Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful response. I appreciate your thinking on these topics.

You’ve helped me realize that my post was less cohesive than I thought; I think you’ve largely reacted to something I was mistakenly implying tangential to my main point.

But the issues you raised are really interesting nonetheless. I’ll dig in briefly before trying to clarify my main argument.

I have read The Wealth of Nations (it was a slog but laid bare the countless ways of a rational actor), and I believe I share your views on the value of markets to cause people to demonstrate their true desires. I think we may differ some on our opinions about the severability of markets from the governments that enable them (by the rule of law, regulations, and social policies) but I don’t think those differences preclude our general agreement.

Like you, I believe governments should have some market mechanisms within them. However I think our views differ further as to how, and this difference may help illuminate the larger point of my original post.

Pragmatarianism, as you describe it, is one way of using the benefits of markets to shape public policy. But relying on departments (such as the EPA in your example) to adequately inform the public, and then relying on the public to magnanimously make decisions about somewhat abstract, long-term issues, seems impossible. As you mention about the free-rider problem with public goods, people are always pulled toward self-interest, and *short-term* self interest at that. I don’t see any way such a full degree of direct public control could lead to anything planful, let alone thriving.

But there is more than one way to bring the power of markets to bear on government. One such way I pushed for as a local legislator: participatory budgeting (PB). PB essentially takes a portion of a polity budget, (at a proportion roughly equivalent to what is ordinarily allotted to neighborhood or district programs), lets the public purpose uses for it, uses domain-experts to help refine those proposals, then allows the public to vote funds to those proposals.

The results from communities that have tried it have been encouraging. Conceptually, it brings together many of the best parts of capitalism, direct democracy, meritocracy, and republicanism.

And that’s the same general thrust behind my original post that I don’t think came through sufficiently. I believe we need to redesign government to take better advantage of capitalist forces; to allow for more forms of direct democracy; to enable more meritocratic institutions; and make better use of political representatives.

As you pointed out I talked too much about the need for communication between the public and government, what I should have talked more directly about was the need for the public to be a direct part of government.

I see the outline of processes and structures that could constitute a form of government unmatched in its responsiveness, its reliance on experts, its focus, and long-term vision. I know I’m not alone in seeing this potential, but I’m having trouble finding people devoted to exploring such a vision.