The Logical Absurdity of Libertarianism: Partial Omniscience

[Xerographica]

1. Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient (source)
2. The political process does not adequately communicate the preferences of citizens (source)
3. Therefore, the provision of public goods is suboptimal (source)

[lumpymunk]

Looks like you're criticizing central planning and calling it libertarianism.

Confusing.

[Jason78]

Looks like your first premise is faulty.

[Plu]

You should be glad. If we ran this forum like you want to run the company, we'd have banned you a long time ago.

[Xerographica]

Looks like you're criticizing central planning and calling it libertarianism.

Confusing.

Libertarianism, like central planning, is a continuum...



Everybody plans though...firms in the private sector have central planning.  The difference is, in the private sector if the plans of a firm don't help you further your own plans...then you're free not to give them your positive feedback (money).  Consumer sovereignty ensures that the plans of firms coincide with the actual demand for products/services.  This limits the amount of society's limited resources that are wasted on pipe dreams.  For example, if you don't give me your money because you perceive that pragmatarianism is a pipe dream (or worse)...then this prevents me from using more of society's limited resources.  

Coase stated that the important difference between planning under socialism and within business firms on the free market is that the former "is imposed on industry while firms arise voluntarily because they represent a more efficient method of organizing production." - Murray N. Rothbard, Economic Controversies

[Solitary]

Pragmatism works, but it doesn't tell you what the truth is until it doesn't, then it is a lie. Solitary

[Xerographica]

Looks like your first premise is faulty.

If the first premise is faulty, but the second two are fine...then it's still a strong case for pragmatarianism.

Having thoroughly researched the topic though, I'm fairly certain that my premises are solid.  But if you claim otherwise, then please substantiate your claims.  You don't need to substantiate your claims as thoroughly as I have done...just one or two sources will be fine.

[Jason78]

Looks like your first premise is faulty.

If the first premise is faulty, but the second two are fine...then it's still a strong case for pragmatarianism.

If you agree that the major premise of your syllogism is faulty, then you will have to concede that your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Having thoroughly researched the topic though, I'm fairly certain that my premises are solid.  But if you claim otherwise, then please substantiate your claims.  You don't need to substantiate your claims as thoroughly as I have done...just one or two sources will be fine.

You quoted yourself as a source for your first premise.

[Xerographica]

If you agree that the major premise of your syllogism is faulty, then you will have to concede that your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Just because a conclusion doesn't follow from a premise doesn't make the conclusion wrong.  If you think the premises and the conclusions are wrong, then you have to present your own argument.

You quoted yourself as a source for your first premise.

Uh, what?  I have no idea what you're talking about.  I linked to my blog entry which has numerous quotes from economists saying exactly the same thing.

[LikelyToBreak]

1. Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient (source)
2. The political process does not adequately communicate the preferences of citizens (source)
3. Therefore, the provision of public goods is suboptimal (source)

1. I don't know anyone who thinks congresscritters are omniscient.  Most people I know, think they are lying thieves.
2. See my above statement.
3. Why do you think the 99%er's protested?  

Until the banks and the Federal Reserve are figured in on your economic plan, I can't give it any creditability.

[mykcob4]

[ Image ]

1. Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient (source)
2. The political process does not adequately communicate the preferences of citizens (source)
3. Therefore, the provision of public goods is suboptimal (source)

Absolutely correct. The fact is that Libertarians think that they shouldn't pay any taxes whatsoever but they should reep the benefits that a government and society bring them. It's a faulty logic and it smacks of greed and self-entitlement.
Someone on this forum said about libertarian(Ayn Rand) "I've got mine screw you" is an apt description of libertarianism.
The idea that Libertarians can AFTER THE FACT redirect tax dollars to just go to what they want is just down right childish. It demonstrates why all conservative republican to the right of the aisle is wrong and faulty.

[Jason78]

If you agree that the major premise of your syllogism is faulty, then you will have to concede that your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Just because a conclusion doesn't follow from a premise doesn't make the conclusion wrong.  If you think the premises and the conclusions are wrong, then you have to present your own argument.

No, I don't.

Because a faulty premise and a logical fallacy is not an argument.  It requires no refutation.

It's simply your unfounded opinion.

[LikelyToBreak]

mykcob4 wrote in part:

Absolutely correct.

Figures a big government liberal would agree with Pragmatism.

mykcob4 wrote in part:

The fact is that Libertarians think that they shouldn't pay any taxes whatsoever but they should reep the benefits that a government and society bring them. It's a faulty logic and it smacks of greed and self-entitlement.

Having been a member of the Libertarian party, I think my credentials in saying that statement is a lie are pretty good.  Maybe you can find a few members that think that way, the same as I could find members of the Democrat party who want to set up a dictatorship, but most do not think like that.  Most Libertarians want fair taxes, where rich multi-national corporations would have to pay the same rates as Ma and Pa's corner convenience store would.  And want to end corporate welfare.  Most Libertarians want a fair playing field, whereas the liberals want to make sure the corporate and banking lobbyists have the last say.

But, you know how it is.  You can't convince a bigot that his propaganda is wrong.

[Xerographica]

1. I don't know anyone who thinks congresscritters are omniscient.  Most people I know, think they are lying thieves.

It doesn't change the fact that our current system of public finance is based on Samuelson's model...which assumes that congresspeople are omniscient.  

2. See my above statement.

What?  If congresspeople are not omniscient...and voting does not communicate the preferences of citizens...then how can the government possibly supply the best possible levels of public goods?  

3. Why do you think the 99%er's protested?

They protested against the logical consequences of millions of them agreeing that some producers create more value than other producers.  In other words, they protested because they don't understand the implications of consumer sovereignty.    

Until the banks and the Federal Reserve are figured in on your economic plan, I can't give it any creditability.

Selah.  My economic plan is the best because it figures your economic plan into it.  If you think a bank, whether public or private, is helping you realize your own plans...then give them your money.  But if they are merely creating obstacles to your plans...then you should be free to boycott them.

Think about something as simple as baking bread.  If you're trying to bake bread...then I'm either helping you...or not helping you.  I'm either helping you use society's limited resources to realize your plan...or I'm not helping you.  

Jehovah's Witnesses are either using society's limited resources to help you realize your plans...or they aren't helping you.  Home Depot is either using society's limited resources to help you realize your plans...or they aren't helping you.  The EPA is either using society's limited resources to help you realize your plans...or they aren't helping you.  

Because nobody is a mind reader...you have to be free to use your dollars to indicate when somebody is using society's limited resources to help you realize your plans.  This is exactly why taxpayers have to be free to shop in the public sector.  Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector and markets give people the freedom to support the people who are supporting them.  Markets ensure that society's limited resources are used to build the most mutually beneficial communities possible.  Markets give consumers the freedom to incentivize producers to determine how they can use society's limited resources to help consumers realize their plans.

[LikelyToBreak]

Banks and the Federal Reserve can and do print money out of thin air.  So, under pragmatism, they get 10 votes for every one of mine or anyone else.  Doesn't seem to fair to me.  I guess if I was a banker I would love it.