Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?

You think it's a diversion? Seriously? It's entirely relevant but you'll never see the relevance because clearly you have no idea what the proper scope of government is. In other words, you have no idea what the government should do...just like you have no idea whether children should vote.

 

Sure I do. You're being sour and presumptuous. I would be too if I made
such idiotic statements as you have ITT.

 

What should the government do?

 

Not prohibit theists from voting.

 

That's it? Shouldn't the government also prohibit children from voting?

 

Of course that's not it, but why bring in other issues like taxes and government agencies when you already don't agree that theists should vote? That should be discussed first.

The government should not let children vote, IMO.

 

I never said that theists shouldn't vote. I've argued that even children should be allowed to vote...so why would I want to disenfranchise theists? The OP was a request for arguments against disenfranchising theists.

Now answer the question about the proper scope of government...or just admit that you're clueless.

 

Explain the intent of your OP because it didn't seem that clear to most people who responded ITT.

The 'scope' of government is to enforce the Constitution that this nation is bound while representing constituents within this framework of a constitutional republic. In other words the scope of government should be limited.

 

It was to see if anybody could provide any good arguments against disenfranchising atheists or theists.

If the scope of government should be limited...then it should be easy for you to list the main functions of government.

 

So some economist writes a paper that you disagree with, how does that possibly prove that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient? Show me some studies where the majority of voters believe that congresspeople are omniscient and I'll start listening.

Just an FYI, but you would probably get more converts to your cause if you cut back on the snarky comments. Your first line of full of assumptions. First you assume I vote, then you assume I am ignorant of public finance, this is the Internet, you cannot be sure of either. If I was to make assumptions, I could assume you are some 16-17 year old kid who just started a political science class and is upset because he couldn't vote on the last election. But I wouldn't do that because I don't believe in making assumptions.

I'm interested to know what alternative uses of your time you are sacrificing in sharing this "relevant information". Are you curing cancer, developing FTL space travel, writing the next "Great American Novel", playing HALO, or just indulging in some ? I mean I can't assume anything here.

Ok, I done with the snarky comments myself, so let's get down to the brass tacks. What are you really trying to say? Are you arguing for the right for children to vote, do you want to take away voting on certain segments of the population or have I totally missed the point here?

 

The majority of voters do not believe that congresspeople are omniscient...therefore our current system is not based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient? What voters believe trumps what Richard Musgrave knows? Who was Richard Musgrave anyways? Just some random voter? Because everybody is equally informed?

My question was pretty straightforward. Here it is again. How many passages do I have to share with you before you agree that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient? Just give me a number. I have a database with thousands of passages on public finance. If you ask for an unreasonable number then I'll ascertain that you're not genuinely interested in being more informed than the average voter.

Regarding snark...yeah...if you can't overlook any "style" issues and focus on the substance...then it's doubtful that we can really make much progress anyways.

 

I asked you a direct question. And I did it for a reason---to make sure I was understanding you. And you avoided it.

Again, I ask:

Are you making an argument for an Authoritarian, totaltarian or dictator like government?

 

None of the above. The point of the OP was to see if anybody could provide any good arguments against disenfranchising atheists or theists.

Now you answer my question. Is our current system based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient?

 

No. Our current system is not based on the assumption that congresspeople are ominiscient.

 

Wrong, it's actually true. The Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson provided the definitive economic justification for government...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. It's been cited over 5,000 times. His argument basically boils down to the free-rider problem. It's a really reasonable argument. Of course it's true that we all want the most bang for our buck. Everybody wants something for nothing. Everybody wants a free lunch. The problem is though that Samuelson "conveniently" assumes that government planners are omniscient. I'm really not making this up...

The question is...how many passages do I have to share with you before you agree that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient?

 

Yeah, but the real question is do voters truly understand Musgrave's Three-Function Framework and how it will narrow the scope of inquiry into tax assignment? Yeah, I can pull stuff off of Wikipedia too.

As for how many passages you have to share before I agree that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient? The number is either one or infinite. It is one if there is actually a passage that shows this or it is infinite if there isn't.

 

The two passages that I shared by Musgrave already proved that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. But clearly you believed that they were insufficient. Which is kinda reasonable. Or maybe you just didn't understand them. Which is also reasonable. If you didn't understand them...if you're not going to admit when you don't understand something...then the hope will be to share a passage that you do understand.

One thing that might be helpful to know is that "preference" is the same thing as "demand". So the preference revelation problem is the same thing as the demand revelation problem. The optimal/best provision of public goods depends on knowing the demand for public goods. As I said, Samuelson's argument is reasonable in the sense that, if taxes were voluntary, then people would have an incentive to "lie" about how much benefit they derive from public goods. Doing so would reduce their tax burden...how much they had to "chip in". The result would be the under provision of public goods. So it's reasonable to force people to pay taxes...but it's unreasonable to take people's choices away from them and just assume their preferences away.

Do you need another passage?

 

Are you sure you know the definition of omniscient? Where in that passage does it mention or even infer that our system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient? And, please don't just copy another passage, I would like to hear it in your own words what you THINK not what you can regurgitate.

 

Sounds like your part of the so-called "destructionalist" movement that is growing.

 

Here it is in the passage...

Why does Samuelson's approach ignore the preference revelation problem? Why does Samuelson's approach ignore the problem of determining how much you value national defense? Because his approach assumes that congresspeople know exactly how much you value national defense. But the only way that's possible is if congresspeople are omniscient.

If congresspeople can know how much you value national defense...then surely they can know how much you value milk. And if their "divination" of your values are equal...or even superior...to your own...then surely you would want them to determine the optimal levels of private goods as well as public goods.

Let's take Syria for example. We can turn on the news and watch town hall meeting after town hall meeting with constituents sharing their opinions with their representatives. Clearly neither side believes that representatives are omniscient...or else they wouldn't show up. But opinions aren't values. There's a huge and immensely significant difference between people A. voting...filling out surveys...stating their preferences...and B. people putting their money where their mouths are.

When resources are allocated according to opinions...given that one use of a resource precludes all other uses...it's a certainty that resources will be taken away from more valuable uses. So the solution is simply to create a market in the public sector and allow taxpayers to shop for themselves. This would give them the freedom to evaluate the alternative uses of their tax dollars (opportunity cost). In terms of Syria, the amount of money that the DoD gains/loses...would reflect exactly how much the American public values an attack on Syria...relative to the other possible uses of their money.

 

Thank you so much, that was very insightful and now I understand what you mean. Still don't agree with you, but at least a see now where you are coming from and what your concerns really are.

 

Huh...interesting to see the OP derail his own thread out of sheer ignorance.

 

Sheer ignorance? Of what?

 

Atheism seems to be the latest 'stupid man's go-to' as a way to appear intelligent.

Thankfully the militant atheist fad'll be dead within a decade or two- even the rational atheist websites have condemned it as a bunk fad for angry teens- or adults who never 'evolved' past that level.

- - - Updated - - -

Of common sense, basic psychology, basic definitions, etc

 

I take it that you can't be more specific.