The Logical Absurdity of Libertarianism: Partial Omniscience

[Xerographica]

If you have information that leads you to believe that they are making a mistake...then by all means try your best to share that information with them.

That doesn't sound like capitalism to me. If you think someone is making a mistake, you try to make money off of it. That's how it works in the real world.

In the real world do you think congress knows what the demand is for public goods?

[Plu]

You're trying to change the subject again. If you were a real capitalist, you wouldn't try to "fix" this "mistake", you would be making sure the money congress spends goes to you.

The fact that you aren't shows that you aren't a pragmatarian, you're a socialist. Capitalists don't try to fix problems, they make money. Socialists try to fix problems.

[Xerographica]

You're trying to change the subject again. If you were a real capitalist, you wouldn't try to "fix" this "mistake", you would be making sure the money congress spends goes to you.

The fact that you aren't shows that you aren't a pragmatarian, you're a socialist. Capitalists don't try to fix problems, they make money. Socialists try to fix problems.

In other words, people will start buying something in large numbers if it solves a big problem for them. But most first-world problems—needing an easier way to record your favorite TV programs or keep track of what's in your fridge—just aren't that pressing. In developing countries, on the other hand, technology can transform lives.   - Christopher Mims, How a $20 tablet from India could blindside PC makers, educate billions and transform computing as we know it

Incentives matter.  We're all better off when people are incentivized to be at the right place at the right time.

[Plu]

The fact that you speak of "we're better off" only confirms that you are a socialist.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

GrinningYMIR wrote:

The last libertarian I talked to sounded more like an anarchist than someone who wanted less federal control, is that encountered often with that group?

Jason_Harvestdancer's answer is okay.  I would add though, the extremists tend to be the most vocal in a group.  Which is why you probably hear from the anarchists more then the less intense members of the Libertarian Party.  Though I have to admit, some of us who were less intense, and more reasonable in my opinion, left because we got tired of arguing with the anarchists.  I really don't know how the party is now, just as it was 10 years ago.  It seemed like there were people in party who very vocal and controlling who were out to destroy the party, if that is what it took to get their way.

10 years ago?  Then you missed all the screwing up by the Reform Caucus, the gutting of the platform, the nomination of two conservatives under our label, then four years of enduring Wayne Root's bullshit before he left to endorse Romney.  The anarchists were far from the most vocal over the last 10 years.

[Mister Agenda]

The last libertarian I talked to sounded more like an anarchist than someone who wanted less federal control, is that encountered often with that group?

Anarchists see libertarians as fellow travelers, kind of like communists who vote Democrat, only the Libertarian Party is small enough for them to have a loud voice. A lot of people who call themselves libertarians are actually anarchists. Some people who were early LP leaders have slid into anarcho-capitalism. On the other hand, a lot of people the media calls libertarians want the government to enforce their social conservatism, which fails a basic litmus test of being libertarian.

The LP suffers from vulnerability to hijacking: small enough to corrupt, big enough to be worth corrupting, and it's main defense is that you can only pull it so many ways at a time.

Small 'l' libertarians are mostly neo-classical liberals. This probably describes at least 20% of the electorate and should be who the LP represents if it weren't a failure. As it is, they vote all over the map trying to find the least obnoxious compromises.

Gary Johnson being the last nominee for president by the LP gives me a little bit of hope that they can get back on track, but I'm not optimistic.

[billhilly]

Yeah Johnson was a pleasant surprise after Bob Barr, Root, and the rest.

[LikelyToBreak]

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote in part:

10 years ago? Then you missed all the screwing up by the Reform Caucus, the gutting of the platform, the nomination of two conservatives under our label, then four years of enduring Wayne Root's bullshit before he left to endorse Romney. The anarchists were far from the most vocal over the last 10 years.

Sounds like I got at the right time.  Seems it is no longer the party I originally joined.

Mister Agenda wrote in part:

Small 'l' libertarians are mostly neo-classical liberals. This probably describes at least 20% of the electorate and should be who the LP represents if it weren't a failure. As it is, they vote all over the map trying to find the least obnoxious compromises.

Some of us got tired of politics and quit voting altogether.  The LP seemed to get away from the ideals of decreasing government control to just throwing it all out.  One of my big problems, were they wanted to get to a specific point, without any plans on how to get there.  When plans were proposed, they were just shot down as not being radical enough.   #-o

[Rin]

If, in a pragmatarian system, taxpayers don't give their money to the Dept of Agriculture, well, then...it's because their circumstances require more important public goods.

And then what? The DoA ceases operation because it has no funding?

[Xerographica]

If, in a pragmatarian system, taxpayers don't give their money to the Dept of Agriculture, well, then...it's because their circumstances require more important public goods.

And then what? The DoA ceases operation because it has no funding?

Should it continue to operate despite the fact that there's absolutely no demand for its services?  Why would we want to shift society's limited resources from services that are demanded to services that are not demanded?  How is that at all logical?  

If the DoA was partially omniscient...then there would be absolutely no problem with allowing them to decide how much you value its services.  If congresspeople were partially omniscient...then there would be absolutely no problem with allowing them to decide how much you value the DoA's services.  But neither of these things is true.  They are both absolutely absurd.  Therefore, it's entirely necessary that you be given the freedom to decide for yourself exactly how much you value the services of the DoA.

And what if you're certain that the DoA's services are underfunded?  Then perhaps you have some information that other people do not have.  If it's worth it to share this information with others...then you will do so.  And in the process of trying to persuade others to change their priorities...they might share some information with you that you did not have.  Perhaps you'll discover that their information is superior to your own.  Maybe you'll be the one to change your priorities.

When somebody pulls a knife on you in a dark alley and asks for your wallet...there's absolutely no need for him to share any information with you.  When there's coercion...there's no persuasion.  Without persuasion...there's no information dissemination.  

In a pragmatarian system, people would still have to pay taxes...but it would be up to each and every government organization to try and persuade you of the value of their services.  This would require that they share their information with you.  You would compare their information with your own information...and then make an informed decision.  

Look at this thread.  I think that you and many others are missing essential information.  And clearly it's worth it for me to sacrifice the alternative uses of my time in order to share this information with you.  If congresspeople are not even partially omniscient...and the political process does not allow you to accurately communicate your values...then it's a given that the government is going to supply the wrong quantities of public goods.  In order for the right quantities to be supplied...it's imperative that you be free to communicate your values.  This means that we have to create a market in the public sector.  By choosing where your taxes go...you'll be revealing your priorities/preferences/values.  Everybody will do the same and we'll learn the true demand for public goods.  A lot of people won't be happy with the demand...and if they want to change society's values...they'll make the effort to start blogs and threads in order to share their information with others.

[Plu]

If, in a pragmatarian system, taxpayers don't give their money to the Dept of Agriculture, well, then...it's because their circumstances require more important public goods.

And then what? The DoA ceases operation because it has no funding?

Should it continue to operate despite the fact that there's absolutely no demand for its services by people who have a lot of money?

Keep in mind that this is what he is saying. According to pragmatarianism, if you have no money, you are at the whim of those who do have money, and if they say "starve", you starve. If that's the kind of world you want to live in, pragmatism is a great choice for you.

[Bibliofagus]

Boohoo. The people who get to spend taxes are not omniscient. So we have to get a system in which nobody knows shit about the actual state of current and future finances decide about stuff. Great plan.

Because that's what you are proposing. A system in which nobody knows what they are voting for.
Taxes have deadlines. They must have. So in a tax choice system it would be sensible to wait until someone else picks up the bill for stuff you want. And keep that up as long as possible. At the deadline you will find that -you are not the only sensible person on earth who waited as long as possible- and your tax allocation will just be a gamble.

[Bibliofagus]

In a pragmatarian system, people would still have to pay taxes...but it would be up to each and every government organization to try and persuade you of the value of their services.  This would require that they share their information with you.  You would compare their information with your own information...and then make an informed decision.  

Or they could just do anything someone who is prepared to front some media budget wants.
Like not notice violations of safety regulations and stuff.

[Rin]

I honestly just see the problem of organisations and etc that are essential, or of importance, being underfunded and/or shut down because the masses don't "value" it as much as something else, or even know it exists. How is Average Joe going to figure out what he wants to give to? Will he have to pore through lists and lists of entries that have little short biographies and a star rating for how essential they are?

What if, say, the Forestry Commission in the UK didn't get enough funding to operate properly, would the UK government just go "welp, nobody cares about our forests I guess" and shut it down, ceasing all of the forestry/environmental operations that the FC performs (and if that happens, where does the budget that the FC previously had go? Does the public have to go through another big tax-direction campaign?) How about the council that governs some small area in the countryside, where only the people who live there give to the council directly? Do they just have to deal with it?

You talk about people sharing information with each other to make sure that things aren't underfunded, do you seriously expect everyone in the country to be sufficiently clued-in? Or even care?

You say that the government officials aren't omniscient. Well, neither are we. But I would hazard a guess that the politicians know a bit more about the finances of the country than Martha & Billy-Joe.

[Plu]

There you go again applying logic again. Xero doesn't like it when people do that. He doesn't see problems, only solutions that create more problems.