We have two completely different systems of representation...private and public. Which system is better?
Elena uses society's limited resources to make an excellent Greek Salad. I give her my dollar votes because she represents my interest in good food. Elena is my representative...I value how she uses society's limited resources so I give her positive feedback (//https://www.facebook.com/Hi.5.competition).
Elizabeth Warren is also my representative. I didn't vote for her though. Why bother voting? I'm supposed to vote for somebody who represents all my public interests? If this makes any sense why don't I also vote for somebody who represents all my private interests?
With the private system of representation...I have a robust repertoire of representatives. Everybody I give my money to is my representative. And I give my money to a lot of different people because I have a lot of different interests. If I could replace all these representatives with a couple of people...then I could save all the time that I spend shopping.
But there's a problem with trying to find one person to represent all my interests...nobody comes even close. So if I did give all my money to one person...I'd be really worse off. My interests would suffer incredibly. Especially if this one person also had to represent the interests of 100,000 other people. My interests would be lost like tears in rain. Chances are that my Greek Salad would be replaced with a hamburger...without pickles, jalapenos, onions, lettuce and tomatoes. Elena would be flipping generic burgers instead of doing something that she really loves. So if the public system can't adequately represent our interest in food...then why do you think it can adequately represent our interest in anything?
Choose you this day whom you will serve. Use some brain grease to compare both systems of representation and ask yourself which one provides better coverage. You're not thinking hard enough if you don't grasp how tax choice (//https://www.facebook.com/ourtaxes) would far better protect our interests.
Xero is back on the 'private' sauce.
You should just move into the furniture department at Walmart. :rollin:
Quote from: "Xerographica"We have two completely different systems of representation...private and public. Which system is better?
Elena uses society's limited resources to make an excellent Greek Salad. I give her my dollar votes because she represents my interest in good food. Elena is my representative...I value how she uses society's limited resources so I give her positive feedback (//https://www.facebook.com/Hi.5.competition).
Elizabeth Warren is also my representative. I didn't vote for her though. Why bother voting? I'm supposed to vote for somebody who represents all my public interests? If this makes any sense why don't I also vote for somebody who represents all my private interests?
With the private system of representation...I have a robust repertoire of representatives. Everybody I give my money to is my representative. And I give my money to a lot of different people because I have a lot of different interests. If I could replace all these representatives with a couple of people...then I could save all the time that I spend shopping.
But there's a problem with trying to find one person to represent all my interests...nobody comes even close. So if I did give all my money to one person...I'd be really worse off. My interests would suffer incredibly. Especially if this one person also had to represent the interests of 100,000 other people. My interests would be lost like tears in rain. Chances are that my Greek Salad would be replaced with a hamburger...without pickles, jalapenos, onions, lettuce and tomatoes. Elena would be flipping generic burgers instead of doing something that she really loves. So if the public system can't adequately represent our interest in food...then why do you think it can adequately represent our interest in anything?
Choose you this day whom you will serve. Use some brain grease to compare both systems of representation and ask yourself which one provides better coverage. You're not thinking hard enough if you don't grasp how tax choice (//https://www.facebook.com/ourtaxes) would far better protect our interests.
I have seen this kind of crap before. It's just more republican/libertarian bullshit. It's the market will dictate everything lie that they dole out.
First of all the market is scewed and corrupt and what dictates the market is not "your dollar" but exploitation of you and all consumers. There is no "competition" because the big players eliminated them long ago.
Secondly the only protection you have against being exploited IS Elizabeth Warren. So if you don't think that she is doing anything for you, just think about all the safety and other standards that is enforced by the goverment to keep corrupt corporations from harming you and then not allowing you to do anything about it. Also think of all the assets that are available to you because you live in a SOCIETY instead of the wildwest that you advocate. Sidewalks, roads, clean water, trash removal etc... and so on. Just think what that would cost if it were up to the private sector.
Next economics....money is expensive unless you buy it from the government. If all money came only from private interest and they could set the value to whatever they want guess what everything would cost?!
Some things should be left to the private sector but hardly all things. This bullshit that the government is the problem is a Nixonian lie that Reagan popularized on behalf of giant corrupt corporations that didn't want to be responsible and don't care about you or the law!
So yeah you vote with your dollar but it's a worthless vote to say the least. Your civic vote has a greater and more important impact.
I'll give you an example. I live in Dallas. My local football franchise is owned by one of the most corrupt people alive. the product that he puts out is mediocre...8 and 8 for the last, well forever. He pays nothing in taxes, he held the city of Arlington ransom to build his stadium that he alone profits from(the city gets squat in return), he displaced people from their homes to build it using imminate domain as the tool to do so, and he charges the highest prices in the NFL as far as seats and parking. He could care less if anyone votes with their dollar because he'll make his money anyway. TV and the league pay him for his team. They aren't worth watching but hey there isn't ANY competition because he is virtually the only game in town (football wise). If you lived here do you think he would give a rat's ass about you? Absolutely not. People got scammed at the last Super Bowl here and Jerry made a ton of money and they are going to play another one here very soon. That is just one example but that giany corporate corruption is rampent and the ONLY thing that holds the line on it are elected public officials,....and NOT the conservative ones either!
I sense a distaste for Jerry Jones in your post mykcob. Perhaps Jerry will be willing to hug you on the 50 yard line. I can't stand the bastard either, but I no longer live in those parts..
I lived on Rock Island Rd in Irving, roughly half way between old and new stadiums and on Division Rd in Arlington right down the street from Jerryworld. I knew some of the people kicked out when they bulldozed that area.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I sense a distaste for Jerry Jones in your post mykcob. Perhaps Jerry will be willing to hug you on the 50 yard line. I can't stand the bastard either, but I no longer live in those parts..
I lived on Rock Island Rd in Irving, roughly half way between old and new stadiums and on Division Rd in Arlington right down the street from Jerryworld. I knew some of the people kicked out when they bulldozed that area.
Those people got screwed by Jerry. Imminent domain only paid them for 80% of market value. After they devalued the area that didn't ammount to much. Most of the people rented and were forced out against their will. It was the biggest land grab in Texas since they kicked out the Comanches! Yeah I hate Jerry for far more than him owning the NFL er uh the Cowboys. He is the most corrupt individual since of Nixon! He manufactured the NFL lockout to try and break the Players Union. Did you know that the NFL is officially listed as a "non-profit"? Yep it's true and yet they pay millions to lobbiest that support conservatives!
Quote from: "mykcob4"I have seen this kind of crap before. It's just more republican/libertarian bullshit. It's the market will dictate everything lie that they dole out.
Wrong wrong wrong. You attacked libertarianism but my post was about pragmatarianism. Pragmatarianism (tax choice) advocates allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. Read through the FAQ (//http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2013/08/frequently-asked-questions-faq.html)...so when you projectile vomit at least you can aim in the right general direction.
You're so wrong about so many things that it's kinda hard to know where to start. Well...how about we start on something that we both agree on? There's no god. Unless I'm wrong. It's entirely possible that I am wrong.
How familiar are you with the bible? When I was growing up I frequently had to read it. So I grew up believing in god...until I started thinking for myself...which was around 11 or so. Did you grow up believing in god?
Even though I don't believe in god...the bible is full of value. For example...
"Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also" - Matthew 6:21
If I want to know your true values...do you think I should look at your voting record...or should I look at a breakdown of how you spend your time/money?
This is what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the matter...
"
Words may shew a man's Wit, but
Actions his Meaning."
Telling me that you voted for Elizabeth Warren doesn't even reveal the tip of the iceberg. It cost you perhaps an hour or two to vote for her. How did you spend the other 8764 hours in the year? How did you spend the money you earned?
How you spend your limited resources would reveal whether voting for Elizabeth Warren is simply a facade that makes you feel good to project to others. In gangsta lingo...you could just be "front'n"...and you certainly wouldn't be the first...
QuoteThey will not indeed submit to more labours and privations than other people, for the relief of distressed fellow creatures: but they make amends by whining over them more. It is not difficult to trace this sort of affectation to its cause. It originates in the common practice of bestowing upon feelings that praise which actions alone can deserve. - J.S. Mill
It's not praiseworthy for you to have feelings towards people who are less well off. But I'm sure you feel morally superior for voting for Elizabeth Warren don't you?
Now, here's some extremely simple logic. Tax choice advocates that you be allowed to choose where your taxes go. So it would give you the opportunity to earn some truly deserved praise by spending all your tax dollars on the poor. But maybe you're going to want to argue that the poor wouldn't receive enough money? If so, then recognize that there's nothing praiseworthy about that sentiment. It's not noble, or admirable to sacrifice others for your feelings. It's fake, shallow, hollow, empty...and deserving of nothing but contempt.
If you have no problem sacrificing your own interests to help those less fortunate...then you should totally support tax choice. But if you do have a problem with tax choice...then it's because it would reveal that your concern for others is simply an illusion.
In the bible, god sacrificed his own son to save the world. He didn't sacrifice me...or you...or our parents or our children...he sacrificed the thing he valued most in the world...his only son. Of course it's just a story...but it accurately communicates just how much god valued the world.
Markets work because they allow you to accurately communicate how much you're willing to give up for the things you want. Without this accurate communication...there's no way of knowing which uses of society's limited resources will provide the most value for society. In other words, without a market there's no way of accurately determining demand. Right now we don't really know what the demand for public goods is...which means that the supply can't possibly be correct. The supply is wrong...it's inefficient...we're getting too much of some public goods and not enough of others. But this problem is easy enough to solve simply by allowing people to shop for themselves in the public sector.
You believe in the current system just like I used to believe in god. I was told to put my biggest problems in god's hands...just like you put your biggest problems in Elizabeth Warren's hands. God doesn't exist...but Warren does exist...right? If she truly does help you solve your biggest problems...then by all means give her all your taxes. But please try and fathom the possibility that people should be free to choose who they trust to solve their problems.
The bible gets this one right as well...
QuoteAnd if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. - Joshua 24:15
The bible, for all its fallacies, has a recurring theme of allowing the people to choose which god they worshiped. It's not a consistent theme though as there are also numerous examples of intolerance. Intolerance continues strong today as is evidenced by the popular unwillingness to allow other people to choose where their taxes go.
[youtube:1gsmhuz3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTAAsCNK7RA[/youtube:1gsmhuz3]
Quote from: "Xerographica"Pragmatarianism (tax choice) advocates allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
Can I choose not to be taxed at all? After all, there are people that earn much more money than me that could easily afford it.
Well, your libertarian wet dream isn't happening so I'm not worried to much.
What if Elena was a money lender that used societies limited resources to game the system and accrue massive amounts of "positive feedback"?
Elena then chooses to spend this massive amount of positive feedback to make sure that laws on money lending are favourable to her.
Then we have a runaway cycle of positive feedback that continues until the only profitable enterprise is to lend money like Elena.
Quote from: "Jason78"What if Elena was a money lender that used societies limited resources to game the system and accrue massive amounts of "positive feedback"?
Elena then chooses to spend this massive amount of positive feedback to make sure that laws on money lending are favourable to her.
Then we have a runaway cycle of positive feedback that continues until the only profitable enterprise is to lend money like Elena.
That's quite common online where companies pay armies of people to post "positive feedback" about them. In fact we at AF could potentially pay a PR firm to post positive feedback about us wonderful, caring atheists on thousands of "Christian" sites.. Let the "market" decide. After all, we're ALL wonderful and caring...right?
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "mykcob4"I have seen this kind of crap before. It's just more republican/libertarian bullshit. It's the market will dictate everything lie that they dole out.
Wrong wrong wrong. You attacked libertarianism but my post was about pragmatarianism. Pragmatarianism (tax choice) advocates allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. Read through the FAQ (//http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2013/08/frequently-asked-questions-faq.html)...so when you projectile vomit at least you can aim in the right general direction.
You're so wrong about so many things that it's kinda hard to know where to start. Well...how about we start on something that we both agree on? There's no god. Unless I'm wrong. It's entirely possible that I am wrong.
How familiar are you with the bible? When I was growing up I frequently had to read it. So I grew up believing in god...until I started thinking for myself...which was around 11 or so. Did you grow up believing in god?
Even though I don't believe in god...the bible is full of value. For example...
"Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also" - Matthew 6:21
If I want to know your true values...do you think I should look at your voting record...or should I look at a breakdown of how you spend your time/money?
This is what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the matter...
"Words may shew a man's Wit, but Actions his Meaning."
Telling me that you voted for Elizabeth Warren doesn't even reveal the tip of the iceberg. It cost you perhaps an hour or two to vote for her. How did you spend the other 8764 hours in the year? How did you spend the money you earned?
How you spend your limited resources would reveal whether voting for Elizabeth Warren is simply a facade that makes you feel good to project to others. In gangsta lingo...you could just be "front'n"...and you certainly wouldn't be the first...
QuoteThey will not indeed submit to more labours and privations than other people, for the relief of distressed fellow creatures: but they make amends by whining over them more. It is not difficult to trace this sort of affectation to its cause. It originates in the common practice of bestowing upon feelings that praise which actions alone can deserve. - J.S. Mill
It's not praiseworthy for you to have feelings towards people who are less well off. But I'm sure you feel morally superior for voting for Elizabeth Warren don't you?
Now, here's some extremely simple logic. Tax choice advocates that you be allowed to choose where your taxes go. So it would give you the opportunity to earn some truly deserved praise by spending all your tax dollars on the poor. But maybe you're going to want to argue that the poor wouldn't receive enough money? If so, then recognize that there's nothing praiseworthy about that sentiment. It's not noble, or admirable to sacrifice others for your feelings. It's fake, shallow, hollow, empty...and deserving of nothing but contempt.
If you have no problem sacrificing your own interests to help those less fortunate...then you should totally support tax choice. But if you do have a problem with tax choice...then it's because it would reveal that your concern for others is simply an illusion.
In the bible, god sacrificed his own son to save the world. He didn't sacrifice me...or you...or our parents or our children...he sacrificed the thing he valued most in the world...his only son. Of course it's just a story...but it accurately communicates just how much god valued the world.
Markets work because they allow you to accurately communicate how much you're willing to give up for the things you want. Without this accurate communication...there's no way of knowing which uses of society's limited resources will provide the most value for society. In other words, without a market there's no way of accurately determining demand. Right now we don't really know what the demand for public goods is...which means that the supply can't possibly be correct. The supply is wrong...it's inefficient...we're getting too much of some public goods and not enough of others. But this problem is easy enough to solve simply by allowing people to shop for themselves in the public sector.
You believe in the current system just like I used to believe in god. I was told to put my biggest problems in god's hands...just like you put your biggest problems in Elizabeth Warren's hands. God doesn't exist...but Warren does exist...right? If she truly does help you solve your biggest problems...then by all means give her all your taxes. But please try and fathom the possibility that people should be free to choose who they trust to solve their problems.
The bible gets this one right as well...
QuoteAnd if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. - Joshua 24:15
The bible, for all its fallacies, has a recurring theme of allowing the people to choose which god they worshiped. It's not a consistent theme though as there are also numerous examples of intolerance. Intolerance continues strong today as is evidenced by the popular unwillingness to allow other people to choose where their taxes go.
Okay I read you're entire INACCURATE rant and it is mostly bullshit!
1) You have no idea who I am what I value. You ASSUME a great deal and you are entirely wrong. You somehow think that I have a biblical idea about saving the poor...NOT AT ALL. 2) As far as pragmatism goes your theory is bullshit.
3) I can't vote for Warren as she isn't running in any election that I can vote in.
The idea that the private sector is better suited on all things that the government is just utter bullshit. It is a fact that without regulation by an authority to oversee business allows the biggest and most corrupt players to exploit everything without consequence hence denying competition and fairness and denying oppertunity.
4) I am not talking about charity or the poor or anytrhing like that and never once did in this thread. That was a complete ASSUMPTION on YOUR part.
5) As far as my knowledge about the bible goes, I don't see what that has to do with anything, but I went through a very strenuous cadacism for 12 years which is like sunday school on steroids if you must know.
6) "pragmatism" is just another republican/libertarian scam. "Tax choice"? Really. So you want everyone in the entire county to specifically dictate where and how much taxes go to where and when. That isn't practical. It isn't even logical. It's like education. The reason Repuke and libaturds want vouchers isn't to increase education. It's so they can systematically abolish it. If public schools have funds syphoned off because of vouchers then the system collapses and then the kids that can't afford to pay for school don't get an education or they get a brainwashed religious education.
7) As far as how I spend my money and what I don't spend it on is a total ASSUMPTIOM by you also. I don't need to justify anything to you but I will say I dedicate a good portion of my EARNED income to help others. I don't do it for praise! I have NO idea why you went off on this illogical tirade about "frontin'" and praise and projection and moral superiority. It's just a nonsensical rant that isn't relavent.
8) When I vote for someone or on an issue I don't just show up and pull a lever. I spend far more than the 2 hours that you ASSUME. I spend months and indeed years on issues and people deciding what is best and how I should vote.
So don't hand me this crapfest rant. You made a lot of assumption that just aren't true.
Notice PLU not one personal insult...not one, but I'm sure you won't recognize that.
Quote from: "mykcob4"6) "pragmatism" is just another republican/libertarian scam. "Tax choice"? Really. So you want everyone in the entire county to specifically dictate where and how much taxes go to where and when. That isn't practical. It isn't even logical. It's like education. The reason Repuke and libaturds want vouchers isn't to increase education. It's so they can systematically abolish it. If public schools have funds syphoned off because of vouchers then the system collapses and then the kids that can't afford to pay for school don't get an education or they get a brainwashed religious education.
A division of representation isn't logical? It's more logical to expect you to be everything to everybody? That's beyond absurd.
Can you tell me how many different people you gave your money to last year?
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "mykcob4"6) "pragmatism" is just another republican/libertarian scam. "Tax choice"? Really. So you want everyone in the entire county to specifically dictate where and how much taxes go to where and when. That isn't practical. It isn't even logical. It's like education. The reason Repuke and libaturds want vouchers isn't to increase education. It's so they can systematically abolish it. If public schools have funds syphoned off because of vouchers then the system collapses and then the kids that can't afford to pay for school don't get an education or they get a brainwashed religious education.
A division of representation isn't logical? It's more logical to expect you to be everything to everybody? That's beyond absurd.
Can you tell me how many different people you gave your money to last year?
Representative democracy is absurd? You think capitalistic chaos is logical? You can't be serious!
Quote from: "mykcob4"Representative democracy is absurd? You think capitalistic chaos is logical? You can't be serious!
If we implemented pragmatarianism...congress would still be there. So you could still give all your money to your elected representative. Which congressperson would you give your taxes to?
What's chaotic about this? I'm an entrepreneur. I created this thread and you've been buying it with your time. You're free to stop buying it at any time. Nobody is forcing you to spend your time here. You're welcome to spend your time on any other thread. The choice is yours. It's up to you what you put in your shopping cart.
QuoteCapitalism is the best. It's free enterprise. Barter. Gimbels, if I get really rank with the clerk, 'Well I don't like this', how I can resolve it? If it really gets ridiculous, I go, 'Frig it, man, I walk.' What can this guy do at Gimbels, even if he was the president of Gimbels? He can always reject me from that store, but I can always go to Macy's. He can't really hurt me. Communism is like one big phone company. Government control, man. And if I get too rank with that phone company, where can I go? I'll end up like a schmuck with a dixie cup on a thread. - Lenny Bruce
Quote from: "Jason78"What if Elena was a money lender that used societies limited resources to game the system and accrue massive amounts of "positive feedback"?
Elena then chooses to spend this massive amount of positive feedback to make sure that laws on money lending are favourable to her.
Then we have a runaway cycle of positive feedback that continues until the only profitable enterprise is to lend money like Elena.
Laws can be helpful...or they can be hurtful. In order to ensure that our laws provide the maximum benefit...we have to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector. How they spend their taxes will reflect exactly how much benefit they derive from a law.
Let's take environmental protection for example. If people want their river to be clean and free of pollution...then they'll pay the EPA to enforce the laws that protects their river.
See...the hard part to conceptualize is the idea of resources flowing. Any resources can flow in many different directions...and no two directions will create the same exact amount of value. The only way to know which directions resources should flow is to allow people to communicate exactly how much they value the different uses of society's limited resources.
If we allow people to shop for themselves in the public sector...their direct input will determine which direction society's limited resources should flow to. If people want more conservation...then they'll spend more taxes on protecting the environment. If people want more development...then they'll spend more taxes on the infrastructure that businesses need to thrive and expand...roads, bridges, ports, airports and so on.
But if you imagine people shopping for themselves in the public sector...they aren't all going to put the same public goods in their shopping carts. This is because we're all in the same different boat. We all need defense...but we don't necessarily agree on the best way to ensure our safety. And rather than forcing people to spend their money on one approach...it's better to allow people to debate each other and decide for themselves which basket they put their eggs in.
The future is always uncertain...because nobody has a crystal ball it's essential that we hedge our bets by allowing people to go their own ways.
The people in the bible laughed at Noah...but they didn't stop him from building and boarding his boat. Of course it's just a story but the concept is true and timeless. If we created a market in the public sector...you're going to disagree with how some people spend their taxes. But it's essential that you recognize the value of their freedom to spend their taxes according to their own perspectives. And you do this by recognizing that it's entirely possible that they are right and you are wrong.
This right here is the market. I'm presenting my case that my course is correct. If my logic makes sense to you...then you board my boat. If it doesn't...then you stay on your own boat and continue on your own course.
But your course wasn't determined by sound logic. It was determined by some barons who were fed up with the king spending all their taxes on war after war. So they took the power of the purse from him. And he only had the power of the purse in the first place because people believed he had divine authority.
Transferring the power of the purse from one person to a few people was a significant course correction...and it will be an even more significant course correction when we transfer the power of the purse from a few people to a multitude of people. It will happen eventually...hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later. It would be pretty epic if you can say that you helped change the course of history for better.
QuoteIt will happen eventually...hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.
It's already happening. That's why the US is going down the drain. Rich people buy politicians, and thus basically have the freedom to shop for themselves in the government. Poor people don't have money to shop anyway, so implementing your system wouldn't change this.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "Jason78"What if Elena was a money lender that used societies limited resources to game the system and accrue massive amounts of "positive feedback"?
Elena then chooses to spend this massive amount of positive feedback to make sure that laws on money lending are favourable to her.
Then we have a runaway cycle of positive feedback that continues until the only profitable enterprise is to lend money like Elena.
Laws can be helpful...or they can be hurtful. In order to ensure that our laws provide the maximum benefit...we have to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector. How they spend their taxes will reflect exactly how much benefit they derive from a law.
Let's take environmental protection for example. If people want their river to be clean and free of pollution...then they'll pay the EPA to enforce the laws that protects their river.
See...the hard part to conceptualize is the idea of resources flowing. Any resources can flow in many different directions...and no two directions will create the same exact amount of value. The only way to know which directions resources should flow is to allow people to communicate exactly how much they value the different uses of society's limited resources.
If we allow people to shop for themselves in the public sector...their direct input will determine which direction society's limited resources should flow to. If people want more conservation...then they'll spend more taxes on protecting the environment. If people want more development...then they'll spend more taxes on the infrastructure that businesses need to thrive and expand...roads, bridges, ports, airports and so on.
But if you imagine people shopping for themselves in the public sector...they aren't all going to put the same public goods in their shopping carts. This is because we're all in the same different boat. We all need defense...but we don't necessarily agree on the best way to ensure our safety. And rather than forcing people to spend their money on one approach...it's better to allow people to debate each other and decide for themselves which basket they put their eggs in.
The future is always uncertain...because nobody has a crystal ball it's essential that we hedge our bets by allowing people to go their own ways.
The people in the bible laughed at Noah...but they didn't stop him from building and boarding his boat. Of course it's just a story but the concept is true and timeless. If we created a market in the public sector...you're going to disagree with how some people spend their taxes. But it's essential that you recognize the value of their freedom to spend their taxes according to their own perspectives. And you do this by recognizing that it's entirely possible that they are right and you are wrong.
This right here is the market. I'm presenting my case that my course is correct. If my logic makes sense to you...then you board my boat. If it doesn't...then you stay on your own boat and continue on your own course.
But your course wasn't determined by sound logic. It was determined by some barons who were fed up with the king spending all their taxes on war after war. So they took the power of the purse from him. And he only had the power of the purse in the first place because people believed he had divine authority.
Transferring the power of the purse from one person to a few people was a significant course correction...and it will be an even more significant course correction when we transfer the power of the purse from a few people to a multitude of people. It will happen eventually...hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later. It would be pretty epic if you can say that you helped change the course of history for better.
That still doesn't explain how your system would avoid the problem of people with a disproportionate amount of influence from stacking the odds in their favour.
Quote from: "Jason78"That still doesn't explain how your system would avoid the problem of people with a disproportionate amount of influence from stacking the odds in their favour.
If a disproportionate amount of influence would be a serious problem then it should be really easy for you to name some names.
What about Elena? Would she have a disproportionate amount of influence? You know who's partly to blame? I am. You know why? Because I give her my money.
What about Jeff Bezos? Same thing...I'm partly to blame because I give him my money.
I don't randomly or evenly distribute my money. I try and discriminate as much as possible. I only give my money to people who are protecting my interests. Because the alternative sure wouldn't make any sense.
The thing is...there other people who have the same interests that I do. I'm not the only one who likes a great Greek Salad. Nor am I the only one who appreciates the convenience of shopping from home. I am definitely not the only person who buys things on Amazon.
So, the amount of influence that Elena and Bezos would have in the public sector would be determined by the amount of people they represent. Bezos represents a lot of people so it's only natural that he should have considerable influence in the public sector. And if you don't want him to have that much influence...then feel free to stop shopping on Amazon.
If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector...how much money would Elizabeth Warren receive? Maybe more than Elena but not as much as Bezos? Which congressperson would receive the most money? Which congressperson would receive the least money?
Quote from: "Xerographica"If a disproportionate amount of influence would be a serious problem then it should be really easy for you to name some names.
Let's take Microsoft as an example. There's a company that under your system would have had a huge disproportionate amount of influence on not only the market but the government as well. Who would be interested enough and have enough dollar-votes to tell them "No."?
After all, where else are people going to be able to buy an operating system that will run popular applications?
Even since the Microsoft Anti-Trust case (which would have never happened under the system you're advocating), the market for operating systems still hasn't fixed itself.
Quote from: "Xerographica"What about Jeff Bezos?
That guy behind the Amazon price fixing scandal? Are you agreeing with me on the point that a disproportionate amount of influence would actually be a serious problem?
Quote from: "Xerographica"So, the amount of influence that Elena and Bezos would have in the public sector would be determined by the amount of people they represent. Bezos represents a lot of people so it's only natural that he should have considerable influence in the public sector. And if you don't want him to have that much influence...then feel free to stop shopping on Amazon.
If it gets to the point where the only place to buy food is one of Elena's greek salad restaurants, then Elena doesn't represent me does she? My only choices then are to either give Elena my money (and give her whatever she asks for, because I've got nowhere else to go) or starve.
I can't control what other people do, so it doesn't matter one whit to Bezos whether I shop at his store or not. He's still practically got the same amount of influence at the end of the day. The only way to mount a defence against him would be to find a way to make more money than him.
Quote from: "Xerographica"If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector...how much money would Elizabeth Warren receive? Maybe more than Elena but not as much as Bezos? Which congressperson would receive the most money? Which congressperson would receive the least money?
Why would any congressperson receive any money from me? The pennies that I could contribute would be lost amongst the pounds that the CEO of a huge organisation could throw at them.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "mykcob4"Representative democracy is absurd? You think capitalistic chaos is logical? You can't be serious!
If we implemented pragmatarianism...congress would still be there. So you could still give all your money to your elected representative. Which congressperson would you give your taxes to?
What's chaotic about this? I'm an entrepreneur. I created this thread and you've been buying it with your time. You're free to stop buying it at any time. Nobody is forcing you to spend your time here. You're welcome to spend your time on any other thread. The choice is yours. It's up to you what you put in your shopping cart.
We do not need to implement this at all, as it is already available to you. There is always going to be certain things that you don't feel your tax payer money should go to. The big picture is that you can take your self taxation dollars and stick them in any shopping cart already. This is called charitable deduction (I can get you to the tax experts to explain this further if needed,) the best part is if you can not afford to pay this tax you are under no obligation to pay it. We need to limit this also otherwise schmucks like Wilfred (Mittens) Romney would just give all of his "taxes" to the Mormon Church, which by the way Mittens most likely had less of a tax obligation in one year than you had over the past decade. Meanwhile, freed up more money he could give to some church that I would never really call charitable. Any money you want to chuck at a representative to get elected is over the top and outside of any tax obligations that you may have acquired in the capitalistic market that we enjoy. So, if you got the extra funds you can still give more of you hard earned money to them and hope they win and then remember you after they are there. So in essence you can not only decide what you are going to put in your shopping cart but if you want to upgrade your shopping cart with the shot bearings and the flat spot on one wheel you have that choice too, already.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "Jason78"What if Elena was a money lender that used societies limited resources to game the system and accrue massive amounts of "positive feedback"?
Elena then chooses to spend this massive amount of positive feedback to make sure that laws on money lending are favourable to her.
Then we have a runaway cycle of positive feedback that continues until the only profitable enterprise is to lend money like Elena.
Laws can be helpful...or they can be hurtful. In order to ensure that our laws provide the maximum benefit...we have to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector. How they spend their taxes will reflect exactly how much benefit they derive from a law.
Let's take environmental protection for example. If people want their river to be clean and free of pollution...then they'll pay the EPA to enforce the laws that protects their river.
See...the hard part to conceptualize is the idea of resources flowing. Any resources can flow in many different directions...and no two directions will create the same exact amount of value. The only way to know which directions resources should flow is to allow people to communicate exactly how much they value the different uses of society's limited resources.
If we allow people to shop for themselves in the public sector...their direct input will determine which direction society's limited resources should flow to. If people want more conservation...then they'll spend more taxes on protecting the environment. If people want more development...then they'll spend more taxes on the infrastructure that businesses need to thrive and expand...roads, bridges, ports, airports and so on.
But if you imagine people shopping for themselves in the public sector...they aren't all going to put the same public goods in their shopping carts. This is because we're all in the same different boat. We all need defense...but we don't necessarily agree on the best way to ensure our safety. And rather than forcing people to spend their money on one approach...it's better to allow people to debate each other and decide for themselves which basket they put their eggs in.
The future is always uncertain...because nobody has a crystal ball it's essential that we hedge our bets by allowing people to go their own ways.
The people in the bible laughed at Noah...but they didn't stop him from building and boarding his boat. Of course it's just a story but the concept is true and timeless. If we created a market in the public sector...you're going to disagree with how some people spend their taxes. But it's essential that you recognize the value of their freedom to spend their taxes according to their own perspectives. And you do this by recognizing that it's entirely possible that they are right and you are wrong.
This right here is the market. I'm presenting my case that my course is correct. If my logic makes sense to you...then you board my boat. If it doesn't...then you stay on your own boat and continue on your own course.
But your course wasn't determined by sound logic. It was determined by some barons who were fed up with the king spending all their taxes on war after war. So they took the power of the purse from him. And he only had the power of the purse in the first place because people believed he had divine authority.
Transferring the power of the purse from one person to a few people was a significant course correction...and it will be an even more significant course correction when we transfer the power of the purse from a few people to a multitude of people. It will happen eventually...hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later. It would be pretty epic if you can say that you helped change the course of history for better.
Blah blah blah....same republican rhetoric. It's a scam to allow the rich to explot everyone else and get out of necessary regulations. Its propaganda to end unions, regulation and every protection from the corrupt. Piecemilling taxes is essentially leting the corrupt dictate everything. It's "bull----er uh rhetoric"!
Quote from: "Jason78"Let's take Microsoft as an example.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers wouldn't have given ANY money to the government to go after Microsoft? I think you must be omniscient if you're going to say with any certainty A. what the actual demand would have been and B. that this was the best possible use of society's limited resources.
Evidently you think it's important for there to be more operating systems. So rather than spending millions on attacking Microsoft...wouldn't it have made more sense to spend those tax dollars on developing a new operating system?
How difficult is it to develop a new operating system? If you're going to argue that it's extremely difficult, costly and risky to do...then why attack Bill Gates for successfully accomplishing a Herculean task? If you're going to argue that it's easy and inexpensive to do...then why waste resources attacking Bill Gates?
Bill Gates used his wealth to create barriers to entry...and our government used its wealth to engage in several wars...the war on drugs...the war on terror...the war on poverty.
If it's not worth your effort to boycott Bill Gates...then your actions clearly indicate that you think he's doing more good than harm.
The moral of the story is...nobody has a crystal ball. One year the government spends $300 million dollars going after Microsoft...and the next year Google could have made Windows Operating system obsolete. Yet, here you are with such certainty that it was such a great use of society's limited resources to attack Microsoft. How can you be so certain that all that money couldn't have been better spent on other public goods? How can you be so certain that it was the most important priority?
I'm so certain that tax choice is the correct answer that I'm going to bet your money on it. And I'm going to skip the part where I persuade you to give it to me. Woah! Doesn't that sound insane? Yet, that's exactly what you support and advocate and defend. You don't want the government to persuade us to spend our tax dollars on attacking Microsoft. You don't want the government to persuade us to spend our tax dollars on attacking other countries. You don't want the government to persuade us to spend our tax dollars on attacking atheists. Because, the government is god!
No, there's no god...the government is man...and man is fallible. Therefore, let's give people the opportunity to doubt...and allocate their taxes accordingly.
If atheists can't appreciate the value of doubt...then who can?
I keep forgetting that Xero's system is best because whatever the outcome of it is, is the best outcome, because his system is best. It's cyclical reasoning at its finest.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Bill Gates used his wealth to create barriers to entry...and our government used its wealth to engage in several wars...the war on drugs...the war on terror...the war on poverty.
If it's not worth your effort to boycott Bill Gates...then your actions clearly indicate that you think he's doing more good than harm.
I'm unable to kill every greenfly on my cabbage patch. That doesn't mean that I believe in what the greenfly are doing and support their cause. My available actions have nothing to do with what I'm thinking.
The reason I picked Bill Gates, is because he's presided over a huge monopoly, and he's got a net wealth of something larger than the GDP of most nations. I could allocate my entire earnings towards bringing him to justice, but it wouldn't do any good. He'd be able to outspend me at every turn.
Quote from: "Xerographica"The moral of the story is...nobody has a crystal ball. One year the government spends $300 million dollars going after Microsoft...and the next year Google could have made Windows Operating system obsolete.
You don't need a crystal ball when you've got enough money to rig the game. Google would never get a chance to make Windows obsolete, because Bill could just pop down to congress, drop a couple of billion votes to make sure that operating systems that aren't windows are illegal, and he can continue raking in money.
You've got to continue supporting him with your limited resources, because you need his product, and where else are you going to buy it from? Google?
Eventually, Bill has 95% of all the money, and his voice is the only opinion that matters. And thanks to the fact that the rest us have to share the remaining 5% between us, Bill can fuck us all over any time he chooses. Even all of us remaining voted with all of our money.
Quote from: "Jason78"I'm unable to kill every greenfly on my cabbage patch. That doesn't mean that I believe in what the greenfly are doing and support their cause. My available actions have nothing to do with what I'm thinking.
Why aren't you able to kill every greenfly on your cabbage patch? You aren't smart enough? Or you don't have enough time? Are you going to die next week or something?
Markets work because you can ask yourself whether a given course of action is more valuable than the alternative courses of action. "Hmmm...I can sit here for three hours killing every greenfly on my cabbage patch...or I can go protect the world from the views of that crazy Xero guy." This is the opportunity cost concept.
Without your direct input...without your freedom to choose what or who you make your sacrifices to...it's a given that the output will not be as valuable. How can the allocation of society's limited resources provide the maximum value possible when you're not able to spend your limited time/money according to your preferences?
Quote from: "Jason78"Eventually, Bill has 95% of all the money, and his voice is the only opinion that matters. And thanks to the fact that the rest us have to share the remaining 5% between us, Bill can fuck us all over any time he chooses. Even all of us remaining voted with all of our money.
Seriously guy? LOL This is so ridiculous. If you and I went to the grocery store...do you think we'd put the same exact items in our shopping carts?
Yet what would happen if taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector? You think Gates and Bezos are going to put all the same exact public goods in their shopping carts? You think they are going to want to fuck us in exactly the same way?
Why don't you think that they'd want to fuck each other? Do you think that rich people only have hard-ons for the poor? Why? How can they possibly extract money from people without any money?
If Bill Gates takes all our money...then who's Bezos going to fuck? Himself? LOL
In all seriousness...please learn something about economics...
QuoteIn buying the resources needed to produce any one good, an entrepreneur has succeeded in competing away these resources from other possible uses. When a producer, not enjoying protection against competitive entry, finds himself as sole producer he still has to worry about the activities of competing entrepreneurs. They are channeling their energies and their alertness into producing <i>other</i> products, which are competing for consumers' attention also. Inter-product competition will not guarantee horizontal demand curves facing each producer. But it offers assurance that errors made in the identification of the most urgently needed consumer products (and/or of the most easily accessible resources) will tend rapidly to be noticed and exploited by alert, competing entrepreneurs. - Israel M. Kirzner, How Markets Work (//http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook104pdf.pdf)
Now, here's the irony. Why did you think it was a good thing for the government to go after Microsoft? Because Bill Gates bundled his products with computers. Yet, what the fuck do you think the government does?
THE GOVERNMENT BUNDLES EVERY FUCKING SINGLE PRODUCT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR TOGETHER. It bundles environmental protection with the war on drugs with the war on terror with public healthcare with welfare with...all the other public goods. You buy one and the rest are included free of charge!
So please tell me why it's bad for consumers when they voluntarily purchase a computer bundled with Microsoft products but it's A-OK when they are forced to buy a massive random bundle of public goods.
QuoteNow Yates seems to be a productive member of society. He's a bundler...cable, phone, internet. But I need to know if murder is part of the package. - Dexter
What would you say if your cable company started including murder in their package? Would you be all for it? Would it make a lot of sense to you? Would you sign up immediately? How about if they also included ladies underwear? Would that sweeten the deal for you? "What? You'll include some dirty granny panties at no extra charge??! Sign me up ASAP!!"
You think it's a good thing for consumers to be able to pick and choose which products they have included with their computer. Yet you think it's a terrible idea for consumers to be able to pick and choose which public goods they put in their shopping carts. Seriously guy? If unbundling two related products would be good for consumers...then unbundling an entire sector's worth of very unrelated products would be orgasmic for consumers.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "Jason78"I'm unable to kill every greenfly on my cabbage patch. That doesn't mean that I believe in what the greenfly are doing and support their cause. My available actions have nothing to do with what I'm thinking.
Why aren't you able to kill every greenfly on your cabbage patch? You aren't smart enough? Or you don't have enough time? Are you going to die next week or something?
Markets work because you can ask yourself whether a given course of action is more valuable than the alternative courses of action. "Hmmm...I can sit here for three hours killing every greenfly on my cabbage patch...or I can go protect the world from the views of that crazy Xero guy." This is the opportunity cost concept.
Without your direct input...without your freedom to choose what or who you make your sacrifices to...it's a given that the output will not be as valuable. How can the allocation of society's limited resources provide the maximum value possible when you're not able to spend your limited time/money according to your preferences?
Quote from: "Jason78"Eventually, Bill has 95% of all the money, and his voice is the only opinion that matters. And thanks to the fact that the rest us have to share the remaining 5% between us, Bill can fuck us all over any time he chooses. Even all of us remaining voted with all of our money.
Seriously guy? LOL This is so ridiculous. If you and I went to the grocery store...do you think we'd put the same exact items in our shopping carts?
Yet what would happen if taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector? You think Gates and Bezos are going to put all the same exact public goods in their shopping carts? You think they are going to want to fuck us in exactly the same way?
Why don't you think that they'd want to fuck each other? Do you think that rich people only have hard-ons for the poor? Why? How can they possibly extract money from people without any money?
Like a car thief or a burglar, they are opportunistic and will go for the low hanging fruit.
Quote from: "Xerographica"If Bill Gates takes all our money...then who's Bezos going to fuck? Himself? LOL
In all seriousness...please learn something about economics...
I'm trying to. I'm not sure that I've got a very good teacher though.
Quote from: "Xerographica"QuoteIn buying the resources needed to produce any one good, an entrepreneur has succeeded in competing away these resources from other possible uses. When a producer, not enjoying protection against competitive entry, finds himself as sole producer he still has to worry about the activities of competing entrepreneurs. They are channeling their energies and their alertness into producing <i>other</i> products, which are competing for consumers' attention also. Inter-product competition will not guarantee horizontal demand curves facing each producer. But it offers assurance that errors made in the identification of the most urgently needed consumer products (and/or of the most easily accessible resources) will tend rapidly to be noticed and exploited by alert, competing entrepreneurs. - Israel M. Kirzner, How Markets Work (//http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook104pdf.pdf)
Now, here's the irony. Why did you think it was a good thing for the government to go after Microsoft? Because Bill Gates bundled his products with computers. Yet, what the fuck do you think the government does? THE GOVERNMENT BUNDLES EVERY FUCKING SINGLE PRODUCT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR TOGETHER. It bundles environmental protection with the war on drugs with the war on terror with public healthcare with welfare with...all the other public goods. You buy one and the rest are included free of charge!
So please tell me why it's bad for consumers when they voluntarily purchase a computer bundled with Microsoft products but it's A-OK when they are forced to buy a massive random bundle of public goods.
QuoteNow Yates seems to be a productive member of society. He's a bundler...cable, phone, internet. But I need to know if murder is part of the package. - Dexter
What would you say if your cable company started including murder in their package? Would you be all for it? Would it make a lot of sense to you? Would you sign up immediately? How about if they also included ladies underwear? Would that sweeten the deal for you? "What? You'll include some dirty granny panties at no extra charge??! Sign me up ASAP!!"
You think it's a good thing for consumers to be able to pick and choose which products they have included with their computer. Yet you think it's a terrible idea for consumers to be able to pick and choose which public goods they put in their shopping carts. Seriously guy? If unbundling two related products would be good for consumers...then unbundling an entire sector's worth of very unrelated products would be orgasmic for consumers.
I've only really got one option where I live if I want internet access at a decent speed. They already include packages that I don't want into my cable subscription bundle that I don't want or need. But it's either pay money to them or go back to dial-up. So yeah, if they tacked murder onto the deal, I'd probably stay with them. Because I've got no viable alternative.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I sense a distaste for Jerry Jones in your post mykcob. Perhaps Jerry will be willing to hug you on the 50 yard line. I can't stand the bastard either, but I no longer live in those parts..
I lived on Rock Island Rd in Irving, roughly half way between old and new stadiums and on Division Rd in Arlington right down the street from Jerryworld. I knew some of the people kicked out when they bulldozed that area.
Those people got screwed by Jerry. Imminent domain only paid them for 80% of market value. After they devalued the area that didn't ammount to much. Most of the people rented and were forced out against their will. It was the biggest land grab in Texas since they kicked out the Comanches! Yeah I hate Jerry for far more than him owning the NFL er uh the Cowboys. He is the most corrupt individual since of Nixon! He manufactured the NFL lockout to try and break the Players Union. Did you know that the NFL is officially listed as a "non-profit"? Yep it's true and yet they pay millions to lobbiest that support conservatives!
Just a nitpick here cause it's a bit misleading fact. The NFL is in fact non-profit, but the teams aren't. It's kind of a circle jerk though, in that the league exists to make the owners money, while also being made up of the owners and their handpicked leaders. The NFL is more like a cartel in practice. Most other pro sports leagues are the same.