NationStates

Not too long ago I read two books around the same time...

1. Exodus by Andreas Christensen
2. Biodiversity and Democracy by Paul M. Wood

The first is a sci-fi story that takes place in the near-distant future. A large chunk of a rouge planet is on a collision course with Earth so there's a clandestine effort to build a modern Noah's Ark. The second is a work of non-fiction that makes a robust case for the conservation of biodiversity. Here are a few key excerpts from the first book... (they might be spoilers so if you hate spoilers as much as I do and the book sounds vaguely interesting then...)


Here are a few key excerpts from the second book...


The moral of the first book is the importance of diversity. The moral of the second book is the importance of biodiversity.

I really enjoyed both books and highly recommend them. The first book is free and quite a bit of the second book is available online via google books. However, in my opinion, it's really worth it to buy it in order to read the parts that aren't available online. In fact, I'd be willing to subsidize your purchase! If you buy the book and forward your receipt to me... I'll paypal you $5 bucks. Well... for the first 10 people. The expectation is that you'd read the book and use this thread to share any thoughts or questions you have. Send me a telegram if you're interested.

Want some heavy hitting analysis? Ok. Here's a verse from the bible...

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? - Mark 8:36

I'm a xeroist but the economics of this verse are quite wonderful. Let's apply it to the two books...

For what shall it profit humanity, if it conserves all the biodiversity in the world, and loses its planet?

It's pretty basic economics that every dollar that's given to the EPA is a dollar that can't be given to NASA. There's always a trade-off (Buchanan's Rule). Making the conservation of biodiversity our number one priority and allocating society's limited resources accordingly puts far too many eggs in one basket. It's always dangerous to have too many eggs in too few baskets. This is why diversity, rather than biodiversity, should be our number one priority.

Do you agree that diversity should be our number one priority? If not, then what should our number one priority be? If so, then how can we make diversity our number one priority? How is it possible that Paul M. Wood believes that biodiversity is more important than diversity? Perhaps I should point out the logical flaw in his book...

He understands that biodiversity is a public good.

He understands that public goods are subject to the free-rider problem.

He understands that surveys are not effective at measuring the public's valuation of biodiversity (Tabarrok's Rule).

If neither people's actions (spending decisions) nor their words (surveys/voting) accurately reflect their valuation of biodiversity... then people's actual valuation of biodiversity is unknown. Despite the fact that people's valuation of biodiversity is unknown... Wood believes that economic efficiency is inadequate in terms of biodiversity.

Wood doesn't seem to understand that economic efficiency is a function of people's valuations. If he understood this then he wouldn't argue that economic efficiency fails for biodiversity. Because of this logical flaw, his conclusion is flawed.

If public goods were put on equal footing with private goods then, and only then, would people's spending decisions accurately reflect their valuation of biodiversity. If Wood still believed that biodiversity was underfunded then, and only then, could he argue that economic efficiency fails to adequately protect biodiversity.

See also: Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation - A Guide for Policy Makers (PDF)

Maintenance of the Golden Throne and Astronomicon should be our biggest priority.

Xerographica wrote:If public goods were put on equal footing with private goods then, and only then, would people's spending decisions accurately reflect their valuation of biodiversity.

If public goods were truly on "equal footing" with private goods, IE, running in a truly free market, there would be very little if any public goods.

The free rider problem always makes that somebody else's problem, and puts as a priori a preference for private goods.

It's related to the Bystander Effect. The more people there are available the help, the less likely it is anyone will. When you consider that under your system there are 7 billion people available to help, the chances of any significant margin actually helping are slim.

Xerographica wrote:If Wood still believed that biodiversity was underfunded then, and only then, could he argue that economic efficiency fails to adequately protect biodiversity.

Incidentally, given your mindset that funding is the absolute proof of preference no matter WHAT, and that preference is the max thing that matters, when there's nothing left by humans, corn, and wheat on the planet, you would state that clearly that's what people had a preference for and therefore it is perfect. We saw this when I pointed out the ludicrousness of putting flight controls at all passengers seats instead of just letting pilots fly and you went for it hook line and sinker, despite the obvious fact that this would lead to a crash on pretty much every flight.

Space colonisation should be our No.1 priority. Really, I mean it with utmost sincerity.

Our number one priority should be reducing inequality. Everything else will follow.

Braecland wrote:Space colonisation should be our No.1 priority. Really, I mean it with utmost sincerity.

^ This shit right here

The East Marches wrote:

Braecland wrote:Space colonisation should be our No.1 priority. Really, I mean it with utmost sincerity.

^ This shit right here

Fucking seconded.
We gotta get more shithole planets under our control before we put everything into biodiversity.

IMO education should be the top priority. With good education, people will be able to figure out all of the rest.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Our number one priority should be reducing inequality. Everything else will follow.

Not if the result is everyone being equally destitute. There'd be no resources for any improvements at all, and in fact, everything would fall to shit almost instantly.

Victorious Decepticons wrote:IMO education should be the top priority. With good education, people will be able to figure out all of the rest.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Our number one priority should be reducing inequality. Everything else will follow.

Not if the result is everyone being equally destitute. There'd be no resources for any improvements at all, and in fact, everything would fall to shit almost instantly.

I said reducing inequality, not total equality. The best model for an economy is a strong middle class and a supported working class, as well as effective social mobility. The upper classes are more a drain then an asset.

Save colonisation is number one.

We should be striving for that as much as opposing any enforced equality.

Donut section wrote:Save colonisation is number one.

We should be striving for that as much as opposing any enforced equality.

Without education, not enough people will be able to figure out how to get a space colony to work, so I'll stick with my vote. Successful colonization will require physicists (in many different sub-specialties), social scientists, biologists, psychologists, doctors, and more. Enlarging the pool of potential professionals will make the goal much easier to reach. As a bonus, better education could also reduce the amount of drag caused by politicians who would otherwise make scientifically-ignorant policies.

Victorious Decepticons wrote:

Donut section wrote:Save colonisation is number one.

We should be striving for that as much as opposing any enforced equality.

Without education, not enough people will be able to figure out how to get a space colony to work, so I'll stick with my vote. Successful colonization will require physicists (in many different sub-specialties), social scientists, biologists, psychologists, doctors, and more. Enlarging the pool of potential professionals will make the goal much easier to reach. As a bonus, better education could also reduce the amount of drag caused by politicians who would otherwise make scientifically-ignorant policies.

Then education is just a step in space colonisation.

Forget about space colonization, what we need is to pour all of our R&D into perfecting different methods of removing greenhouse gases from our atmosphere so do so to the most extent possible.

Xerographica wrote:The moral of the first book is the importance of diversity. The moral of the second book is the importance of biodiversity.

You're going to have to elaborate here, because I haven't read either of these books. Biodiversity is a clear term. When you use it, everyone knows you are referring to the diversity of life within a given ecosystem. Diversity, however, is more vague. What sort of diversity is being discussed? Diversity of species? Because that would fall under biodiversity. Diversity of living options (worlds) for us? All this talk of space colonisation is fanciful, but probably not realistic.

Xerographica wrote:If public goods were put on equal footing with private goods then, and only then, would people's spending decisions accurately reflect their valuation of biodiversity. If Wood still believed that biodiversity was underfunded then, and only then, could he argue that economic efficiency fails to adequately protect biodiversity.

See also: Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation - A Guide for Policy Makers (PDF)

Economic efficiency isn't useful for discussing the preservation of biodiversity. In many cases, preserving biodiversity harms economic efficiency, which is fine because economic efficiency is far too restrictive and static to work anyway.

Donut section wrote:

Victorious Decepticons wrote:Without education, not enough people will be able to figure out how to get a space colony to work, so I'll stick with my vote. Successful colonization will require physicists (in many different sub-specialties), social scientists, biologists, psychologists, doctors, and more. Enlarging the pool of potential professionals will make the goal much easier to reach. As a bonus, better education could also reduce the amount of drag caused by politicians who would otherwise make scientifically-ignorant policies.

Then education is just a step in space colonisation.

Then space colonization is just a step in protecting biodiversity.

Aggicificicerous wrote:

Xerographica wrote:The moral of the first book is the importance of diversity. The moral of the second book is the importance of biodiversity.

You're going to have to elaborate here, because I haven't read either of these books. Biodiversity is a clear term. When you use it, everyone knows you are referring to the diversity of life within a given ecosystem. Diversity, however, is more vague. What sort of diversity is being discussed? Diversity of species? Because that would fall under biodiversity. Diversity of living options (worlds) for us? All this talk of space colonisation is fanciful, but probably not realistic.

What are the chances that you and I go to the grocery store at the same exact time? Pretty slim. But if we did happen to go to the grocery store at the same exact time... what are the chances that we'd put all the same items in our grocery carts? Pretty slim. You and I are different people with different preferences and different circumstances. Our spending decisions reflect our differences. This falls under the category of diversity. Demand is diverse because humans are diverse. When demand is allowed to fully reflect human diversity, then humanity naturally hedges its bets. Progress is a function of difference.

Aggicificicerous wrote:

Xerographica wrote:If public goods were put on equal footing with private goods then, and only then, would people's spending decisions accurately reflect their valuation of biodiversity. If Wood still believed that biodiversity was underfunded then, and only then, could he argue that economic efficiency fails to adequately protect biodiversity.

See also: Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation - A Guide for Policy Makers (PDF)

Economic efficiency isn't useful for discussing the preservation of biodiversity. In many cases, preserving biodiversity harms economic efficiency, which is fine because economic efficiency is far too restrictive and static to work anyway.

Errr... I think we have different definitions of "economic efficiency". For me "economic efficiency" is synonymous with "allocative efficiency". Let's say that the government spent $500 billion on conserving biodiversity. Would this harm economic efficiency? The answer would be entirely dependent on society's valuation of biodiversity. The greater the disparity, the greater the economic inefficiency. The government spending $500 billion on biodiversity would be extremely economically inefficient if society's valuation of biodiversity was only $100 million.

Let me try and put it as accessibly as possible. A vegetarian orders a salad but the waiter serves her a steak. Clearly there's a disparity between her preferences (a salad) and the allocation (a steak). The allocation was economically inefficient. Or economic efficiency was harmed. Kinda like a non-sequitur. The conclusion (allocation = steak) did not follow from the premise (preference = vegetarianism).

Economics is all about benefit maximization. The smaller the disparity between allocation and preference, the larger the benefit. The larger the disparity between allocation and preference, the smaller the benefit.

It's good to live in a world where lots of shit really closely matches your preferences. But this can only happen when you, and everybody else, accurately communicate your preferences. Producers aren't mind-readers. Public goods are problematic because there's less incentive for people to accurately communicate their preferences.

Imagine me dancing on some crowded sidewalk. Do I dance soooo good or nooo good? Well... I think I dance awesome. So what would I say if none of the pedestrians gave me any money? I'd blame the free-rider problem. The solution? Everybody who passes by would have to spend $5 dollars on one of two options...

1. Me dancing
2. A sitting toad

What would I say if all the pedestrians allocated their money to the sitting toad? Well... I probably couldn't blame the free-rider problem anymore. So, I'd rationalize the outcome by saying that the toad was too awesome.

Let's add a third option...

1. Me dancing
2. A sitting toad
3. Solving killer bee problem

Let's pretend that the killer bees were super far away. How many people allocate their money to solving a problem that's on the other side of the planet? Maybe a few people? After all, humans are diverse. Let's pretend that the killer bees get closer and closer. As they do so we can guess that more and more people would allocate their money to solving the killer bee problem. If the killer bees were on the same street we can guess that nearly everybody would allocate their money to solving the killer bee problem. Then I wouldn't mind it that nobody allocated any money to me dancing.

United Marxist Nations wrote:Maintenance of the Golden Throne and Astronomicon should be our biggest priority.

A black crusade or two will solve your throne problem real quick.

Galloism wrote:It's related to the Bystander Effect. The more people there are available the help, the less likely it is anyone will. When you consider that under your system there are 7 billion people available to help, the chances of any significant margin actually helping are slim.

This ignores the size and extent of voluntary assistance which already occurs. Lots of people voluntarily donated to Haiti when they had an earthquake. This occurred with public goods and private goods being on unequal footing. If public goods had been on equal footing then we can reasonably guess that more money would have been donated. To guess otherwise is to assume that the free-rider problem isn't a real problem.

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:If Wood still believed that biodiversity was underfunded then, and only then, could he argue that economic efficiency fails to adequately protect biodiversity.

Incidentally, given your mindset that funding is the absolute proof of preference no matter WHAT, and that preference is the max thing that matters, when there's nothing left by humans, corn, and wheat on the planet, you would state that clearly that's what people had a preference for and therefore it is perfect. We saw this when I pointed out the ludicrousness of putting flight controls at all passengers seats instead of just letting pilots fly and you went for it hook line and sinker, despite the obvious fact that this would lead to a crash on pretty much every flight.

Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. Soooooo many sighs. A big bucket of sighs. Dumped over your head. Rinse and repeat.

Would Titanic have hit the iceberg if every passenger had been able to spend their money in order to influence the ship's direction? What about 9/11?

How many times have you accidentally got on the wrong bus or subway or train? Ideally, "exit" should be extremely easy. Ideally all the Jews in Germany should have been able to hit a button that would have instantly transported their family, house, job and all their belongings to wherever they wanted in the world. IDEALLY. Clearly you're not going to argue that it should have been HARDER for Jews to have exited from Germany.

My cousin actually died in a plane crash. And I think that there were probably at least a few horrible moments when he really wished that he was anywhere else. And IDEALLY there would have been a button that he could have pushed that would have instantly transported him anywhere else.

You detest the idea of people being able to push a button that instantly allows them to "exit" their tax dollars from any government organization. You think that a more modular system would be horrible and disastrous. You seem to think that monolithic systems are wonderful. As if a bunch of sane people are going to all want to quickly exit from an organization that is headed in a heavenly direction. As if a bunch of sane people are going to all want to quickly exit from a spaceship that is headed to a heavenly planet. As if sane people make insane choices yet democracy is so heavenly.

Xerographica wrote:

Donut section wrote:Then education is just a step in space colonisation.

Then space colonization is just a step in protecting biodiversity.

Not necessarily. Artificially created and maintained habitats could very easily be superior to, and in my opinion preferable to, bio diversity.

Man the the topic you come up with never cease to be entertaining.

Also; were you shadowbanned on reddit? I followed your links and I'm pretty sure you're that guy that tried to make his own words.

Vubaria wrote:Man the the topic you come up with never cease to be entertaining.

Vubaria wrote:Also; were you shadowbanned on reddit? I followed your links and I'm pretty sure you're that guy that tried to make his own words.

Yeah, totally shadowbanned on reddit. Indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Forever banned from several forums. Really banned from Bleeding Heart Libertarian website. I think my first ban was from Deviant Art. Turns out that we had different definitions of "deviant".

I've had plenty of my threads locked on this forum. But I don't think that I've ever been banned. Have I? *knocks on wood* For some reason it feels like I've had a lot less threads locked. Maybe my threads have "improved"? Or the mods have become more lenient? Or less members report my threads? I don't link to my blog as much anymore. Well, at least not in the OP.

I should probably be nominated for most banned individual. I'd be a little surprised if I didn't win. Eh. I'm pretty sure that I would have been executed by now if I had lived in olden times. Then again, Socrates lived to a pretty old age before they "banned" him.

Xerographica wrote:

Galloism wrote:It's related to the Bystander Effect. The more people there are available the help, the less likely it is anyone will. When you consider that under your system there are 7 billion people available to help, the chances of any significant margin actually helping are slim.

This ignores the size and extent of voluntary assistance which already occurs. Lots of people voluntarily donated to Haiti when they had an earthquake. This occurred with public goods and private goods being on unequal footing. If public goods had been on equal footing then we can reasonably guess that more money would have been donated. To guess otherwise is to assume that the free-rider problem isn't a real problem.

Actually no, the free rider problem is a real problem. That's why a full private solution for public goods will leave them underfunded - including disaster relief.

Galloism wrote:
Incidentally, given your mindset that funding is the absolute proof of preference no matter WHAT, and that preference is the max thing that matters, when there's nothing left by humans, corn, and wheat on the planet, you would state that clearly that's what people had a preference for and therefore it is perfect. We saw this when I pointed out the ludicrousness of putting flight controls at all passengers seats instead of just letting pilots fly and you went for it hook line and sinker, despite the obvious fact that this would lead to a crash on pretty much every flight.

Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. Soooooo many sighs. A big bucket of sighs. Dumped over your head. Rinse and repeat.

Would Titanic have hit the iceberg if every passenger had been able to spend their money in order to influence the ship's direction?

In the sense that they probably would have crashed before they even made it out to sea, no.

What about 9/11?

In the sense that air travel would have been absolutely abandoned as a form of travel because of the extremely high death rate, no. Then again, that's probably worse than 9/11.

How many times have you accidentally got on the wrong bus or subway or train?

Not once.

My cousin actually died in a plane crash. And I think that there were probably at least a few horrible moments when he really wished that he was anywhere else. And IDEALLY there would have been a button that he could have pushed that would have instantly transported him anywhere else.

Teleportation technology doesn't exist. Yet.

You detest the idea of people being able to push a button that instantly allows them to "exit" their tax dollars from any government organization.

There's no feasible exit no matter how you fund things, because we're talking about public goods.

You think that a more modular system would be horrible and disastrous.

We've given you approximately 100 logical problems showing that if people are logical, your system will fail. You have yet to rebut EVEN A SINGLE ONE OF THESE LOGICAL PROBLEMS.

If your idea can't even work within a logical theoretical framework, you shouldn't break the world trying to implement it.

You seem to think that monolithic systems are wonderful. As if a bunch of sane people are going to all want to quickly exit from an organization that is headed in a heavenly direction. As if a bunch of sane people are going to all want to quickly exit from a spaceship that is headed to a heavenly planet. As if sane people make insane choices yet democracy is so heavenly.

Here's the problem:

Unless people make personally 'insane' choices, your system will fail. Your system ONLY works, in theory, if people are irrational. If people are irrational, why would we give them such power? If people are rational, the system will break. Why would you want the system to break?

If the only way rational people can make the system not break is for them not to use it, why have it at all?

Xerographica wrote:

Vubaria wrote:Man the the topic you come up with never cease to be entertaining.

Vubaria wrote:Also; were you shadowbanned on reddit? I followed your links and I'm pretty sure you're that guy that tried to make his own words.

Yeah, totally shadowbanned on reddit. Indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Forever banned from several forums. Really banned from Bleeding Heart Libertarian website. I think my first ban was from Deviant Art. Turns out that we had different definitions of "deviant".

I've had plenty of my threads locked on this forum. But I don't think that I've ever been banned. Have I? *knocks on wood* For some reason it feels like I've had a lot less threads locked. Maybe my threads have "improved"? Or the mods have become more lenient? Or less members report my threads? I don't link to my blog as much anymore. Well, at least not in the OP.

I should probably be nominated for most banned individual. I'd be a little surprised if I didn't win. Eh. I'm pretty sure that I would have been executed by now if I had lived in olden times. Then again, Socrates lived to a pretty old age before they "banned" him.

This explains lots.

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:

The East Marches wrote:
^ This shit right here

Fucking seconded.
We gotta get more shithole planets under our control before we put everything into biodiversity.

That... Makes no sense. We've only explored 99% of our oceans. Not only do we know less about our own ocean than we do about space, we still have problems such as biodiversity preservation. Plus, terraforming is inconceivable for a single nation to do, even if it'sthe United States. Plus, we aren't sure things will even work, or how long it'll take. Wait a few decades, maybe. Just be patient.

Donut section wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Then space colonization is just a step in protecting biodiversity.

Not necessarily. Artificially created and maintained habitats could very easily be superior to, and in my opinion preferable to, bio diversity.

LOL. Heh. I mean, it's pretty much the biological imperative of every living organism to colonize space. Orchids are my favorite plants. They have the smallest seeds in the world. Their seeds are like dust. Even the slightest breeze can transport their seeds a gazillion miles away. Orchids are the poster plants of not putting all their seeds in one basket.

And there you are! Standing in front of today's Noah's Ark! Only allowing one single species to colonize outer space... Homo sapiens. Dang, can you imagine every single other organism on the planet resenting you so much? How could you possibly sleep at night? Wouldn't you be crushed by the weight of all that resentment? Maybe you have a window? I wouldn't recommend looking outside. There would probably be lots of different organisms glaring at you. You would be the boogie man villain in ALL their stories.

When I was a kid I generally preferred the fatter swiss army knives. And I doubt that I ever used most of the tools. But I think that I was pretty good at imagining myself in a wide variety of situations when one of the most esoteric tools would have made the difference between life and death.

I kinda have the same mentality with biodiversity. But on a much bigger huger scale. Can you imagine an alien civilization that's far more advanced than us? Maybe, hopefully, they preferred the fatter swiss army knives as well?

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:This ignores the size and extent of voluntary assistance which already occurs. Lots of people voluntarily donated to Haiti when they had an earthquake. This occurred with public goods and private goods being on unequal footing. If public goods had been on equal footing then we can reasonably guess that more money would have been donated. To guess otherwise is to assume that the free-rider problem isn't a real problem.

Actually no, the free rider problem is a real problem. That's why a full private solution for public goods will leave them underfunded - including disaster relief.

Right, and I'm not arguing for a full private solution for public goods. I'm arguing for a full public market solution for public goods.

Galloism wrote:In the sense that they probably would have crashed before they even made it out to sea, no.

Galloism wrote:In the sense that air travel would have been absolutely abandoned as a form of travel because of the extremely high death rate, no. Then again, that's probably worse than 9/11.

What's your assumption here? Are you assuming that people would pay more to crash than to not crash? To crash or not to crash... that is the question? Are you trying to outdo yourself in terms of ludicrousness?

Galloism wrote:

How many times have you accidentally got on the wrong bus or subway or train?

Not once.

You've never been 16 and drunk in Rio trying to make your way back after carnival? You've never been 17 and drunk in Valencia trying to make your way back from Las Fallas? I've been drunk and lost in countless places. My friend was always Ferdinand Magellan.

Galloism wrote:There's no feasible exit no matter how you fund things, because we're talking about public goods.

Galloism wrote:Here's the problem:

Unless people make personally 'insane' choices, your system will fail. Your system ONLY works, in theory, if people are irrational. If people are irrational, why would we give them such power? If people are rational, the system will break. Why would you want the system to break?

If the only way rational people can make the system not break is for them not to use it, why have it at all?

Eh what?

Let's say that Bob is an American citizen who pays around $20,000 in income taxes and really cares about space colonization. Let's also pretend that Canada spends a larger percentage of their budget on space colonization.

Bob: I want to give all my taxes to NASA!
Galloism: No way you irrational bastard!
Bob: Why not?
Galloism: Because you're an irrational bastard!
Bob: Well... then I'll move to Canada!
Galloism: Oh, that's cool.
Bob: Really?
Galloism: Sure, our government is better off without your lousy $20,000 dollars in taxes!

If the US government is better off without Bob's $20,000 in taxes... then it must be better off without everybody's taxes. Clearly the government can't be that great without any taxes. So I'm pretty sure that the US government would be worse off without Bob's $20,000 in taxes.

As far as I know you don't oppose Bob moving his taxes between countries.... but you vehemently oppose Bob moving his taxes within countries. Cuzz you love monolithic long time.

From my perspective... if Bob loves space exploration so much then he should have the freedom to allocate all his taxes to NASA. If Bob isn't happy with how much funding NASA receives... then he should have the freedom to move to whichever country spends the most money on space colonization. Clearly you support Bob's freedom to move ALL his taxes to whichever country spends the most money on space colonization. And clearly you oppose Bob's freedom to move ALL his taxes to NASA.

It would be a huge violation of some fundamental freedom to prevent Bob from moving ALL his taxes to another country. But it's not even a small violation of a small freedom to prevent Bob from moving ALL his taxes to NASA.

Is there any sort of benefit associated with Bob having the freedom to move ALL his taxes to another country? Well... we figure that countries must have some sort of incentive or effort to compete for taxpayers. Brain gain helps a country. Brain drain hurts a country. Competition for taxpayers has to be a good thing. Keeps a country on its toes.

It would be strange to argue that there's absolutely no benefit associated with people's freedom to move to another country. Well... it would sure be scary if most people perceived absolutely no benefit associated with people's freedom to move. Then this freedom would be on very shaky ground. Why grant people the freedom to move if this freedom provides absolutely no benefit?

While I certainly appreciate people's freedom to move to other countries.... in terms of communicating preferences... it's an extremely blunt object. If Bob moves to Canada because it spends a higher percentage of its taxes on space colonization... then Bob isn't going to tell the US or Canadian governments that this is the reason he's moving to Canada. For all they know Bob is moving to Canada because he loves Terrance and Phillip. As far as communicating preferences goes.... moving your residence is an extremely blunt object. When you move you don't just deselect the bad.... you also deselect the good. You're forced to throw the baby out with the bath water. Should people have the freedom to throw the baby out with the bath water? Of course. Should they have the freedom to only throw out the bath water? Well yeah. If people should have the freedom to throw out the bad AND good... then why can't they have the freedom to only throw out the bad?