People need time to learn a profession. At least a few years to learn it, and at least a decade to be good in it. You cannot expect tens of thousands of teachers to lose their jobs and retrain to become medics, just for them to have to retrain as policemen next year, because the allocation changed.
If the allocation in a certain sector dropped significantly, you argue that it just shows that demand dropped. But what to do with the thousands or maybe millions of people suddenly without a job?
If the allocation in a certain sector increased significantly, because demand suddenly soared, how would you get so many trained professionals for those jobs? You couldn’t train them overnight.
Demand will fluctuate significantly, because people are emotional beings. For example, I’ve seen in a European country, that a party’s votes dropped from over 50% to below 20% in a year because their leader was found out of doing something stupid. A completely new government was elected, but life went on with little changes, because they didn’t drastically changed the tax allocation, the new government made just small changes. Had they completely eliminated the funds of a sector, people would have gone on strike or maybe started a revolution.
Now imagine what would happen if an image of a dying child circulated through the media, with a message that there isn’t enough money for health-care. Next you know, that sector receives more then double the founding. How quickly you think you could train new staff for it? The same time a scandal breaks out because of a single teacher being found out that the abused a child. Tax allocation for education would drop significantly because of that single event, and now tens of thousands of teachers are without a job, and hundreds of thousands of pupils don’t have a classroom to study in. Even if next year the situation is stabilized, hundreds of thousands of students missed a school year, and there would be a job opening for tens thousands of teachers: how could you fill these instantly before the beginning of the school year?
The only time we see such drastic changes to labor in the private sector is when it’s caused by creative destruction (ie cars causing the shut down of buggy whip factories) or outsourcing. But even if for some unknown reason labor displacement was more pronounced in the public sector than in the private sector, then this concern would motivate more people to allocate their taxes towards improving the public safety net (ie unemployment benefits, job training, etc.). With pragmatarianism you maximize the number of people who can soundly sleep at night.
People are emotional beings? If people misallocate their resources for whatever reason (emotion, irrationality, carelessness, mistakes)… then they lose influence/power/control over how society’s limited resources are used. Think about it. Mistakes decrease your influence. Clearly there are few lucky exceptions… but they are by no means the rule. Taxpayers are the people who make the least mistakes. As a result they have gained, rather than lost, influence over how society’s limited resources are used.
You keep conflating voters and taxpayers… not only that but you still don’t seem to appreciate the fact that talk is cheap. Voting is talking. Therefore, voting is cheap. You can’t apply how people vote to how they spend their money. If you could, then we wouldn’t go around saying that actions speak louder than words. Neither would we encourage people to put their money where their mouth is.
If you’re going to effectively critique pragmatarianism… then you really have to have this concept under your belt. And you’re in luck because here’s a page just for you… louder. While you’re at it… you might as well make sure you thoroughly grasp these other key concepts.
Who in the world would people strike or revolt against in a pragmatarian system? Their neighbors? Power wouldn’t be centralized… it would be completely decentralized. You’re going to need a bigger bullhorn. If you wanted to change people’s minds/values then you’d have to do it the hard way… just like I’m doing it. It’s too much work unless you’re pretty sure it’s worth it.
An image of a dying child doubles funding? You might want to consult those non-profits which have used this technique.
Again, for sure there are going to be knee-jerkers out there… but a fool and his money are soon parted. Don’t take my word for it....
And the rich do not tend to throw their money away easily; those who do, do not stay rich very long. - Robin Hanson
People who’ve earned their money by doing their homework generally aren’t going to spend their money without doing their homework. And we’ll have far more people doing homework in a pragmatarian system than we do now with the current system. Why? Because as you would know if you had done your homework (ie read the FAQ)… our current system of government is the cause of rational ignorance. With the current system, unless you’re a lobbyist, it doesn’t pay to do your homework… so why bother? In a pragmatarian system, being able to sleep soundly at night is a pretty good incentive to make sure that your tax allocations are based on adequate evidence.
You still didn’t answer how you could keep up retraining the workforce to constantly shifting demands.
Also you didn’t answer how you would introduce your system without causing great societal upheaval or even societal collapse as millions of people would lose their jobs and millions of other jobs won’t have a skilled workforce. If you don’t come up with a plan how to handle such drastic changes, then your “pragmatarianims” has absolutely no difference from complete anarchy.
It seems this discussion is leading nowhere. Instead of discussing it, you seem to play an artillery game, just like what politicians do in a public “debate”: you answer to the few of my claims you think you can refute, while completely ignoring those which you can’t.
It’s really fine if you want to predict that pragmatarianism would cause great social upheaval. But you really have to appreciate that this prediction of yours is a double edged sword. You’re essentially arguing that there’s a huge disparity between the current supply of public goods and the actual demand for public goods. If you can convince me that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this disparity that you’re predicting exists… then you completely take the wind from my sails.
Unlike yourself, I’m not extremely confident that this disparity does indeed exist. For all I know the guesses of congresspeople, for whatever reasons, are extremely good. If they are extremely good then there wouldn’t be any great social upheaval if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go. Public education and public healthcare and defense would all receive pretty much the same amount of funding that they are currently receiving. No harm no foul. There wouldn’t be millions and millions of public employees trying to learn how to do whichever public jobs were in greater demand.
Based on my research though… I really wouldn’t be surprised if your prediction was correct. So let’s predict that you’re truly omniscient! You correctly foresee great social upheaval that would be caused by the correction of the massive disparity between public demand and supply. Are you really going to argue that this correction isn’t worth it?
Fortunately, we aren’t without precedent here. It’s 1977 and I’m Deng Xiaoping and you’re my biggest opponent. I’m arguing that we should create a market in China and you’re arguing that doing so would cause great social upheaval. Well.… it turns out that we were both correct. Millions and millions and millions and millions of people migrated from their farming villages to the cities in order to work in a multitude of new factories that were started thanks to a massive inflow of foreign investment. As a result, millions and millions and millions and millions of people were lifted out of poverty and China quickly caught up to the US. For the extended version of this story please see… builderism.
To put it somewhat less scholarly… imagine that the government is paying somebody to kick you in the balls. If you derive benefit from this person’s productivity… then, if we transitioned to a pragmatarian system, you’d allocate your taxes accordingly. If you want to predict that this guy who’s kicking you in the balls would lose his job if we implemented pragmatarianism… then… you’re arguing that he’s doing something that nobody in their right mind would pay him to do.
Command economies misallocate resources… that’s just what they do. Our government, with its hordes of lobbyists who represent diverse interests, isn’t a perfect command economy but, given that taxpayers can’t choose where their taxes go, it’s close enough for me to strongly suspect that significant amounts of society’s limited resources are being misallocated.
If your prediction is correct that pragmatarianism would cause a massive correction to the allocation of society’s limited resources… then for sure it’s terrible that so many people would lose their jobs… and I should hope that taxpayers would help support the smoothest possible reallocation… but you’re going to have to come up with a pretty good argument to convince me that we’re better off allowing massive amounts of society’s limited resources to be majorly misallocated.
People need time to learn a profession. At least a few years to learn it, and at least a decade to be good in it. You cannot expect tens of thousands of teachers to lose their jobs and retrain to become medics, just for them to have to retrain as policemen next year, because the allocation changed.
If the allocation in a certain sector dropped significantly, you argue that it just shows that demand dropped. But what to do with the thousands or maybe millions of people suddenly without a job?
If the allocation in a certain sector increased significantly, because demand suddenly soared, how would you get so many trained professionals for those jobs? You couldn’t train them overnight.
Demand will fluctuate significantly, because people are emotional beings. For example, I’ve seen in a European country, that a party’s votes dropped from over 50% to below 20% in a year because their leader was found out of doing something stupid. A completely new government was elected, but life went on with little changes, because they didn’t drastically changed the tax allocation, the new government made just small changes. Had they completely eliminated the funds of a sector, people would have gone on strike or maybe started a revolution.
Now imagine what would happen if an image of a dying child circulated through the media, with a message that there isn’t enough money for health-care. Next you know, that sector receives more then double the founding. How quickly you think you could train new staff for it? The same time a scandal breaks out because of a single teacher being found out that the abused a child. Tax allocation for education would drop significantly because of that single event, and now tens of thousands of teachers are without a job, and hundreds of thousands of pupils don’t have a classroom to study in. Even if next year the situation is stabilized, hundreds of thousands of students missed a school year, and there would be a job opening for tens thousands of teachers: how could you fill these instantly before the beginning of the school year?
The only time we see such drastic changes to labor in the private sector is when it’s caused by creative destruction (ie cars causing the shut down of buggy whip factories) or outsourcing. But even if for some unknown reason labor displacement was more pronounced in the public sector than in the private sector, then this concern would motivate more people to allocate their taxes towards improving the public safety net (ie unemployment benefits, job training, etc.). With pragmatarianism you maximize the number of people who can soundly sleep at night.
People are emotional beings? If people misallocate their resources for whatever reason (emotion, irrationality, carelessness, mistakes)… then they lose influence/power/control over how society’s limited resources are used. Think about it. Mistakes decrease your influence. Clearly there are few lucky exceptions… but they are by no means the rule. Taxpayers are the people who make the least mistakes. As a result they have gained, rather than lost, influence over how society’s limited resources are used.
You keep conflating voters and taxpayers… not only that but you still don’t seem to appreciate the fact that talk is cheap. Voting is talking. Therefore, voting is cheap. You can’t apply how people vote to how they spend their money. If you could, then we wouldn’t go around saying that actions speak louder than words. Neither would we encourage people to put their money where their mouth is.
If you’re going to effectively critique pragmatarianism… then you really have to have this concept under your belt. And you’re in luck because here’s a page just for you… louder. While you’re at it… you might as well make sure you thoroughly grasp these other key concepts.
Who in the world would people strike or revolt against in a pragmatarian system? Their neighbors? Power wouldn’t be centralized… it would be completely decentralized. You’re going to need a bigger bullhorn. If you wanted to change people’s minds/values then you’d have to do it the hard way… just like I’m doing it. It’s too much work unless you’re pretty sure it’s worth it.
An image of a dying child doubles funding? You might want to consult those non-profits which have used this technique.
Again, for sure there are going to be knee-jerkers out there… but a fool and his money are soon parted. Don’t take my word for it....
People who’ve earned their money by doing their homework generally aren’t going to spend their money without doing their homework. And we’ll have far more people doing homework in a pragmatarian system than we do now with the current system. Why? Because as you would know if you had done your homework (ie read the FAQ)… our current system of government is the cause of rational ignorance. With the current system, unless you’re a lobbyist, it doesn’t pay to do your homework… so why bother? In a pragmatarian system, being able to sleep soundly at night is a pretty good incentive to make sure that your tax allocations are based on adequate evidence.
You still didn’t answer how you could keep up retraining the workforce to constantly shifting demands.
Also you didn’t answer how you would introduce your system without causing great societal upheaval or even societal collapse as millions of people would lose their jobs and millions of other jobs won’t have a skilled workforce. If you don’t come up with a plan how to handle such drastic changes, then your “pragmatarianims” has absolutely no difference from complete anarchy.
It seems this discussion is leading nowhere. Instead of discussing it, you seem to play an artillery game, just like what politicians do in a public “debate”: you answer to the few of my claims you think you can refute, while completely ignoring those which you can’t.
It’s really fine if you want to predict that pragmatarianism would cause great social upheaval. But you really have to appreciate that this prediction of yours is a double edged sword. You’re essentially arguing that there’s a huge disparity between the current supply of public goods and the actual demand for public goods. If you can convince me that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this disparity that you’re predicting exists… then you completely take the wind from my sails.
Unlike yourself, I’m not extremely confident that this disparity does indeed exist. For all I know the guesses of congresspeople, for whatever reasons, are extremely good. If they are extremely good then there wouldn’t be any great social upheaval if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go. Public education and public healthcare and defense would all receive pretty much the same amount of funding that they are currently receiving. No harm no foul. There wouldn’t be millions and millions of public employees trying to learn how to do whichever public jobs were in greater demand.
Based on my research though… I really wouldn’t be surprised if your prediction was correct. So let’s predict that you’re truly omniscient! You correctly foresee great social upheaval that would be caused by the correction of the massive disparity between public demand and supply. Are you really going to argue that this correction isn’t worth it?
Fortunately, we aren’t without precedent here. It’s 1977 and I’m Deng Xiaoping and you’re my biggest opponent. I’m arguing that we should create a market in China and you’re arguing that doing so would cause great social upheaval. Well.… it turns out that we were both correct. Millions and millions and millions and millions of people migrated from their farming villages to the cities in order to work in a multitude of new factories that were started thanks to a massive inflow of foreign investment. As a result, millions and millions and millions and millions of people were lifted out of poverty and China quickly caught up to the US. For the extended version of this story please see… builderism.
To put it somewhat less scholarly… imagine that the government is paying somebody to kick you in the balls. If you derive benefit from this person’s productivity… then, if we transitioned to a pragmatarian system, you’d allocate your taxes accordingly. If you want to predict that this guy who’s kicking you in the balls would lose his job if we implemented pragmatarianism… then… you’re arguing that he’s doing something that nobody in their right mind would pay him to do.
Command economies misallocate resources… that’s just what they do. Our government, with its hordes of lobbyists who represent diverse interests, isn’t a perfect command economy but, given that taxpayers can’t choose where their taxes go, it’s close enough for me to strongly suspect that significant amounts of society’s limited resources are being misallocated.
If your prediction is correct that pragmatarianism would cause a massive correction to the allocation of society’s limited resources… then for sure it’s terrible that so many people would lose their jobs… and I should hope that taxpayers would help support the smoothest possible reallocation… but you’re going to have to come up with a pretty good argument to convince me that we’re better off allowing massive amounts of society’s limited resources to be majorly misallocated.