If we implemented pragmatarianism, my best guess is that we’d end up at pragma-socialism. With pragmatarianism congress would still be in charge of the tax rate but taxpayers would be in charge of funding congress. If taxpayers wanted to spend more money in the public sector, then congress would receive more funding if it increased the tax rate.

I think that taxpayers would want to spend more money in the public sector. This is because they would more accurately express their preferences. So producers in the public sector would do a better job of serving consumers’ needs than producers in the private sector. The tax rate would increase and I don’t see a logical stopping point.

Eventually the tax rate would be 100% and we’d be in a pragma-socialist system. Everything would be free. People would have the incentive to work because they’d still need money if they wanted to improve the supply.

Would there be a Dept of Dentistry? Perhaps. Maybe it’s easiest to imagine a mid-size town with three dentists. If the dentists don’t receive enough tax dollars… then the residents risk losing them to other towns that allocate more taxes to their dentists. However, the residents won’t have an incentive to spend less than their true valuations on the dentists. This is simply because money could no longer be used to only benefit one person. It would no longer be possible for anybody to buy anything. Nothing would be for sale. Money could only be used to empower the people who were most relevantly using society’s limited resources.

Money would accurately express love. People and other resources would flow to where they were most loved.

Anyways, like I said, I’m merely guessing that pragmatarianism will take us to pragma-socialism. The efficient allocation of resources depends on accurate information, which prices fail to transmit. But I could be wrong. If am, then the public sector will decrease in size.