4th Grade Nation State

[Camicon]

It doesn't in the slightest, that's a completely different terrible idea.

This isn't an experiment. It's fucking Calvinball!

Pish-posh. Calvinball is fun and entertaining; Xero's nonsense is aggravating and pointless.

[The Two Jerseys]

This isn't an experiment. It's fucking Calvinball!

Pish-posh. Calvinball is fun and entertaining; Xero's nonsense is aggravating and pointless.

And Calvinball at least admits that the rules are made up on the fly...

[Camicon]

Pish-posh. Calvinball is fun and entertaining; Xero's nonsense is aggravating and pointless.

And Calvinball at least admits that the rules are made up on the fly...

Which significantly changes the meaning behind doing so. Making up rules in Calvinball is a demonstration of your creativity and lateral thinking; Xero making up random scenarios is a demonstration of his inability to answer questions or defend his position.

[Xerographica]

And Calvinball at least admits that the rules are made up on the fly...

Which significantly changes the meaning behind doing so. Making up rules in Calvinball is a demonstration of your creativity and lateral thinking; Xero making up random scenarios is a demonstration of his inability to answer questions or defend his position.

I've actually answered numerous questions and have vigorously defended my position.

For fun I clicked on your quotes and I saw the quote by metric. It reminded me that we had debated quite a bit in the thread on xeroism. For some reason we haven't debated nearly as much in this thread.

I remember that I had planned on asking you what you thought of this video. The first time I watched the video I almost stopped watching it because the quality was crap. But I kept watching it and now I love it so much. I love everything about that video.

Honestly though, I've never spent any money on that video. Either I don't truly love it, or I'm a free-rider...

allocation < valuation

What if Youtube implemented the pragmatarian model? Then I'd pay $1/month but I could choose which videos I spent my pennies on. I'm pretty sure that I'd spend quite a few pennies on that video.

Right now I have an incentive to hide my love away. With the pragmatarian model, the incentive to hide my love would go right out the window. And what happens when we stop hiding our love? Then producers would know what we love. They would allocate their time/talent accordingly. The result would be more things to love.

Now, for sure you probably disagree. So let's approach this differently. Let's say that theft was legal. It should be pretty intuitive that if everybody could steal everything then nobody would have any incentive to produce anything. This means that what really matters is the incentive to produce. So by hiding our love away, we diminish the incentive for people to produce the things we love.

What do you think? Should we hide our love away?

[The Two Jerseys]

Which significantly changes the meaning behind doing so. Making up rules in Calvinball is a demonstration of your creativity and lateral thinking; Xero making up random scenarios is a demonstration of his inability to answer questions or defend his position.

I've actually answered numerous questions and have vigorously defended my position.

For fun I clicked on your quotes and I saw the quote by metric. It reminded me that we had debated quite a bit in the thread on xeroism. For some reason we haven't debated nearly as much in this thread.

I remember that I had planned on asking you what you thought of this video. The first time I watched the video I almost stopped watching it because the quality was crap. But I kept watching it and now I love it so much. I love everything about that video.

Honestly though, I've never spent any money on that video. Either I don't truly love it, or I'm a free-rider...

allocation < valuation

What if Youtube implemented the pragmatarian model? Then I'd pay $1/month but I could choose which videos I spent my pennies on. I'm pretty sure that I'd spend quite a few pennies on that video.

Right now I have an incentive to hide my love away. With the pragmatarian model, the incentive to hide my love would go right out the window. And what happens when we stop hiding our love? Then producers would know what we love. They would allocate their time/talent accordingly. The result would be more things to love.

Now, for sure you probably disagree. So let's approach this differently. Let's say that theft was legal. It should be pretty intuitive that if everybody could steal everything then nobody would have any incentive to produce anything. This means that what really matters is the incentive to produce. So by hiding our love away, we diminish the incentive for people to produce the things we love.

What do you think? Should we hide our love away?

YouTube isn't the public sector. The comparison is irrelevant.

[Xerographica]

I've actually answered numerous questions and have vigorously defended my position.

For fun I clicked on your quotes and I saw the quote by metric. It reminded me that we had debated quite a bit in the thread on xeroism. For some reason we haven't debated nearly as much in this thread.

I remember that I had planned on asking you what you thought of this video. The first time I watched the video I almost stopped watching it because the quality was crap. But I kept watching it and now I love it so much. I love everything about that video.

Honestly though, I've never spent any money on that video. Either I don't truly love it, or I'm a free-rider...

allocation < valuation

What if Youtube implemented the pragmatarian model? Then I'd pay $1/month but I could choose which videos I spent my pennies on. I'm pretty sure that I'd spend quite a few pennies on that video.

Right now I have an incentive to hide my love away. With the pragmatarian model, the incentive to hide my love would go right out the window. And what happens when we stop hiding our love? Then producers would know what we love. They would allocate their time/talent accordingly. The result would be more things to love.

Now, for sure you probably disagree. So let's approach this differently. Let's say that theft was legal. It should be pretty intuitive that if everybody could steal everything then nobody would have any incentive to produce anything. This means that what really matters is the incentive to produce. So by hiding our love away, we diminish the incentive for people to produce the things we love.

What do you think? Should we hide our love away?

YouTube isn't the public sector. The comparison is irrelevant.

This issue is always...

allocation < valuation
allocation > valuation
allocation = valuation

Producers aren't mind readers. This is true no matter what sector we're talking about.

[Galloism]

I've actually answered numerous questions and have vigorously defended my position.

For fun I clicked on your quotes and I saw the quote by metric. It reminded me that we had debated quite a bit in the thread on xeroism. For some reason we haven't debated nearly as much in this thread.

I remember that I had planned on asking you what you thought of this video. The first time I watched the video I almost stopped watching it because the quality was crap. But I kept watching it and now I love it so much. I love everything about that video.

Honestly though, I've never spent any money on that video. Either I don't truly love it, or I'm a free-rider...

allocation < valuation

What if Youtube implemented the pragmatarian model? Then I'd pay $1/month but I could choose which videos I spent my pennies on. I'm pretty sure that I'd spend quite a few pennies on that video.

Right now I have an incentive to hide my love away. With the pragmatarian model, the incentive to hide my love would go right out the window. And what happens when we stop hiding our love? Then producers would know what we love. They would allocate their time/talent accordingly. The result would be more things to love.

Now, for sure you probably disagree. So let's approach this differently. Let's say that theft was legal. It should be pretty intuitive that if everybody could steal everything then nobody would have any incentive to produce anything. This means that what really matters is the incentive to produce. So by hiding our love away, we diminish the incentive for people to produce the things we love.

What do you think? Should we hide our love away?

YouTube isn't the public sector. The comparison is irrelevant.

Youtube is a club good. The fact that they don't restrict access is irrelevant to the nature of the good, because they could.

Kind of like if you're the YMCA and you have a big swimming pool for your members. The fact that you open up that swimming pool to the public doesn't change the nature of the good as a club good.

[Xerographica]

YouTube isn't the public sector. The comparison is irrelevant.

Youtube is a club good. The fact that they don't restrict access is irrelevant to the nature of the good, because they could.

Kind of like if you're the YMCA and you have a big swimming pool for your members. The fact that you open up that swimming pool to the public doesn't change the nature of the good as a club good.

It doesn't matter what type of good it is, the issue is that hiding our love decreases the incentive for people to produce the things that we love.

[Salandriagado]

Youtube is a club good. The fact that they don't restrict access is irrelevant to the nature of the good, because they could.

Kind of like if you're the YMCA and you have a big swimming pool for your members. The fact that you open up that swimming pool to the public doesn't change the nature of the good as a club good.

It doesn't matter what type of good it is, the issue is that hiding our love decreases the incentive for people to produce the things that we love.

No, it doesn't. Those people have the option to let you give them money. Some of them do. The rest presumably don't want you to.

[Galloism]

Youtube is a club good. The fact that they don't restrict access is irrelevant to the nature of the good, because they could.

Kind of like if you're the YMCA and you have a big swimming pool for your members. The fact that you open up that swimming pool to the public doesn't change the nature of the good as a club good.

It doesn't matter what type of good it is, the issue is that hiding our love decreases the incentive for people to produce the things that we love.

Love doesn't have anything to do with it.

What has to do with it is whether or not people will pay for it. Public goods suffer a severe underprovisioning problem compared with actual demand - the broader the benefit on a public good, the more it suffers the problem. People may value something like defense or police protection highly, but few will actually pay for it, because as long as the other guy pays for it, I get the benefit - whether I pay for it or not.

This is why we pay for it via a not ideal method - compulsory taxation. If we didn't, there would be no military to speak of, very little if any police protection, etc. Even though everyone values it highly, they will all wait for the other guy to pay for it. This is because this is individually rational.

Faced with multiple public goods with various apertures of publicness, the goods that are the most funded will the be ones most narrowly beneficial.

[Koalakon]

Do it with a highschool class. That's where you'll get the best results. You have a better reflection of a real world environment with rebels and opinions to navigate. It will truly prove how viable a system is.

[Camicon]

Which significantly changes the meaning behind doing so. Making up rules in Calvinball is a demonstration of your creativity and lateral thinking; Xero making up random scenarios is a demonstration of his inability to answer questions or defend his position.

I've actually answered numerous questions and have vigorously defended my position.

You've ignored far more questions than you've answered, mostly the ones that unequivocally wrecked your arguments, and shifting goalposts doesn't count as "defending" your position.

For fun I clicked on your quotes and I saw the quote by metric. It reminded me that we had debated quite a bit in the thread on xeroism. For some reason we haven't debated nearly as much in this thread.

I just arrived. We'll get there.

I remember that I had planned on asking you what you thought of this video.

I think that Metric is much more enjoyable live, than on some crap cell video from a decade ago.

The first time I watched the video I almost stopped watching it because the quality was crap. But I kept watching it and now I love it so much. I love everything about that video.

Honestly though, I've never spent any money on that video. Either I don't truly love it, or I'm a free-rider...

allocation < valuation

Allocation of a finite amount of X only represents your relative valuation.

Let's say there are ten issues, and two people are given twenty tokens each. Hassan cares very much about every issue, but he cares about each issue equally, so he allocates two tokens to each issue. Jasmeen cares very little about every issue, but she cares about each issue equally, so she allocates two tokens to each issue.

When Jasmeen has access to a finite amount X, which she is using to represent how much she values things, then all we know is how much she values one thing over another, and not how much more Hassan values those same things than Jasmeen does.

People can care about things beyond what their material limitations empower them to express.

What if Youtube implemented the pragmatarian model? Then I'd pay $1/month but I could choose which videos I spent my pennies on. I'm pretty sure that I'd spend quite a few pennies on that video.

Right now I have an incentive to hide my love away.With the pragmatarian model, the incentive to hide my love would go right out the window. And what happens when we stop hiding our love? Then producers would know what we love. They would allocate their time/talent accordingly. The result would be more things to love.

Now, for sure you probably disagree. So let's approach this differently. Let's say that theft was legal. It should be pretty intuitive that if everybody could steal everything then nobody would have any incentive to produce anything. This means that what really matters is the incentive to produce. So by hiding our love away, we diminish the incentive for people to produce the things we love.

What do you think? Should we hide our love away?

You can express a love for something without spending money on it. You can hate something while spending money on it. The assumptions you are making are unfounded and unsupported.

[Lost heros]

Xero, are you going to address the issue that via hedging the wealthy can have an absurdly high influence, but minimize payouts to everyone else? Are you going to address that via hedging the results do not resemble the actual value of the populaces? Are you going to address that for an equivalent WTP across the board everyone must have access to the same relative amount of wealth ($10 for a poor person is more valuable than $10 for a rich person)?

The whole basis of what you are proposing is to weigh in value with votes, but these three points show that your system does not do such.

With hedging by the wealthy, the wealthy can afford to bid HIGHER than their WTP, win the vote, and have LOW losses.
For example, let's say John, a multi-billionaire, Steve, and Jessica, who are average people, use your system to decide where to go to dinner. John wants to go to Chipotle, but Steve and Jessica want to go to Moe's. They all value their restaurant at $10. So Steve and Jessica bid $10 on Moe's. John bids $1,000,000,000 on Chipotle and $999,999,075 (The difference being just over double his adversaries WTP [double because 2 people are bidding against him]) on Moe's. Chipotle wins. Steve and Jessica get paid $10.0 each (1,000,000,000/999,999,095 * 10,) and John keeps the rest because he has more and thus more influence only has to pay $20 to win and can also ensure that the others will never get to his level.

Not only that, but because of hedging people will not bid their WTP. I know that the above scenario wasn't entirely realistic, but it shows something important. Because of hedging, John bets on the other side, where he is not willing to pay while on his side he bets A LOT more than what he is actually willing to pay, but the point remains the same. The TRUE WTP for the above decision was $10 (arguably $20) for Chipotle and $20 for Moe's, but that doesn't match up with the true bidded amount because John can win easily if he hedges absurdly high because he can and still pay out roughly around his true WTP.

Furthermore, assuming that everyone bids their WTP (presumably they are all idiots) each WTP do not have the same relative base. The fact of the matter is, a person who only has $100 in disposable income values $10 more than someone who has $1000 in disposable incomes, and if they each spent $10 on opposite sides it would have equal weight, but it wouldn't have equal VALUE.

[The Two Jerseys]

It doesn't matter what type of good it is, the issue is that hiding our love decreases the incentive for people to produce the things that we love.

Love doesn't have anything to do with it.

What has to do with it is whether or not people will pay for it. Public goods suffer a severe underprovisioning problem compared with actual demand - the broader the benefit on a public good, the more it suffers the problem. People may value something like defense or police protection highly, but few will actually pay for it, because as long as the other guy pays for it, I get the benefit - whether I pay for it or not.

This is why we pay for it via a not ideal method - compulsory taxation. If we didn't, there would be no military to speak of, very little if any police protection, etc. Even though everyone values it highly, they will all wait for the other guy to pay for it. This is because this is individually rational.

Faced with multiple public goods with various apertures of publicness, the goods that are the most funded will the be ones most narrowly beneficial.

And even if people make an effort to distribute their taxes among as many departments as possible, there's no way to ensure that each department gets the amount of funding they actually need.

I love the fire department. You love the fire department. Everyone in town loves the fire department. We'll all agree to contribute some of our taxes to the fire department.

Do you know how much it costs each year to have a sufficient number of firemen on duty at any given time? Or how much the fuel for the trucks will cost? Or how much it will cost to repair and replace equipment? And how much extra funding should we give them to cover contingencies? I don't know, and you probably don't know either.

So what happens when we don't allocate the fire department enough money to keep up round-the-clock coverage? We let buildings burn down?

[Xerographica]

I've actually answered numerous questions and have vigorously defended my position.

You've ignored far more questions than you've answered, mostly the ones that unequivocally wrecked your arguments, and shifting goalposts doesn't count as "defending" your position.

So you didn't ignore the paper I shared by Jacob K. Goeree and Jingjing Zhang?

I just arrived. We'll get there.

Naw, you've been here a while. I just ignored your posts because they were weak and I didn't remember who you were.

Allocation of a finite amount of X only represents your relative valuation.

Yeah, I've read the story about the Widow's mite. It's Galloism's favorite story. At least it used to be. The fact that people unequally value money really isn't an argument against people spending their money.

You can express a love for something without spending money on it. You can hate something while spending money on it. The assumptions you are making are unfounded and unsupported.

True expression of love requires sacrifice. No sacrifice means no love.

The assumptions you are making are unfounded and unsupported.

The free-rider problem isn't a real problem?

The practical problem in using any formula based on what people are willing to pay for the public good lies in getting people to reveal their preferences. Suppose, for example, that the government is considering building a public park to serve a community of 1,000 people. If I am one of those 1,000, it is in my interests to understate my true valuation, as long as everyone else does not do the same. Indeed, I might say I valued the park at zero, while others reported enough value to cover the costs between them. The public good would then be produced, and I would get the use of it at no cost whatsoever to me. - Richard G. Lipsey, K. Alec Chrystal, Economics

If the free-rider problem isn't a real problem then taxes can be voluntary.

[Galloism]

Love doesn't have anything to do with it.

What has to do with it is whether or not people will pay for it. Public goods suffer a severe underprovisioning problem compared with actual demand - the broader the benefit on a public good, the more it suffers the problem. People may value something like defense or police protection highly, but few will actually pay for it, because as long as the other guy pays for it, I get the benefit - whether I pay for it or not.

This is why we pay for it via a not ideal method - compulsory taxation. If we didn't, there would be no military to speak of, very little if any police protection, etc. Even though everyone values it highly, they will all wait for the other guy to pay for it. This is because this is individually rational.

Faced with multiple public goods with various apertures of publicness, the goods that are the most funded will the be ones most narrowly beneficial.

And even if people make an effort to distribute their taxes among as many departments as possible, there's no way to ensure that each department gets the amount of funding they actually need.

I love the fire department. You love the fire department. Everyone in town loves the fire department. We'll all agree to contribute some of our taxes to the fire department.

Do you know how much it costs each year to have a sufficient number of firemen on duty at any given time? Or how much the fuel for the trucks will cost? Or how much it will cost to repair and replace equipment? And how much extra funding should we give them to cover contingencies? I don't know, and you probably don't know either.

So what happens when we don't allocate the fire department enough money to keep up round-the-clock coverage? We let buildings burn down?

For the sake efficiency, very expensive structures must burn.

[The Two Jerseys]

And even if people make an effort to distribute their taxes among as many departments as possible, there's no way to ensure that each department gets the amount of funding they actually need.

I love the fire department. You love the fire department. Everyone in town loves the fire department. We'll all agree to contribute some of our taxes to the fire department.

Do you know how much it costs each year to have a sufficient number of firemen on duty at any given time? Or how much the fuel for the trucks will cost? Or how much it will cost to repair and replace equipment? And how much extra funding should we give them to cover contingencies? I don't know, and you probably don't know either.

So what happens when we don't allocate the fire department enough money to keep up round-the-clock coverage? We let buildings burn down?

For the sake efficiency, very expensive structures must burn.

Only if we don't use public funds for rebuilding. Wouldn't want to start construction only to find out halfway through that the piggy bank is empty due to shitty pragmatarianism funding...

[Galloism]

For the sake efficiency, very expensive structures must burn.

Only if we don't use public funds for rebuilding. Wouldn't want to start construction only to find out halfway through that the piggy bank is empty due to shitty pragmatarianism funding...

I mean, here's the thing - we KNOW that centralized planning works.

You know how we know it works?

We've been using it for a very long time. The fed does it, the state does it, the cities do it, the counties do it.

You know who else does it?

Wal-Mart, Staples, Exxon, Costco, Dell, Acer, Amazon, UPS, Fedex... the list is nearly endless.

[The Two Jerseys]

Only if we don't use public funds for rebuilding. Wouldn't want to start construction only to find out halfway through that the piggy bank is empty due to shitty pragmatarianism funding...

I mean, here's the thing - we KNOW that centralized planning works.

You know how we know it works?

We've been using it for a very long time. The fed does it, the state does it, the cities do it, the counties do it.

You know who else does it?

Wal-Mart, Staples, Exxon, Costco, Dell, Acer, Amazon, UPS, Fedex... the list is nearly endless.

Don't be absurd! John Q. Public and his tax allocation clearly knows better than all of them!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If the free-rider problem isn't a real problem then taxes can be voluntary.

The free-rider problem is an economic concept to define a good for which you do not pay for.

Say for instance, roads. Not everyone pays for the roads. In Texas, the common way to pay for roads is either with tolls, certain taxes on gasoline, borrowing money, or a combination thereof.

However, roads are a public good. I can take my bike right now and ride it through the roads around my house. I am a free-rider because I am not paying personal taxes on roads.

We are excluding for the purposes of the conversation toll roads, in which everyone who enters the toll road is billed for the maintenance of the road.

It is not a real problem, unless there is a Pareto inefficiency on that public good. A Pareto inefficiency is basically when free riding leads to the underproduction or the non-production of any given good. That is the real problem, but the free-rider problem is as much of a problem in public goods and policy as the kind of socks I will use today. It's not a real problem, in other words. It can create an economic problem, but it is not a problem in and of itself.

[The Two Jerseys]

If the free-rider problem isn't a real problem then taxes can be voluntary.

The free-rider problem is an economic concept to define a good for which you do not pay for.

Say for instance, roads. Not everyone pays for the roads. In Texas, the common way to pay for roads is either with tolls, certain taxes on gasoline, borrowing money, or a combination thereof.

However, roads are a public good. I can take my bike right now and ride it through the roads around my house. I am a free-rider because I am not paying personal taxes on roads.

We are excluding for the purposes of the conversation toll roads, in which everyone who enters the toll road is billed for the maintenance of the road.

It is not a real problem, unless there is a Pareto inefficiency on that public good. A Pareto inefficiency is basically when free riding leads to the underproduction or the non-production of any given good. That is the real problem, but the free-rider problem is as much of a problem in public goods and policy as the kind of socks I will use today. It's not a real problem, in other words. It can create an economic problem, but it is not a problem in and of itself.

And I don't think that the government is going to start eliminating police and fire coverage and tearing up roads just because some people who use them don't pay for them...

[Galloism]

The point you made was addressed in the post you replied to. Just because Dazchan receives $500 dollars of compensation... really doesn't mean that the next year she'd spend $750 dollars on the same issue. What you're failing to see/appreciate/understand/grasp/grok/realize is that she has other priorities in life.

Admittedly, it does sound a bit like saying that you have several BFFs. The point is that most people don't only care about one single thing in life. We have to eat, we have to pay rent, we have to pay tuition, we have to buy clothes, we have to pay for transportation... it's a long list.

If I oppose coasianism... it's the same thing as preventing Dazchan from receiving $500 dollars. Who am I to prevent her from receiving money? Who am I to prevent her from spending money? Who am I to prevent her from deciding what she does, or doesn't, spend her money on?

"Hey Dazchan, you can't spend that $250 on marriage equality. Instead, you have to spend it on your tuition and rent. Those things are bigger priorities."

Who am I? Her mom? Her dad? Her husband? Her wife? Her partner? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'd have to be a fucking idiot to try to regulate her life and decisions.

No, I'm telling you that someone can horribly abuse your system to pass literally any law they want to pass from $1 (or whatever your minimum bid is) of starting cash, assuming there's a finite amount of money available to outbid them (if there's infinitely much money available to outbid them and people are willing to pay it, they can get infinite amounts of money for it). The reason people will do this is because they can get whatever laws they want passed essentially for free. This is not a matter of "having other priorities": this is something I'd do, just because I can. The initial investment is literally $1, in return for a payoff that is getting literally any law you want passed. To be specific: you don't need to prioritise things, because you can do whatever you like for $1 (by just passing a law that lets you do it).

I pointed this out before:

It's weird to assume that they would be free from my "retarded bidding scheme" (RBS). After all... you're assuming that the UK embraced my RBS. And this RBS allowed Scotland to gain its independence. So it would be kinda strange for the Scottish people to kick the RBS to the curb once it helped them gain their independence.

I don't think that Scotland would rid itself of the RBS so easily. And.... I don't think that everybody in Scotland would be equally happy with their new independence. Was every colonist in America happy with their new independence? Would citizens of the Falklands be happy to be completely free from Britain?

So I think that after Scotland gained its independence... Scottish citizens might use the RBS to decide whether independence was all that it was cracked up to be. And perhaps some of the people in the not-so-united-kingdom might decide that they really missed Scotland. Absence makes the heart grow fonder and all. So they might give enough money to the pro-dependence Scottish citizens for them to outbid the pro-independence citizens. And then the prodigal country would return to the fold and the kingdom would be reunited.

Of course I'm not saying that this is necessarily what would happen. I'm saying that there's no reason that it couldn't happen.

Thing is, if they DO want to keep their independence, the RBS should be abolished. Any nation with RBS is at risk fo being taken over by a foreign power.

After all, let's suppose I am Monaco, and the UK adopts this scheme.

I bid to the UK my entire government's wealth to have the UK become a colony of Monaco. We'll say that's 10 million. The UK, of course, outbids. However, my wealth is now doubled.

As the leader of monaco, I just doubled my government's money without really having to do any work. I bid again with 20 million. I get 40.

I bid again with 40. I get 80.

I bid again with 80. I get 160.

I bid again with 160. I get 320.

I bid again with 320. I get 640.

I bid again with 640. I get 1.28 billion.

Etc.

It'll take a few years, but eventually the UK will spending everything it earns just to keep from being a colony of Monaco.

If, at any point, Monaco wins (and therefore has to pay the UK government the difference), the UK government is dissolved and becomes part of Monaco. The RBS scheme is also abolished because Monaco is not stupid and doesn't have that in their laws.

Monaco wins the UK in a bloodless conquest by using the UK's own money.

[Lost heros]

No, I'm telling you that someone can horribly abuse your system to pass literally any law they want to pass from $1 (or whatever your minimum bid is) of starting cash, assuming there's a finite amount of money available to outbid them (if there's infinitely much money available to outbid them and people are willing to pay it, they can get infinite amounts of money for it). The reason people will do this is because they can get whatever laws they want passed essentially for free. This is not a matter of "having other priorities": this is something I'd do, just because I can. The initial investment is literally $1, in return for a payoff that is getting literally any law you want passed. To be specific: you don't need to prioritise things, because you can do whatever you like for $1 (by just passing a law that lets you do it).

I pointed this out before:

Thing is, if they DO want to keep their independence, the RBS should be abolished. Any nation with RBS is at risk fo being taken over by a foreign power.

After all, let's suppose I am Monaco, and the UK adopts this scheme.

I bid to the UK my entire government's wealth to have the UK become a colony of Monaco. We'll say that's 10 million. The UK, of course, outbids. However, my wealth is now doubled.

As the leader of monaco, I just doubled my government's money without really having to do any work. I bid again with 20 million. I get 40.

I bid again with 40. I get 80.

I bid again with 80. I get 160.

I bid again with 160. I get 320.

I bid again with 320. I get 640.

I bid again with 640. I get 1.28 billion.

Etc.

It'll take a few years, but eventually the UK will spending everything it earns just to keep from being a colony of Monaco.

If, at any point, Monaco wins (and therefore has to pay the UK government the difference), the UK government is dissolved and becomes part of Monaco. The RBS scheme is also abolished because Monaco is not stupid and doesn't have that in their laws.

Monaco wins the UK in a bloodless conquest by using the UK's own money.

My favorite part is that with two parties the losing parties is guaranteed to at least double their money because they have to bid at least more than your bid and you get all of it.

[Camicon]

You've ignored far more questions than you've answered, mostly the ones that unequivocally wrecked your arguments, and shifting goalposts doesn't count as "defending" your position.

So you didn't ignore the paper I shared by Jacob K. Goeree and Jingjing Zhang?

Can't ignore something that was never brought to my attention.

In any case, that paper operates under the assumption that intensity of belief has as much a place in driving public policy as does the prevalence of said belief among the population, on the basis that the "socially optimal outcome" includes both. Discarding that ridiculousness renders the entire rest of the paper moot.

I just arrived. We'll get there.

Naw, you've been here a while. I just ignored your posts because they were weak and I didn't remember who you were.

I gave a straight up answer to the question you asked in your OP, which you ignored. The rest of my posts were mocking your nonsense, because it deserves to be mocked. If you wanted a serious conversation then you should have asked for it.

Allocation of a finite amount of X only represents your relative valuation.

Yeah, I've read the story about the Widow's mite. It's Galloism's favorite story. At least it used to be. The fact that people unequally value money really isn't an argument against people spending their money.

That isn't my argument. My argument is that the unequal value people place on money means it will always be a fundamentally flawed metric to measure how much people care about things. It's fine for examining what issues Hassan values over others, but it can never reliably measure the degrees of difference between how much Hassan and Jasmeen care about the same issues.

Your proposed ideology operates under the assumption that one dollar from a person with no disposable income carries the same weight as one dollar from a person with billions of dollars of disposable income. I trust you can see why that would pose a problem to your "coasianism"?

You can express a love for something without spending money on it. You can hate something while spending money on it. The assumptions you are making are unfounded and unsupported.

True expression of love requires sacrifice. No sacrifice means no love.

Your opinion about the "true expression of love" is just about the worst thing on which to base an ideology.

The assumptions you are making are unfounded and unsupported.

The free-rider problem isn't a real problem?

You have a problem with social welfare?

If the free-rider problem isn't a real problem then taxes can be voluntary.

That does not logically follow.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

So you didn't ignore the paper I shared by Jacob K. Goeree and Jingjing Zhang?

Can't ignore something that was never brought to my attention.

In any case, that paper operates under the assumption that intensity of belief has as much a place in driving public policy as does the prevalence of said belief among the population, on the basis that the "socially optimal outcome" includes both. Discarding that ridiculousness renders the entire rest of the paper moot.

That's not really how you should be thinking about it. For example, if there's a policy which will cost one person £1,000 if implemented, but save 2 people £1 each. By majority voting, that policy would pass. By their bidding mechanism, the person who would lose £1,000 could compensate the other two in exchange for voting against the policy. All three of them end up better off. You're right that preference intensity is an arbitrary way of making group decisions, but so is preference prevalence to an extent. You can always find a set of circumstances in which either one is sub-optimal.