The Joy of Writing Checks to the Government

Conservatives argue that if Warren Buffett thinks that the rich should pay more taxes then he should just donate his money to the government.  So far Warren Buffett has not put his money where his mouth is.  Instead, he donates his money to non-profit organizations rather than to government organizations.  Clearly his actions speak louder than his words.

Here's the liberal counterargument...

The animating motivation behind paying taxes is not the unalloyed joy of writing checks to the government but rather the knowledge that you are part of a collective system that is funding a government and its policies. - Derek Thompson, Rich People: Raise Our Taxes

Why do people feel a warm glow when they donate to charities but feel a cold prickle when they pay taxes?  What’s the difference? Both contribute to the common good.

The difference is choice.

If we allow taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their individual taxes...then liberals, conservatives and libertarians will all joyfully write checks to the government.  Will they still be a part of the collective system that funds government and its policies?  Yes, of course!

Liberals will be joyful because they won’t have to pay for self-fulfilling wars, conservatives will be joyful because they won't have to pay for ineffective welfare and libertarians will be joyful because they’ll only have to pay for defense and the courts.

To be clear...everybody would still have the same exact tax rate.

Not sure how joyful anarcho-capitalists will be.  Their theory is that the private sector can do everything better than the public sector can.  So they'll be forced to pay for the single least redundant government organization.  If their theory is correct though…then the most redundant and inefficient government organizations will lose funding and go extinct…the scope of government will narrow…and the tax rate will decrease proportionally.

Will socialists be overjoyed?  Their theory is that the public sector can do everything better than the private sector.  So they'll be writing more than their fair share of checks.  If their theory is correct though…then the most redundant and inefficient private organizations will lose revenue and go extinct…the scope of government will broaden…and the tax rate will increase proportionally.

In essence, allowing for a division of labor between taxpayers will reveal the perfect division of labor between the public and private sector.  At long last the age old debate regarding the responsibilities and duties of government will be conclusively and definitely resolved.

Pragmatarianism - Defined

The large bulk of political debate revolves around whether a good should be public or private.  Anarcho-capitalists believe that no goods should be public.  Libertarians believe that at a minimum...national defense, the courts and the police should be public goods.  Liberals believe welfare, education, healthcare, etc should be public goods.  Socialists believe that all goods should be public.  For reference...here's a political spectrum diagram.

Where do you fall on the spectrum?  How certain are you that your position is correct?

Pragmatarianism offers you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.  It's basically a contest to see whether the public or the private sector is better at producing a good.  The judges of the contest would be the taxpayers themselves and each time they paid their taxes they would use their taxes to indicate who the winners were.  

Whether you are completely certain, or not at all certain of your political position...pragmatarianism offers a safe way to determine who's right.  It's safe because we would initially pay the exact same amount of taxes.  If the market starts winning then the tax rate will gradually decrease.  If the state starts winning then the tax rate will gradually increase.  If we're at perfect equilibrium then the tax rate will stay exactly the same.

Pragmatarianism isn't my idea...I've been told that a sci-fi story* was written on the topic several years ago.  But in the absence of anybody mentioning the name of this idea I took the liberty of naming it myself.  Pragmatarianism as you might have guessed is pragmatism + libertarianism.  Pragmatism contributes recognition that taxes are most likely necessary to overcome the free-rider problem.  Libertarianism contributes recognition that the invisible hand is the best way to determine whether a good should be produced by the private or public sector...or by both.

On one hand we would have coercion and on the other hand we would have choice.  Taxpayers would not have the freedom to choose whether they pay taxes...but they would have the freedom to directly choose how their taxes are spent.  If you are among the 26.2% of the population that approves of congress then you would still be able to choose to allocate some or all of your taxes to congress.

For additional reading on pragmatarianism see...

• How Pragmatarians "Grow the Party" (libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com - see comments)
• Nazis versus Libertarians: The Pragmatarian view (markwadsworth.blogspot.com - see comments)
• Pragmatarianism (Libertarian Party Facebook Group)
• Pragmatarianism (debatepolitics.com)
• Pragmatarianism (politicalforum.com)
• Confessions of a Libertarian (politicalforum.com)

* I'd love to read the story but the person couldn't remember the title or author

[Update]  We, The People - Jack C. Haldeman II