It's really fine if you want to predict that pragmatarianism would cause great social upheaval. But you really have to appreciate that this prediction of yours is a double edged sword. You're essentially arguing that there's a huge disparity between the current supply of public goods and the actual demand for public goods. If you can convince me that there's absolutely nothing wrong with this disparity that you're predicting exists... then you completely take the wind from my sails.

Unlike yourself, I'm not extremely confident that this disparity does indeed exist. For all I know the guesses of congresspeople, for whatever reasons, are extremely good. If they are extremely good then there wouldn't be any great social upheaval if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go. Public education and public healthcare and defense would all receive pretty much the same amount of funding that they are currently receiving. No harm no foul. There wouldn't be millions and millions of public employees trying to learn how to do whichever public jobs were in greater demand.

Based on my research though... I really wouldn't be surprised if your prediction was correct. So let's predict that you're truly omniscient! You correctly foresee great social upheaval that would be caused by the correction of the massive disparity between public demand and supply. Are you really going to argue that this correction isn't worth it?

Fortunately, we aren't without precedent here. It's 1977 and I'm Deng Xiaoping and you're my biggest opponent. I'm arguing that we should create a market in China and you're arguing that doing so would cause great social upheaval. Well.... it turns out that we were both correct. Millions and millions and millions and millions of people migrated from their farming villages to the cities in order to work in a multitude of new factories that were started thanks to a massive inflow of foreign investment. As a result, millions and millions and millions and millions of people were lifted out of poverty and China quickly caught up to the US. For the extended version of this story please see... builderism.

To put it somewhat less scholarly... imagine that the government is paying somebody to kick you in the balls. If you derive benefit from this person's productivity... then, if we transitioned to a pragmatarian system, you'd allocate your taxes accordingly. If you want to predict that this guy who's kicking you in the balls would lose his job if we implemented pragmatarianism... then... you're arguing that he's doing something that nobody in their right mind would pay him to do.

Command economies misallocate resources... that's just what they do. Our government, with its hordes of lobbyists who represent diverse interests, isn't a perfect command economy but, given that taxpayers can't choose where their taxes go, it's close enough for me to strongly suspect that significant amounts of society's limited resources are being misallocated.

If your prediction is correct that pragmatarianism would cause a massive correction to the allocation of society's limited resources... then for sure it's terrible that so many people would lose their jobs... and I should hope that taxpayers would help support the smoothest possible reallocation... but you're going to have to come up with a pretty good argument to convince me that we're better off allowing massive amounts of society's limited resources to be majorly misallocated.