Talk:Bundling (public choice)

69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of relevant content

Rubin removed this passage...

The freedom of choice concept is closely related to the benefit principle of taxation: those who pay for a specific government service should be the ones who receive the benefit of that service. The principle is the free market analogue within the political process, which is otherwise characterized by general fund financing. Examples of earmarked taxes are those for highways, airports, public transit, and, of course education. Archtypical cases are business licences and local improvements. Buchanan illustrated the efficiency of earmarked taxes by contrasting them to the tie-in sale which is the market parallel to general funds and therefore less efficient. However, except for the fact that school taxes are earmarked, they remain a general set of revenues directed toward a diverse set of services and locations. The taxpayer preferences are exercised through an inefficient mechanism, and taxpayers as consumers are growing increasingly critical of the service provided as shown by recent polls. A 1978 Gallup survey indicated that the rating for the public schools slipped from "B" to "C" during the period 1974 to 1978. - Daniel J. Brown, The Case For Tax-Target Plans

...and these items from the "See also" section...

...and this source from the "Further reading" section...

Buchanan, James M. – The Economics of Earmarked Taxes 1963

Does anybody else fail to see the relevance of this material? --Xerographica (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are relevant to a different concept called "bundling" in public choice, but it's not the one discussed in the lead. If you want to repurpose the article to discuss bundling in legislation or spin-off product bundling in government, I would have no objection, and then the sections would be relevant, although the "passage" would probably be a excessive quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, is your positive contribution to this article? I searched for, found, thoroughly read over and added specifically relevant material to this article. But rather than help further develop the article, you simply removed the material and are now telling me what I must do in order to improve the article. If you're not willing to strain your brain in order to paraphrase long quotes, if you're not willing to make the effort to repurpose this article... if you're not willing to sacrifice alternative uses of your time in order to actually read the reliable sources...in other words...if you're not willing to WP:DIY...then please refrain from making negative contributions. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to refuse to understand the purpose and machinations of Wikipedia, please refrain from making any contributions. Your battleground mentality has outgrown its welcome (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of Wikipedia to follow other editors around and undo their edits? --Xerographica (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the edits reverted are inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if I followed you around deleting all the content that you contribute...oh wait...never mind. --Xerographica (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of clearly irrelevant information is positive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing might be controversial; I said I would have no objection, but I think an article about the concept described in the lead would be a perfectly good article, although probably under a different name. I'd have to see the article about the concept you want to write about to see whether it might be appropriate, or combined with some other article.

As for DI(M); there's a difference between thinking the article would be appropriate in Wikipedia and that it would be good for Wikipedia. I'm convinced that the first is possible, but not the second. I have no objection to inherently bad articles being written about encyclopedic concepts, but I do object to violations of the Pillars when writing articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]