Pragmatarianism vs Libertarianism vs Anarcho-capitalism

[Xerographica]

Over at the Bleeding Heart Libertarian blog... Mike Munger posted this entry...A Libertarian Mungerfesto, Part IV: Consumer Sovereignty, and Getting "The Things" There

It's pretty long, but pretty good...except for this part...

We have no basis for assuming that "the things" will be there, unless prices and profits can perform their directive functions.  Without the promise of profit, the things are not there.  In fact, the things are not even "things" yet, but rather ideas that no one has ever thought about until some entrepreneur imagines them.

It reminds me this blog entry of mine...Prices and the Efficient Allocation of Resources...where Nicholas and I went back and forth discussing the necessity of prices.

If we created a market in the public sector...there wouldn't be prices or profits.  Taxpayers would be able to spend as much or as little as they wanted on any public good.  And obviously there wouldn't be profits. But there would certainly be consumer sovereignty...taxpayers would shop for themselves and government organizations would gain or lose revenue accordingly.   So it would definitely be a market...there would certainly be a directive function..."the things" would be there...and this would take place without any prices or profits.

It's not prices or profit that are essential...it's opportunity cost.  You don't have to spend $1 to read this and reply...but any time you spend here can't also be spent doing the other things that you also value.  Which use of your limited time do you value most?  Whichever use you choose is the one that you value most at that point in time.  So as long as we can choose how we use/allocate our own limited resources...the result will be the most valuable distribution of society's limited resources (efficient allocation).  Maybe understanding that it's opportunity cost rather than prices/profit is part of the difference between libertarianism and pragmatarianism.

Speaking of which...this is probably the best I've ever described the difference between libertarianism and pragmatarianism (Division of Representation) ...

*************************************

Well...in some cases...perhaps the more you study something the more likely you are to see certain differences as more significant than somebody who hasn't studied the same thing. Take for example Platyceriums.

But I think there's a pretty significant difference between abolishing the government (anarcho-capitalism) and limiting the scope of government (libertarianism). It's like the difference between killing somebody and putting them on a diet.

Practically speaking...in terms of communicating...it's extremely inefficient (hence annoying) if somebody says they are a libertarian instead of just saying that they are actually an anarcho-capitalist. It's a waste of time to needlessly drill down to figure out somebody's real stance on the proper scope of government...especially when there's already a perfectly good word for it. So for practical purposes...if somebody is an anarcho-capitalist then they should just say so.

Regarding the difference between pragmatarianism and libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism...I don't believe it's a small difference either. Those two ideologies both advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water (obviously to different degrees)...while pragmatarianism advocates allowing each and every taxpayer to use their taxes to protect/support the parts that they believe are most valuable (baby).

Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have a vision of exactly what the government should look like. They want to impose that vision on the entire country by attacking the government with scalpels. As a pragmatarian, I fundamentally disagree with that approach. I want each and every taxpayer to use their own taxes to add some clay where they feel it is most needed. I have no idea what the final sculpture will look like...but given the collaborative process of individual valuation...it's a given that it will be the most valuable form possible.

Basically...libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism are tearing down (destructive)...while pragmatarianism is building up (constructive). I can't remove a piece you added to the sculpture...I can't take away the $500 you gave to the EPA...all I can do is spend my own tax dollars where I feel they are most needed.

*************************************

A Bit Of Fry And Laurie to lighten things up?  From the Library Vs Cricket Sketch...

Librarian: Because may I say that I find your continued efforts to drag down and smear this country of ours to be frankly disgusting.
Laurie: I'm not trying to smear and drag down anybody.
Librarian: I suppose you'd rather read books about England losing at cricket than winning, wouldn't you?
Laurie: Well, yes, if it's true.
Librarian: Then I feel sorry for you.
Mrs Pert: He's a knocker, that's what he is.
Librarian: I agree with you, Mrs Pert.
Mrs Pert: Oh, it's very easy to knock, isn't it? You with your snide university ways.
Laurie: Snide University?
Mrs Pert: Or wherever it is you went.
Librarian: So often these days, sir, we see, don't we, these so-called clever people who just can't wait to tear down and destroy.
Mrs Pert: And knock.
Librarian: And knock, yes.  But do they ever have anything to put in the place of things that they destroy? No.  It's wanton destruction.

Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are knockers.  Yup.  I'm not a knocker because even though I'm tearing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism down...I have something better to put in their place...pragmatarianism.

So it seems that I made a mistake with this illustration I created a while back (Our Mixed Economy - Capitalism vs Socialism)...



Pragmatarianism wouldn't be millions and millions of taxpayers chiseling away the parts of government that they don't value...it would be millions and millions of taxpayers contributing to the parts of government that they do value.  I think this is a fundamentally important distinction.

So libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is kind of like Eric Cantor's YouCut...while pragmatarianism would be more like YouBuild...or YouConstruct.

Of course...the resources used to construct one building can't also be used to construct another...

But have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much "God" sacrificed every time?  If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law - let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! - Friedrich Nietzsche

If you help "erect" pragmatarianism...the resources you use will be taken from libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.  As pragmatarianism goes up...they will go down.  It's creative destruction.

A few passages that Munger shared in his Mungerfesto...

Entrepreneurs are innovators who use a process of shattering the status quo of the existing products and services, to set up new products, new services. - Joseph Schumpeter

The introduction [of new products] is achieved by founding new businesses, whether for production or for employment or for both.  What have the individuals under consideration contributed to this?  Only the will and the action; not the concrete goods, for they bought these—either from others or from themselves; not the purchasing power with which they bought, for they  borrowed this—from others or, if we also take account of acquisition in earlier periods, from themselves.  And what have they done?  They have not accumulated any kind of good, they have created no original means of production, but have employed existing means of production differently, and more appropriately, more advantageously.  They have "carried out new combinations."  They are entrepreneurs.  And their profit, the surplus, to which no liability corresponds, is an entrepreneurial profit. - Joseph Schumpeter

An entrepreneur is an economic agent who unites all means of production- land of one, the labour of another and the capital of yet another and thus produces a product. By selling the product in the market he pays rent of land, wages to labour, interest on capital and what remains is his profit. He shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield. - J.B. Say  

Personally, I'm certain (enough) that pragmatarianism will result in higher productivity and greater yield than libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism.  Maybe I'm wrong?  Maybe I'm right?  You can certainly try and hedge your bets.  It's easy enough to like both the libertarian party and the tax choice party on facebook.  It only takes a second to invite your friends to do the same.  Who knows...maybe some of your friends that aren't interested in the libertarian party will be interested in the tax choice party?  Only one way to find out.  So go ahead and put both options on the table and let your friends choose which one they prefer.  That's how and why markets work.  And it's exactly why we should create a market in the public sector.  Let's find out which public goods people value most.

[MitchellDaBomb]

If i had to choose one id probably go with libertarianism because it is the furthest away from giving the government structure power. I personally consider myself an Insurrectionary anarchist (destroys class conflict). The problem with all three of these is that they include a monetary system. I believe that the only way to move humanity forward is to abolish currency. Since resources are invaluable, it seems counterintuitive that we give prices to them. Pragmatarianism doesn't seem to be that bad either since it tries to create an equilibrium between public and private sector. I see where you are coming from. It would certainly be better than the system we have now XD. But there will always be corruption and inequality if we continue a monetary system. If we could create a new country, i would suggest a skills-based resource-based economy without a currency. We have all the technology to provide everyone with food and commodities. Its too bad that cost efficiency is put above quality of life.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't think "pragmatarianism" is a good word for the ideology you are espousing.

To be pragmatic is to find the most efficient way to a goal.  The goal is decided by an ideology.  If your goal is to improve the economy there is a pragmatic way to achieve it (actually many people have different opinions on the most pragmatic way to achieve that but let us set that aside for the moment).  If your goal is to degrade the economy there is a pragmatic way to achieve it (ditto what i wrote about improvement).  But why choose to improve or degrade the economy?  Just being pragmatic doesn't dictate the goal.

[aitm]

:-k

[MitchellDaBomb]

Well my mistake, I'm not entirely up to date on the ideology of economic growth, so i made an assumption about what you were trying to describe as "Pragmatarianism". But even so, humanity cannot be pragmatic with the monetary barrier we have setup. No one can be pragmatic inside the system (except for those who see through it and try to change it). It will continue to blind the advancement of the human collective. The equation is Survival = Resources. The one we have setup now is Survival = Money = Resources. So we have created an extra variable. Modern Economics is more like "Money Economics". To Economize is to make Economical use of. Which is "using no more of something than is necessary". Our current consumer based economy is the fastest waster of resources for pointless reasons. Instead of "Economizing" we are "De-economizing" so to speak. All for profit. Money only creates class conflict and a hierarchy of power. Have you watch the Zeitgeist Documentaries?

(We cant find efficient ways to goals when there is a power structure that is based off of wealth. All the goals are focused on the advancement of Monetary economy, because nowadays money is a given need)

[Xerographica]

Jason_Harvestdancer, on pragmatism...

The free market (or free enterprise) system has, as I have attempted to show, a strong philosophical foundation; it protects freedom by elevating the dignity of the individual to social prominence.  The system, however, also has a firm pragmatic foundation: it works.  It is really the only system that effectively and efficiently serves the desires and preferences of a diverse humanity. - Richard B. McKenzie

Philosophical pragmatism is an essential American development.  Its animating principle is that truth is social and constructed rather than transcendent and objective.  It holds that ideas prove their worth in action, and that the results of an idea are the best criteria by which to judge its merit.  And since what works for me might not work for you, pragmatism advocates a strenuous openness to all perspectives. - James Walsh

It requires a strenuous openness to all perspectives in order to strongly support allowing people you fundamentally disagree with to choose where their taxes go.

It's funny because every member of this forum will strongly support freedom of speech.  But how many members of this forum like tax choice on facebook ?  

"Well...people can say the wrong things...but heaven forbid they spend their money on the wrong things..."

We should support people's freedom to say the wrong things because maybe we are the ones who've got it wrong.  And it's the exact same thing with tax choice.  

Pragmatism is never certainty...it's the idea that there's always room for improvement.  What is fact today might be fiction tomorrow.  What is heresy today might be gospel tomorrow.  So we let people go their own way...even if we're willing to bet that it's the wrong way.

MitchellDaBomb, pragmatarianism would give you and everybody else the opportunity to boycott the Dept of Treasury.  Personally, whenever I hear about a system without currency I imagine having to organize a wife-swapping party every time we want to buy a blanket.

[Plu]

We already have tax choice. We could replace the current government with another that allows it. We choose not to, and we put our money where our mouth is by paying taxes without complaining.  :roll:

[GrinningYMIR]

Personally, I believe in a hybrid of the elite theory and hyperpluralism. (the elite class rules all, and there are hundreds of interest groups that each want their own share and it gunks up the system.)

Though I won't say what my specific beliefs are in detail, suffice it to say I'm against anarchists and Libertarians, and I don't like the ideas of millions of millions of people each attempting to mold the government, that leads to hyperpluralism which leads to an inept or defunct government, a failed state.

unfortunately, there must always be an elite class, because we need leaders and leaders end up forming these classes. In theory it would be fine, but human corruption invariably leads to rotten situations.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was just reacting to the name of the ideology, not saying it is right or wrong.