4th Grade Nation State

[Xerographica]

Anytime...

So not only are you not solving the free-rider "problem", you're making it even easier to be a free-rider...

How is it easier for the kids to be free-riders?

When they use coasianism to make a class decision, the students who are compensated will be required to eventually pay taxes on their compensation. And when students win a quote in a class auction, they will be able to choose which departments they give their winning bids to. This will count as paying their taxes.

[Xerographica]

In order to ensure the most beneficial outcome, we would simply replace voting with spending.

The Joseon Dynasty understands the concept of externalities. However, he feels that the quadratic voting (QV) model is superior to my model. I asked him to clarify his position. Unfortunately, his explanation really did not clear things up.

Using the example of alcohol... if we are going to use coasianism to decide whether it should be illegal.... then I'd have to decide how much benefit I derive from alcohol in one year. Let's say that I decide I derive $200 dollars worth of benefit from drinking alcohol. If alcohol was made illegal, then this $200 dollars of benefit would be taken away from me.

Now, according to The Joseon Dynasty, somehow my valuation is wrong. He thinks that I can only accurately figure out how much I value alcohol for one year if I'm given the opportunity to quadratically buy votes. This means that I'd spend more, or less, than $200 dollars on votes. Eh? What? Why would I spend more, or less, money on votes than my valuation? How does that make any sense?

I decide that my valuation is $200 dollars... but then I decide to buy $100 dollars worth of votes. What happened? Why the disparity? Did I change my mind? Was I lying to myself when I decided that my valuation is $200 dollars? Did the act of actually buying votes force me to be honest?

Now, imagine the implications if it was true that buying votes actually does improve the accuracy of our valuations. Rather than simply buy a $17,000 dollar car, you'd buy votes for that car. If you only bought $12,000 dollars worth of votes... then obviously you shouldn't buy a $17,000 dollar car. You should buy a $12,000 dollar car. Because it turns out that your true valuation of a car isn't $17,000 dollars... it's $12,000 dollars. Clearly you would want to use this same approach before you bought a computer or a house.

Maybe I'm missing something. But if I say that my true valuation of drinking alcohol for one year is $200 dollars... it's rather absurd for The Joseon Dynasty, or anybody else, to tell me that my valuation is wrong. How could he possibly know how much benefit I derive from drinking alcohol for a year? How could he possible know how much I'd be harmed if it was illegal for me to drink alcohol for a year?

Because you've simplified the problem too much. Let's say that I value alcohol by £200 and there's a vote about whether to implement prohibition. When deciding how much to bid for alcohol, I'm considering both how much I value alcohol (£200) and how likely it is that prohibition will pass. How likely it is that prohibition passes is determined by how much I bid, but also by how much everyone else bids. Assuming I get £0 if prohibition passes (i.e. no consumption of alcohol), then the objective I'm really trying to maximise is P(X)*£200, where P(X) is the probability that prohibition does not pass given that I bid £X against it. This is because I'm only going to consume my £200 of alcohol if prohibition does not pass.

Actually maximising this involves some maths that I won't get into (i.e. first order Taylor expansion). Just assume that P(X) = X/1000 or something. So what I'm trying to maximise with my bid X is £200 * (X / 1000). This means that each extra pound I bid is going to improve my expected outcome by £200 * (1 / 1000) = £0.2. Let's suppose, as you do, that each bid just costs me the amount that I'm bidding, so the cost is simply C(X) = -X for a bid of X.
Then my objective now looks like £200 * (X / 1000) - X. Since my benefit of an additional pound bid is £0.2 but that bid costs me £1, I will choose not to bid at all. Let's suppose the cost function is quadratic and scaled by the distribution (as they do in the paper), then the cost function is C(X) = X^2 / 2000. Then, supposing I've spent X so far, adding an additional £1 to my bid is going to get me £200 * (1 / 1000) - X / 1000. If I solve this for X, I get that X = £200. That is going to be the optimal amount I will bid.

So recap: Under your cost function, I will spend £0. Under my cost function, I will spend my true valuation £200.

That's the simplest possible explanation I can give you of that.

Yeah... no... I have no idea why you'd spend £0 with my model and £200 with their model.

If you spend £0 with my model and alcohol becomes illegal, then you're not going to be compensated for your harm. Why wouldn't you want to be compensated?

When you buy a computer, there's certainly some risk... but it's a pretty straightforward trade. You buy the computer if the asking price is less than your valuation.

When you try and buy the right to drink alcohol for a year... there's more risk? Why should there be? You know how much benefit you derive from a year's worth of drinking. So this is what you would be willing to spend. If your side lost, then your compensation would be greater than your harm.

[The Two Jerseys]

Anytime...

How is it easier for the kids to be free-riders?

Apparently it's not, because you keep moving the goddamn goalposts!

When they use coasianism to make a class decision, the students who are compensated will be required to eventually pay taxes on their compensation. And when students win a quote in a class auction, they will be able to choose which departments they give their winning bids to. This will count as paying their taxes.

20 pages in, and this is the first that we're hearing about taxing the winnings? And you wonder why nobody takes your experiment seriously...

And how can auctioning off quotes "create a market" if all the money is being paid as taxes? Who's producing the quotes? What's their incentive to produce quotes if they don't get paid?

[Lost heros]

Are you going to respond to this?

I've responded to all this throughout the thread. I feel reluctant to be redundant.

Galloism is planning on testing out the hedging issue. If you go back and actually read my posts, then I said something like once burned twice shy. Meaning... Samantha might hedge her bets on whether class is inside or outside. Let's say that the result of the trade is that class is outside and she gets $7 dollars. Was this a good deal for Samantha? The answer depends entirely on her valuation of having class outside. If her valuation of having class outside is -$10 dollars, then clearly it was a mistake for her to hedge her bets.

I think that enough of the students will learn that honesty is the best policy.

Regarding the fact that people don't all have the same amount of money... I explained why this is a non-issue to Camicon.

You have lots of lemons but no money. I have lots of money but no lemons. Because you have so many lemons, you don't value any given lemon very highly. Because I have so many dollars, I don't value any given dollar very highly.

So yeah, we don't value money equally... therefore what? We shouldn't trade? How absurd would that be? Of course we should trade. That's the entire point of trading. You give up something you value less (lemons) in order to get something you value more (money). I give up something that I value less (money) in order to get something that I value more (lemons). It's a mutually beneficial trade. We're both better off as a result. Now we both have lemons and money.

Did you even read my post? Because it seems like you missed the very fundamental issue I was pointing out because of wealthy hedging. It's very simple. Because of hedging, the wealthy can control the outcome of the results while also receiving most of the losses. If Samantha were rich and she hedged with a difference in her bets just greater than the WTP of the other side, she controls the outcome and gets paid. Meaning she gets class inside and pays very little to anyone else.

Honesty ISN'T the best policy or did you just skip the part where I mathematically showed you how the wealthy can pay very small dividends to anyone to get their way.

Money is a vehicle of trading of commodities. IT HAS NO VALUE. VALUE is assigned by what you want relative to what you have. Therefore if you have more money you obtain more object that you value. Even though I value an idea more than a wealthy person values it'a opposite the wealthy person would win because he can assign less relative value to it.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Because you've simplified the problem too much. Let's say that I value alcohol by £200 and there's a vote about whether to implement prohibition. When deciding how much to bid for alcohol, I'm considering both how much I value alcohol (£200) and how likely it is that prohibition will pass. How likely it is that prohibition passes is determined by how much I bid, but also by how much everyone else bids. Assuming I get £0 if prohibition passes (i.e. no consumption of alcohol), then the objective I'm really trying to maximise is P(X)*£200, where P(X) is the probability that prohibition does not pass given that I bid £X against it. This is because I'm only going to consume my £200 of alcohol if prohibition does not pass.

Actually maximising this involves some maths that I won't get into (i.e. first order Taylor expansion). Just assume that P(X) = X/1000 or something. So what I'm trying to maximise with my bid X is £200 * (X / 1000). This means that each extra pound I bid is going to improve my expected outcome by £200 * (1 / 1000) = £0.2. Let's suppose, as you do, that each bid just costs me the amount that I'm bidding, so the cost is simply C(X) = -X for a bid of X.
Then my objective now looks like £200 * (X / 1000) - X. Since my benefit of an additional pound bid is £0.2 but that bid costs me £1, I will choose not to bid at all. Let's suppose the cost function is quadratic and scaled by the distribution (as they do in the paper), then the cost function is C(X) = X^2 / 2000. Then, supposing I've spent X so far, adding an additional £1 to my bid is going to get me £200 * (1 / 1000) - X / 1000. If I solve this for X, I get that X = £200. That is going to be the optimal amount I will bid.

So recap: Under your cost function, I will spend £0. Under my cost function, I will spend my true valuation £200.

That's the simplest possible explanation I can give you of that.

Yeah... no... I have no idea why you'd spend £0 with my model and £200 with their model.

If you spend £0 with my model and alcohol becomes illegal, then you're not going to be compensated for your harm. Why wouldn't you want to be compensated?

When you buy a computer, there's certainly some risk... but it's a pretty straightforward trade. You buy the computer if the asking price is less than your valuation.

When you try and buy the right to drink alcohol for a year... there's more risk? Why should there be? You know how much benefit you derive from a year's worth of drinking. So this is what you would be willing to spend. If your side lost, then your compensation would be greater than your harm.

There's not much more I can do for you if you don't understand this, although I think it's more that you're not willing to put in the effort to understand it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Xero, honestly, you have been changing the system/systems you're trying to implement on us.

Can you, in a very concise and specific post, give an accurate idea of how your system is supposed to work, as opposed to how we're having to guess it works?

Because honestly, you keep bringing up more and more levels of complexity that we didn't know exist in your system and you've been keeping us arguing with you about a system which, in your words, "we have no clue about".

So it would be nice if you could explain your system again so everyone can be on the same page. Because I certainly didn't know either you were taxing the earnings.

[Xerographica]

20 pages in, and this is the first that we're hearing about taxing the winnings? And you wonder why nobody takes your experiment seriously...

Maybe you should consider actually reading the OPs...

All the students who receive money will be required to eventually pay a tax on their income. They'll be able to decide which departments to give their taxes to. The departments, and their leaders, will be chosen by the students.

And how can auctioning off quotes "create a market" if all the money is being paid as taxes? Who's producing the quotes? What's their incentive to produce quotes if they don't get paid?

Michelle auctions the quotes that I've collected. The students who win the quotes can then sell or trade or give away the quotes and/or copies of the quotes. Today, for the first time (as far as know), a student sold a quote to another student. Sergio sold his quote to Elizabeth for 41 pennies.

[Xerographica]

Yeah... no... I have no idea why you'd spend £0 with my model and £200 with their model.

If you spend £0 with my model and alcohol becomes illegal, then you're not going to be compensated for your harm. Why wouldn't you want to be compensated?

When you buy a computer, there's certainly some risk... but it's a pretty straightforward trade. You buy the computer if the asking price is less than your valuation.

When you try and buy the right to drink alcohol for a year... there's more risk? Why should there be? You know how much benefit you derive from a year's worth of drinking. So this is what you would be willing to spend. If your side lost, then your compensation would be greater than your harm.

There's not much more I can do for you if you don't understand this, although I think it's more that you're not willing to put in the effort to understand it.

I've participated in two coasian trades. The first was to decide which student would be in charge of their IRS. I put my money on Aiden based on his answers to the extra credit homework questions that Michelle handed out after the first coasian trade. The second was to choose the class insect. I put my money on the Preying Mantis because I like them.

In neither trade did I have any inclination to put down $0 dollars as my WTP. So it's hard to take you seriously when you say that you'd put down £0 for my model and £200 for their model in terms of deciding whether alcohol should be illegal for a year.

I remember reading some short snippets of correspondence between Buchanan and Samuelson. Buchanan was a concept guy (like me) while Samuelson was a math guy (like you). And they could never really bridge the gap.

[Xerographica]

I've responded to all this throughout the thread. I feel reluctant to be redundant.

Galloism is planning on testing out the hedging issue. If you go back and actually read my posts, then I said something like once burned twice shy. Meaning... Samantha might hedge her bets on whether class is inside or outside. Let's say that the result of the trade is that class is outside and she gets $7 dollars. Was this a good deal for Samantha? The answer depends entirely on her valuation of having class outside. If her valuation of having class outside is -$10 dollars, then clearly it was a mistake for her to hedge her bets.

I think that enough of the students will learn that honesty is the best policy.

Regarding the fact that people don't all have the same amount of money... I explained why this is a non-issue to Camicon.

You have lots of lemons but no money. I have lots of money but no lemons. Because you have so many lemons, you don't value any given lemon very highly. Because I have so many dollars, I don't value any given dollar very highly.

So yeah, we don't value money equally... therefore what? We shouldn't trade? How absurd would that be? Of course we should trade. That's the entire point of trading. You give up something you value less (lemons) in order to get something you value more (money). I give up something that I value less (money) in order to get something that I value more (lemons). It's a mutually beneficial trade. We're both better off as a result. Now we both have lemons and money.

Did you even read my post? Because it seems like you missed the very fundamental issue I was pointing out because of wealthy hedging. It's very simple. Because of hedging, the wealthy can control the outcome of the results while also receiving most of the losses. If Samantha were rich and she hedged with a difference in her bets just greater than the WTP of the other side, she controls the outcome and gets paid. Meaning she gets class inside and pays very little to anyone else.

Honesty ISN'T the best policy or did you just skip the part where I mathematically showed you how the wealthy can pay very small dividends to anyone to get their way.

Are you assuming that all the rich students will be on the same side? All the rich students will prefer to have class outside? Or all the rich students will prefer to have class inside?

If you're arguing that the rich students are going to hedge their bets... then you're arguing that they are on BOTH sides. So getting their way becomes entirely irrelevant.

Make up your mind. If the rich students care about getting their way, then they aren't going to hedge their bets. Then the issue is whether the rich students are going to be on the same sides.

Money is a vehicle of trading of commodities. IT HAS NO VALUE. VALUE is assigned by what you want relative to what you have. Therefore if you have more money you obtain more object that you value. Even though I value an idea more than a wealthy person values it'a opposite the wealthy person would win because he can assign less relative value to it.

Money has no value? So... you wouldn't mind giving me all your money?

[The Two Jerseys]

20 pages in, and this is the first that we're hearing about taxing the winnings? And you wonder why nobody takes your experiment seriously...

Maybe you should consider actually reading the OPs...

All the students who receive money will be required to eventually pay a tax on their income. They'll be able to decide which departments to give their taxes to. The departments, and their leaders, will be chosen by the students.

And how can auctioning off quotes "create a market" if all the money is being paid as taxes? Who's producing the quotes? What's their incentive to produce quotes if they don't get paid?

When will they pay taxes? At what rate will they pay taxes?

You're still making up rules on the fly.

Michelle auctions the quotes that I've collected. The students who win the quotes can then sell or trade or give away the quotes and/or copies of the quotes. Today, for the first time (as far as know), a student sold a quote to another student. Sergio sold his quote to Elizabeth for 41 pennies.

Maybe you should consider actually reading the questions...

And how can auctioning off quotes "create a market" if all the money is being paid as taxes? Who's producing the quotes? What's their incentive to produce quotes if they don't get paid?

[Galloism]

So you say that your valuation of alcohol is $5,000 dollars... but you only spend $200 dollars to oppose prohibition. Do I trust your words... or your actions?

Let me ask you a relevant question, in a "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" fashion.

Frank the Robber puts a gun to your head and demands you hand over your wallet or he will kill you. Your wallet has $500 in it. You hand over your wallet because you value your life at more than $500.

You're filing a police report later, and the police officer asks "So, you just gave him $500? Your report here says you did not want to give him $500. Do I trust your words... or your actions?"

[Xerographica]

Maybe you should consider actually reading the OPs...

When will they pay taxes? At what rate will they pay taxes?

They'll pay taxes when they want to. It's like asking when somebody will buy private goods. When are you going to buy milk?

The kids informally decided that the tax rate should be 10%. So far nobody has paid any taxes yet because the only department that has been created is the IRS.

You're still making up rules on the fly.

It's fluid. Michelle and I both prefer to see what the kids will come up with on their own. She didn't tell them that they could buy/sell/trade their quotes with each other. We wanted to see if/when they would have the idea on their own.

Michelle auctions the quotes that I've collected. The students who win the quotes can then sell or trade or give away the quotes and/or copies of the quotes. Today, for the first time (as far as know), a student sold a quote to another student. Sergio sold his quote to Elizabeth for 41 pennies.

Maybe you should consider actually reading the questions...

And how can auctioning off quotes "create a market" if all the money is being paid as taxes? Who's producing the quotes? What's their incentive to produce quotes if they don't get paid?

I already answered these questions.

Sergio sold his quote to Elizabeth for 41 pennies. Where's the difficulty? Sergio valued the money more than he valued the quote. Elizabeth valued the quote more than she valued the money. So they traded. Trading is what markets are all about.

If Elizabeth wants to... she can make 30 copies of the quote that she purchased. Then she can sell the copies to all the other students. Or she can trade her copies for copies of their quotes.

[The Two Jerseys]

When will they pay taxes? At what rate will they pay taxes?

They'll pay taxes when they want to. It's like asking when somebody will buy private goods. When are you going to buy milk?

And what if they don't pay taxes because they just fucking don't want to?

You do understand how taxation works, right?

The kids informally decided that the tax rate should be 10%. So far nobody has paid any taxes yet because the only department that has been created is the IRS.

That's a very good government you have going there, there's no way it could fail! [/sarcasm]

You're still making up rules on the fly.

It's fluid. Michelle and I both prefer to see what the kids will come up with on their own. She didn't tell them that they could buy/sell/trade their quotes with each other. We wanted to see if/when they would have the idea on their own.

Maybe you should consider actually reading the questions...

I already answered these questions.

Sergio sold his quote to Elizabeth for 41 pennies. Where's the difficulty? Sergio valued the money more than he valued the quote. Elizabeth valued the quote more than she valued the money. So they traded. Trading is what markets are all about.

If Elizabeth wants to... she can make 30 copies of the quote that she purchased. Then she can sell the copies to all the other students. Or she can trade her copies for copies of their quotes.

No, you didn't answer those questions.

Michelle is auctioning the quotes to the kids in the first place. Who's producing these quotes? What's their incentive to produce these quotes if the money paid for them is all going to "taxes"?

[Lost heros]

Did you even read my post? Because it seems like you missed the very fundamental issue I was pointing out because of wealthy hedging. It's very simple. Because of hedging, the wealthy can control the outcome of the results while also receiving most of the losses. If Samantha were rich and she hedged with a difference in her bets just greater than the WTP of the other side, she controls the outcome and gets paid. Meaning she gets class inside and pays very little to anyone else.

Honesty ISN'T the best policy or did you just skip the part where I mathematically showed you how the wealthy can pay very small dividends to anyone to get their way.

Are you assuming that all the rich students will be on the same side? All the rich students will prefer to have class outside? Or all the rich students will prefer to have class inside?

If you're arguing that the rich students are going to hedge their bets... then you're arguing that they are on BOTH sides. So getting their way becomes entirely irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure they're going to be on the same side of "how much should we tax the rich kids?"
http://www.bankers-anonymous.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wealth-inequality.jpg
And even if they weren't it's still the VERY FEW who have a ridiculously large amount of power.

Make up your mind. If the rich students care about getting their way, then they aren't going to hedge their bets. Then the issue is whether the rich students are going to be on the same sides.

So you didn't read my post because you'd see that the rich can get their way and hedge their bets.

Money is a vehicle of trading of commodities. IT HAS NO VALUE. VALUE is assigned by what you want relative to what you have. Therefore if you have more money you obtain more object that you value. Even though I value an idea more than a wealthy person values it'a opposite the wealthy person would win because he can assign less relative value to it.

Money has no value? So... you wouldn't mind giving me all your money?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
Since you have no understanding of what money is.

[Xerographica]

So you say that your valuation of alcohol is $5,000 dollars... but you only spend $200 dollars to oppose prohibition. Do I trust your words... or your actions?

Let me ask you a relevant question, in a "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" fashion.

Frank the Robber puts a gun to your head and demands you hand over your wallet or he will kill you. Your wallet has $500 in it. You hand over your wallet because you value your life at more than $500.

You're filing a police report later, and the police officer asks "So, you just gave him $500? Your report here says you did not want to give him $500. Do I trust your words... or your actions?"

Ack, I just got a flashback to anarcho-capitalists attacking pragmatarianism by arguing that it's just like being able to choose your rapist.

The cop should understand that my actions were heavily influenced by the gun being pointed at my head.

If you're arguing that coasianism forces a poor person to spend their money in order to try and protect their right to drink alcohol... then you're failing to understand that voting doesn't even give participants the opportunity to decide what their right is worth to them.

[Galloism]

Let me ask you a relevant question, in a "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" fashion.

Frank the Robber puts a gun to your head and demands you hand over your wallet or he will kill you. Your wallet has $500 in it. You hand over your wallet because you value your life at more than $500.

You're filing a police report later, and the police officer asks "So, you just gave him $500? Your report here says you did not want to give him $500. Do I trust your words... or your actions?"

Ack, I just got a flashback to anarcho-capitalists attacking pragmatarianism by arguing that it's just like being able to choose your rapist.

The cop should understand that my actions were heavily influenced by the gun being pointed at my head.

If you're arguing that coasianism forces a poor person to spend their money in order to try and protect their right to drink alcohol... then you're failing to understand that voting doesn't even give participants the opportunity to decide what their right is worth to them.

So in that scenario, should the police officer trust your words or your actions? Answer the question Xero.

[Xerographica]

They'll pay taxes when they want to. It's like asking when somebody will buy private goods. When are you going to buy milk?

And what if they don't pay taxes because they just fucking don't want to?

I have no idea.

You do understand how taxation works, right?

I understand the difference between how taxation does work and how it should work.

That's a very good government you have going there, there's no way it could fail! [/sarcasm]

It might fail.

No, you didn't answer those questions.

Michelle is auctioning the quotes to the kids in the first place. Who's producing these quotes? What's their incentive to produce these quotes if the money paid for them is all going to "taxes"?

I collect quotes. I have around 3000+ quotes in my collection. I gave Michelle around 20 pages of quotes. She printed them out, cut the pages into individual quotes and numbered them. Once she runs out of quotes, assuming that the kids continue to want to buy them, then I'll give her more quotes.

[Xerographica]

Ack, I just got a flashback to anarcho-capitalists attacking pragmatarianism by arguing that it's just like being able to choose your rapist.

The cop should understand that my actions were heavily influenced by the gun being pointed at my head.

If you're arguing that coasianism forces a poor person to spend their money in order to try and protect their right to drink alcohol... then you're failing to understand that voting doesn't even give participants the opportunity to decide what their right is worth to them.

So in that scenario, should the police officer trust your words or your actions? Answer the question Xero.

In that scenario, the officer should trust my words.

[Galloism]

So in that scenario, should the police officer trust your words or your actions? Answer the question Xero.

In that scenario, the officer should trust my words.

So just to be clear, you are admitting that, in some circumstances, words can be more trustworthy and probative of true desires than actions.

Correct?

[Xerographica]

In that scenario, the officer should trust my words.

So just to be clear, you are admitting that, in some circumstances, words can be more trustworthy and probative of true desires than actions.

Correct?

Sure.

[The Two Jerseys]

And what if they don't pay taxes because they just fucking don't want to?

I have no idea.

That's the first smart thing you said in this thread.

You do understand how taxation works, right?

I understand the difference between how taxation does work and how it should work.

Are you sure? You don't seem to understand that the government needs money in order to function...

That's a very good government you have going there, there's no way it could fail! [/sarcasm]

It might fail.

With no money and no departments to provide services? It will fail.

No, you didn't answer those questions.

Michelle is auctioning the quotes to the kids in the first place. Who's producing these quotes? What's their incentive to produce these quotes if the money paid for them is all going to "taxes"?

I collect quotes. I have around 3000+ quotes in my collection. I gave Michelle around 20 pages of quotes. She printed them out, cut the pages into individual quotes and numbered them. Once she runs out of quotes, assuming that the kids continue to want to buy them, then I'll give her more quotes.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the real world.

If you're trying to show that this system of government works, you need to actually model the means of production.

[Galloism]

So just to be clear, you are admitting that, in some circumstances, words can be more trustworthy and probative of true desires than actions.

Correct?

Sure.

Ok, so now that it's established that sometimes words are more trustworthy and probative of true desires than actions, going back to your question -

So you say that your valuation of alcohol is $5,000 dollars... but you only spend $200 dollars to oppose prohibition. Do I trust your words... or your actions?

In the scenario given, you should trust my words. Just like you had no practical way of saying "no" to giving $500 to Frank the Robber, I had no practical way of putting in $5,000 to reflect my "true" valuation. This makes both actions divergent from true desires.

Ergo, your system doesn't measure what you desire it to measure.

[Xerographica]

Are you sure? You don't seem to understand that the government needs money in order to function...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you still can't tell the difference between pragmatarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the real world.

If you're trying to show that this system of government works, you need to actually model the means of production.

Right now lots of the kids already work in the garden. So it's logical for there to be a gardening department that the kids can give their taxes to. This department would purchase seeds, plants, supplies and decide how much to pay the kids who work in the garden.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Are you sure? You don't seem to understand that the government needs money in order to function...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you still can't tell the difference between pragmatarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the real world.

If you're trying to show that this system of government works, you need to actually model the means of production.

Right now lots of the kids already work in the garden. So it's logical for there to be a gardening department that the kids can give their taxes to. This department would purchase seeds, plants, supplies and decide how much to pay the kids who work in the garden.

How are they going to decide how much to pay kids who work in the garden?

[Xerographica]

Sure.

Ok, so now that it's established that sometimes words are more trustworthy and probative of true desires than actions, going back to your question -

So you say that your valuation of alcohol is $5,000 dollars... but you only spend $200 dollars to oppose prohibition. Do I trust your words... or your actions?

In the scenario given, you should trust my words. Just like you had no practical way of saying "no" to giving $500 to Frank the Robber, I had no practical way of putting in $5,000 to reflect my "true" valuation. This makes both actions divergent from true desires.

Ergo, your system doesn't measure what you desire it to measure.

And again, if you think your argument has merit, then prove it by starting a thread that argues that we should eliminate markets entirely. You're not going to do so because you understand that your argument is BS.