say about doubt...

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.  Mathew 21:21

Buddha, on the other hand, said this...

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.

Tightly clinging to absolute morals or universal rules is the realm of deontological ethics.  Conversely,  pragmatic ethics takes a larger perspective on morals, rules and laws.  It requires trying to stand outside of your own perspective.

Many of the concepts that we consider "absurd" today were considered "absolute" 500 years ago...isn't it possible that many of the concepts that we consider "absolute" today will be considered "absurd" in 500 years?

In my post on absurdity spotting I shared Herbert Spencer's awesome broad sweeping perspective where he offers numerous examples of the absurd functions that have been fulfilled by various governments at different times.  In a later post on awesomeness spotting I shared a few examples of awesome innovations to public healthcare and education.

Pragmatarianism does not require that you doubt your first principles or see an issue from multiple perspectives...it just requires that you respect and tolerate people's freedom to allocate their individual taxes to the government functions that they deem to be ethical/awesome/necessary.  In other words...pragmatarianism is an expression of political tolerance.

To misquote Voltaire..."I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  The pragmatarian would say..."I disapprove of how you allocate your taxes, but I will defend to the death your right to do so."  Well...whether a pragmatarian would actually become militant would depend on their first principles.

Personally, I was a minimal state libertarian my entire life until I genuinely considered the free-rider problem.  If I acknowledged that the free-rider problem would result in insufficient funding for national defense...then why wouldn't the free-rider problem apply to all the other public goods that I wanted to kick over to the private sector?

When confronted with this same dilemma most libertarians beat a hasty retreat back to the safety of their universal and absolute ethical principles.  My ethical principles were based on J.S. Mill's Harm Principle...which basically conveys the idea that the freedom to swing my first ends where your nose begins.  It's considerably more flexible than stricter libertarian axioms...so I was left on shaky ground with no sources to refer to in order to help stabilize my ideological foundations.

The shaky ground proved to be quite fertile though...it allowed a hypothetical scenario that I'd considered long ago to germinate and grow into pragmatarianism.  Perhaps doubting takes us a step closer to enlightenment.

Incidentally, a member of the Libertarian Party on Facebook recently shared a link to Jeffrey Miron's blog entry on Poverty and Libertarianism.  Much to my surprise Miron acknowledged that the free-rider problem wouldn't only apply to national defense.  That was the very first instance that I had ever run across of a libertarian making that acknowledgment.

Most of us are familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant.  Right now we are all like blind men arguing over the scope of government.  In order to accurately discern what the scope of government should actually be...each and every taxpayer should be allowed to add their unique perspective to the puzzle.  This would simply involve giving taxpayers the freedom to spend their individual taxes on the government functions that they believe to be truly necessary.

So what do you think?  Am I incoherent and full of BS?  Perhaps...but Socrates and Hayek would have certainly agreed that it's wiser to err on the side of underestimating how much any of us truly knows.

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. - Friedrich August Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

[Update Dec 2012] Here are a few relevant passages that I've since run across...

The psychologist was not only an authority to whom one owes obedience, but a representative of Science and of one of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in the United States.  Considering that science is widely regarded as the highest value in contemporary industrial society, it is very difficult for the average person to believe that what science commands could be wrong or immoral.  If the Lord had not told Abraham not to kill his son, Abraham would have done it, like millions of parents who practiced child sacrifice in history.  For the believer neither God nor his modern equivalent, Science, can command anything that is wrong. - Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

Yet the history of thought should warn us against concluding that because the scientific theory of the world is the best that has yet been formulated, it is necessarily complete and final. We must remember that at bottom the generalisations of science or, in common parlance, the laws of nature are merely hypotheses devised to explain that ever-shifting phantasmagoria of thought which we dignify with the high-sounding names of the world and the universe. In the last analysis magic, religion, and science are nothing but theories of thought; and as science has supplanted its predecessors, so it may hereafter be itself superseded by some more perfect hypothesis, perhaps by some totally different way of looking at the phenomena—of registering the shadows on the screen—of which we in this generation can form no idea. The advance of knowledge is an infinite progression towards a goal that for ever recedes. - James George Frazer, The Golden Bough

It is easy to believe; doubting is more difficult. Experience and knowledge and thinking are necessary before we can doubt and question intelligently.  Tell a child that Santa Claus comes down the chimney or a savage that thunder is the anger of the gods and the child and the savage will accept your statements until they acquire sufficient knowledge to cause them to demur.  Millions in India passionately believe that the waters of the Ganges are holy, that snakes are deities in disguise, that it is as wrong to kill a cow as it is to kill a person - and, as for eating roast beef…that is no more to be thought of than cannibalism.  They accept these absurdities, not because they have been proved, but because the suggestion has been deeply embedded in their minds, and they have not the intelligence, the knowledge, the experience, necessary to question them.
We smile…the poor benighted creatures!  Yet you and I, if we examine the facts closely, will discover that the majority of our opinions, our most cherished beliefs, our creeds, the principles of conduct on which many of us base our very lives, are the result of suggestion, not reasoning…
Prejudiced, biased, and reiterated assertions, not logic, have formulated our beliefs. - Dale Carnegie, Public Speaking for Success

Our creed is that the science of government is an experimental science, and that, like all other experimental sciences, it is generally in a state of progression. No man is so obstinate an admirer of the old times as to deny that medicine, surgery, botany, chemistry, engineering, navigation, are better understood now than in any former age. We conceive that it is the same with political science. Like those physical sciences which we have mentioned, it has always been working itself clearer and clearer, and depositing impurity after impurity. There was a time when the most powerful of human intellects were deluded by the gibberish of the astrologer and the alchemist; and just so there was a time when the most enlightened and virtuous statesman thought it the first duty of a government to persecute heretics, to found monasteries, to make war on Saracens. But time advances; facts accumulate; doubts arise. Faint glimpses of truth begin to appear, and shine more and more unto the perfect day. The highest intellects, like the tops of mountains, are the first to catch and reflect the dawn. They are bright, while the level below is still in darkness. But soon the light, which at first illuminated only the loftiest eminences, descends on the plain and penetrates to the deepest valley. First come hints, then fragments of systems, then defective systems, then complete and harmonious systems. The sound opinion, held for a time by one bold speculator, becomes the opinion of a small minority, of a strong minority, of a majority of mankind. Thus the great progress goes on, till schoolboys laugh at the jargon which imposed on Bacon, till country rectors condemn the illiberality and intolerance of Sir Thomas More. - Thomas Macaulay