4th Grade Nation State

[Galloism]

On average it has been. There's been some winners and some losers.

Trying to bet on the losing option has been profitable? Can you prove it with math? Or shall we simply take your word for it?

I suggest you look at the spreadsheets provided with the gamblers listed.

Except the trend is the opposite way. Fewer and fewer are "steering the boat" and more and more are exploiting the system for profit.

LOL. Imagine a class with 10 students. Let's say that 9 students perfectly hedge their bets but one student spends a penny on his preferred option. How much money was made from hedging? Do you see how massively stupid it is to predict that the trend will continue to an obviously absurd conclusion?

There will be a market equilibrium somewhere, provided someone continuously tries playing your way or continues to gamble instead of hedging.

Based on the math, that will probably be somewhere around 98-99% of every bid.

The math is different, basically. Quadratic voting has a different mathematical outcome such that it's not so easily and obviously exploitable at first glance.

Easily exploited systems will be exploited. Systems harder to exploit may or may not be, but even if they are, will be at a lower rate. Your system is easily exploitable, thus it will be exploited. It's kind of a rule of man.

LOL. Really? The math makes quadratic voting harder to exploit? Care to elaborate?

The math behind quadratic voting has been explained to you. I'm not going to explain it again. If you want to understand it, go back and reread the first time it was explained.

If you tried to do so then you'd make a fool of yourself. The primary thing that you're "exploiting" with my model is a person's ability to hedge.

I'm not doing anything except observing. The first class has moved towards hedging because they saw it, the second class is moving towards gambling because they didn't. Fewer and fewer are playing in order to "choose" class inside or outside. The data trend continues.

Do you seriously think that the "different math" of quadratic voting somehow prevents participants from making hedge deals with each other?

Not per se, but the benefit of doing so is largely reduced compared with your system. Even then, over enough iterations, I suspect that flaws would be discovered. It's just not such obvious flaws as exist in your system.

[Galloism]

There's a little flaw in your example, in that the Washington Redskins are entirely owned by four people, and Dan Snyder, the only one of those four that actually matters, doesn't give a flying fuck if people are offended by the name. I would assume that he would give just as many flying fucks about pragmatarianism and coasianism were you to actually suggest this idea to him.

There's a "little" flaw in your example... it's called the government. For the longest time gay people wanted to get married. But they couldn't... because the government didn't give a flying fuck what they wanted. Instead, the government gave a flying fuck what the majority wanted. When the majority wanted gays to get married... then, and only then, did the government give a flying fuck about gay people.

The concept of "ownership" and "rights" are entirely subjective/fluid/flexible. If the majority wants to vote for a law that makes "offensive" names illegal... then it can do so. And then government wouldn't give a flying fuck what Dan Snyder wants.

So the issue is whether we use voting or spending in order to determine what/who the government gives a flying fuck about. Personally, I prefer spending. Then, if Dan Synder doesn't get what he wants, at least he'll be fairly compensated.

The problem is, of course, the concept of patent trolls taken to a new level and interesting level: legal trolls.

Let's say Dan Snyder values the redskins name (a reasonable assumption) but I don't know how much. I can reasonably be sure it's at least a few million dollars, though, because of the naming rights, established business etc. So I form a partnership with a few hundreds of thousands of members, which should be easy enough once I explain my business plan and how the risk is miniscule. Hell, because of the strangeness of entity structure, you only need a few thousand people to make a few hundred thousand legal entities.

Anyway, now, since I would organize this as a partnership instead of a corporation, that "bid" of oh, let's say a hundred thousand dollars (because extortion must be reasonable to work), is not made by one person. It flows through to all the partners and therefore is made up of tiny amounts across hundreds of thousands of names. Some may even be less than 1 cent, but still a bid. This satisfies the "demand breadth" you keep talking about. But how do I ensure Snyder puts up enough to counter us and get paid?

Why, I voluntarily tell him how much we're bidding of course. "Nice name you've got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it." More interestingly, I could do this to him every year or every few years - and it doesn't matter what he changes the name of the team to, I just change the wording of the law I'm proposing and siphon money off of his business.

The thing is, I can do this with every business. Google. Microsoft. Apple. Dell. IBM. Either I wreck their brand name recognition of they pay up.

[Xerographica]

There's a "little" flaw in your example... it's called the government. For the longest time gay people wanted to get married. But they couldn't... because the government didn't give a flying fuck what they wanted. Instead, the government gave a flying fuck what the majority wanted. When the majority wanted gays to get married... then, and only then, did the government give a flying fuck about gay people.

The concept of "ownership" and "rights" are entirely subjective/fluid/flexible. If the majority wants to vote for a law that makes "offensive" names illegal... then it can do so. And then government wouldn't give a flying fuck what Dan Snyder wants.

So the issue is whether we use voting or spending in order to determine what/who the government gives a flying fuck about. Personally, I prefer spending. Then, if Dan Synder doesn't get what he wants, at least he'll be fairly compensated.

The problem is, of course, the concept of patent trolls taken to a new level and interesting level: legal trolls.

Should coasianism be used to make a decision? Well... we could easily find out. We'd apply the pragmatarian model to this forum and then people could spend their fees on these two ideas. As a result, we'd know the value of each idea. If there's too much disparity between their values... then it would be pointless to use coasianism to resolve the conflict. The conflict would have already been resolved by the pragmatarian model. For example, if keeping the name was obviously far more valuable than changing it, then the name would be kept.

Would the conflict truly be resolved? Well... the more valuable that keeping the name is compared to changing it, the more obvious/definitive the public mandate for keeping the name. So a type of conflict would be resolved. But change is a constant so we shouldn't be surprised if the valuation of these two ideas changed over time. However, we would be able to clearly see the change in values over time.

[Galloism]

The problem is, of course, the concept of patent trolls taken to a new level and interesting level: legal trolls.

Should coasianism be used to make a decision? Well... we could easily find out. We'd apply the pragmatarian model to this forum and then people could spend their fees on these two ideas. As a result, we'd know the value of each idea. If there's too much disparity between their values... then it would be pointless to use coasianism to resolve the conflict. The conflict would have already been resolved by the pragmatarian model. For example, if keeping the name was obviously far more valuable than changing it, then the name would be kept.

Would the conflict truly be resolved? Well... the more valuable that keeping the name is compared to changing it, the more obvious/definitive the public mandate for keeping the name. So a type of conflict would be resolved. But change is a constant so we shouldn't be surprised if the valuation of these two ideas changed over time. However, we would be able to clearly see the change in values over time.

Did you not read the post?

Hundreds of thousands of people in on this. One mover, hundreds of thousands of legal persons of support.

[Xerographica]

Did you not read the post?

Hundreds of thousands of people in on this. One mover, hundreds of thousands of legal persons of support.

Do you not understand the pragmatarian model? With the pragmatarian model in mind, please fill in the blanks...

1. Change the name: $__________________________
2. Keep the name: $__________________________

[Galloism]

Did you not read the post?

Hundreds of thousands of people in on this. One mover, hundreds of thousands of legal persons of support.

Do you not understand the pragmatarian model? With the pragmatarian model in mind, please fill in the blanks...

1. Change the name: $__________________________
2. Keep the name: $__________________________

Who gets paid in the pre-bid bid?

[Xerographica]

Do you not understand the pragmatarian model? With the pragmatarian model in mind, please fill in the blanks...

1. Change the name: $__________________________
2. Keep the name: $__________________________

Who gets paid in the pre-bid bid?

What? Are you asking who gets paid in the pragmatarian model?

[Lost heros]

Who gets paid in the pre-bid bid?

What? Are you asking who gets paid in the pragmatarian model?

Yes. He's literally trying to figure out who are you paying with your bid to figure your bid.

[Galloism]

Who gets paid in the pre-bid bid?

What? Are you asking who gets paid in the pragmatarian model?

I'm saying if you do this in the hilariously ironically named 'pragmatarian' model:

1. Change the name: $ 10,000
2. Keep the name: $ 50

Moving it onto the ballot, where does the money go?

Consversely, if it goes like this:

1. Change the name: $ 10,000
2. Keep the name: $ 10,500

Where does the money go?

[Xerographica]

What? Are you asking who gets paid in the pragmatarian model?

I'm saying if you do this in the hilariously ironically named 'pragmatarian' model:

1. Change the name: $ 10,000
2. Keep the name: $ 50

Moving it onto the ballot, where does the money go?

Consversely, if it goes like this:

1. Change the name: $ 10,000
2. Keep the name: $ 10,500

Where does the money go?

If we applied the pragmatarian model to this forum, and members spent their money on my OP, then I'd probably split the money with Max Barry. If I spent my money on my OP, then all of it would go into Max Barry's pocket.

If Gallup wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. If you spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name, then that $1000 would go into Gallup's pocket.

If the government wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. Logically it would give you the option to decide which public goods your money is spent on. So you could spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name... and then you could choose to allocate that $1000 to space colonization.

[Galloism]

If the government wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. Logically it would give you the option to decide which public goods your money is spent on. So you could spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name... and then you could choose to allocate that $1000 to space colonization.

So focusing on this (because it's the only relevant portion of your post), the point is that you have to donate to the government (in addition to your regular taxes) to get items on the bidding ballot?

[Lost heros]

I'm saying if you do this in the hilariously ironically named 'pragmatarian' model:

1. Change the name: $ 10,000
2. Keep the name: $ 50

Moving it onto the ballot, where does the money go?

Consversely, if it goes like this:

1. Change the name: $ 10,000
2. Keep the name: $ 10,500

Where does the money go?

If we applied the pragmatarian model to this forum, and members spent their money on my OP, then I'd probably split the money with Max Barry. If I spent my money on my OP, then all of it would go into Max Barry's pocket.

If Gallup wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. If you spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name, then that $1000 would go into Gallup's pocket.

If the government wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. Logically it would give you the option to decide which public goods your money is spent on. So you could spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name... and then you could choose to allocate that $1000 to space colonization.

This is hilarious. The government of any polling place doesn't even have to do anything to make money in this ridiculous system. All they have to do is send out surveys. Congrats Xero, you've made "pragmatarianism" even stupider.

[Galloism]

If we applied the pragmatarian model to this forum, and members spent their money on my OP, then I'd probably split the money with Max Barry. If I spent my money on my OP, then all of it would go into Max Barry's pocket.

If Gallup wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. If you spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name, then that $1000 would go into Gallup's pocket.

If the government wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. Logically it would give you the option to decide which public goods your money is spent on. So you could spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name... and then you could choose to allocate that $1000 to space colonization.

This is hilarious. The government of any polling place doesn't even have to do anything to make money in this ridiculous system. All they have to do is send out surveys. Congrats Xero, you've made "pragmatarianism" even stupider.

Well, the question is whether if it was measured by, let's say, Gallup, or another polling company, if it would then go on the bidding ballot, or if you have to do it through the government.

There's problems with both, but this is a very important question for me to tailor further critique.

[Xerographica]

If the government wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. Logically it would give you the option to decide which public goods your money is spent on. So you could spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name... and then you could choose to allocate that $1000 to space colonization.

So focusing on this (because it's the only relevant portion of your post), the point is that you have to donate to the government (in addition to your regular taxes) to get items on the bidding ballot?

"Bidding ballot"?

People could use their donation to the government to communicate their valuation of the Redskins...

A. keeping their name
B. changing their name

If, via this pragmatarian model, we see that one option is far more valuable than the other option... then that would be that. The most valuable option would be chosen. There would be no need for coasianism. But if one option is not far more valuable than the other... then the smaller the value disparity, the greater the need for using coasianism.

If coasianism is used, you can't take your money that you spent on the pragmatarian model and use it for coasianism.

[Galloism]

So focusing on this (because it's the only relevant portion of your post), the point is that you have to donate to the government (in addition to your regular taxes) to get items on the bidding ballot?

"Bidding ballot"?

People could use their donation to the government to communicate their valuation of the Redskins...

A. keeping their name
B. changing their name

If, via this pragmatarian model, we see that one option is far more valuable than the other option... then that would be that. The most valuable option would be chosen. There would be no need for coasianism. But if one option is not far more valuable than the other... then the smaller the value disparity, the greater the need for using coasianism.

If coasianism is used, you can't take your money that you spent on the pragmatarian model and use it for coasianism.

I'm sorry, this makes no sense in the context of other things you've said, namely that things which don't receive sufficient demand breadth are removed from the menu.

If an item is 'removed from the menu', and can't be allocated to because there wasn't sufficient demand breadth at some point in history, and can't be readded without coasianism, and you can't put it up for coasianism unless it receives sufficient allocations under the hilariously misnamed pragmatarian system, then you run smack dab into the "neither train may go until the other has passed" problem. Once something is gone, it can never be brought back, and nothing can ever be instituted.

[Xerographica]

If we applied the pragmatarian model to this forum, and members spent their money on my OP, then I'd probably split the money with Max Barry. If I spent my money on my OP, then all of it would go into Max Barry's pocket.

If Gallup wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. If you spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name, then that $1000 would go into Gallup's pocket.

If the government wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. Logically it would give you the option to decide which public goods your money is spent on. So you could spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name... and then you could choose to allocate that $1000 to space colonization.

This is hilarious. The government of any polling place doesn't even have to do anything to make money in this ridiculous system. All they have to do is send out surveys. Congrats Xero, you've made "pragmatarianism" even stupider.

Congrats Lost heros, you've said that this made pragmatarianism even stupider, but you failed to explain how, exactly, it makes it stupider.

If all you're capable of saying is that something is stupid... then... well... your feedback is better than no feedback? Clearly though it's preferable if you are capable of explaining why, exactly, you think that something is stupid.

[The Two Jerseys]

So focusing on this (because it's the only relevant portion of your post), the point is that you have to donate to the government (in addition to your regular taxes) to get items on the bidding ballot?

"Bidding ballot"?

People could use their donation to the government to communicate their valuation of the Redskins...

A. keeping their name
B. changing their name

If, via this pragmatarian model, we see that one option is far more valuable than the other option... then that would be that. The most valuable option would be chosen. There would be no need for coasianism. But if one option is not far more valuable than the other... then the smaller the value disparity, the greater the need for using coasianism.

If coasianism is used, you can't take your money that you spent on the pragmatarian model and use it for coasianism.

And if someone allocates all their taxes to "change the Washington Redskins' name", what's the government going to do with that money? There's no Department of NFL Team Names to spend it on.

[Xerographica]

"Bidding ballot"?

People could use their donation to the government to communicate their valuation of the Redskins...

A. keeping their name
B. changing their name

If, via this pragmatarian model, we see that one option is far more valuable than the other option... then that would be that. The most valuable option would be chosen. There would be no need for coasianism. But if one option is not far more valuable than the other... then the smaller the value disparity, the greater the need for using coasianism.

If coasianism is used, you can't take your money that you spent on the pragmatarian model and use it for coasianism.

I'm sorry, this makes no sense in the context of other things you've said, namely that things which don't receive sufficient demand breadth are removed from the menu.

If an item is 'removed from the menu', and can't be allocated to because there wasn't sufficient demand breadth at some point in history, and can't be readded without coasianism, and you can't put it up for coasianism unless it receives sufficient allocations under the hilariously misnamed pragmatarian system, then you run smack dab into the "neither train may go until the other has passed" problem. Once something is gone, it can never be brought back, and nothing can ever be instituted.

What are you talking about?

The government asks, "should slavery be legal?"

A. Yes
B. No

If a lot more money gets spent on the "No" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

The government asks, "should the Redskins change their name?"

A. Yes
B. No

If a lot more money gets spent on the "Yes" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The Redskins would change their name. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

[The Two Jerseys]

If a lot more money gets spent on the "Yes" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The Redskins would change their name. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

We've already explained to you why that isn't gonna happen...

[Galloism]

I'm sorry, this makes no sense in the context of other things you've said, namely that things which don't receive sufficient demand breadth are removed from the menu.

If an item is 'removed from the menu', and can't be allocated to because there wasn't sufficient demand breadth at some point in history, and can't be readded without coasianism, and you can't put it up for coasianism unless it receives sufficient allocations under the hilariously misnamed pragmatarian system, then you run smack dab into the "neither train may go until the other has passed" problem. Once something is gone, it can never be brought back, and nothing can ever be instituted.

What are you talking about?

The government asks, "should slavery be legal?"

A. Yes
B. No

If a lot more money gets spent on the "No" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

The government asks, "should the Redskins change their name?"

A. Yes
B. No

If a lot more money gets spent on the "Yes" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The Redskins would change their name. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

So it's essentially you're arguing for 'coasianism' without compensation for the one that loses.

That does change the outcome. You'd have to bid to maliciously harm your opponent, not just for personal compensation.

Would help raise government revenue, though.

[Xerographica]

"Bidding ballot"?

People could use their donation to the government to communicate their valuation of the Redskins...

A. keeping their name
B. changing their name

If, via this pragmatarian model, we see that one option is far more valuable than the other option... then that would be that. The most valuable option would be chosen. There would be no need for coasianism. But if one option is not far more valuable than the other... then the smaller the value disparity, the greater the need for using coasianism.

If coasianism is used, you can't take your money that you spent on the pragmatarian model and use it for coasianism.

And if someone allocates all their taxes to "change the Washington Redskins' name", what's the government going to do with that money? There's no Department of NFL Team Names to spend it on.

If the government wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. Logically it would give you the option to decide which public goods your money is spent on. So you could spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name... and then you could choose to allocate that $1000 to space colonization.

[The Two Jerseys]

And if someone allocates all their taxes to "change the Washington Redskins' name", what's the government going to do with that money? There's no Department of NFL Team Names to spend it on.

If the government wanted to use the pragmatarian model to measure the value of conflicting ideas, then it would keep the money spent on the ideas. Logically it would give you the option to decide which public goods your money is spent on. So you could spend $1000 on the Redskins keeping their name... and then you could choose to allocate that $1000 to space colonization.

So bribery, in other words.

[Lost heros]

This is hilarious. The government of any polling place doesn't even have to do anything to make money in this ridiculous system. All they have to do is send out surveys. Congrats Xero, you've made "pragmatarianism" even stupider.

Congrats Lost heros, you've said that this made pragmatarianism even stupider, but you failed to explain how, exactly, it makes it stupider.

If all you're capable of saying is that something is stupid... then... well... your feedback is better than no feedback? Clearly though it's preferable if you are capable of explaining why, exactly, you think that something is stupid.

Gallup CEO: Hmm, I want more money.
Gallup CFO: Okay, let's send out a controversial poll. Like about abortion or the presidential election.
Gallup CEO: Yea, you're right. I'm glad we don't have to produce meaningful content anymore to turn a profit.

President: The stupid fucking citizens aren't funding our schools again.
Vice President: Just release more and more bidding options. Some people might "donate" to education.
President: Yea, you're right. I'm not sure that continually sending out polls after polls in order to get some more money for our infrastructure and not being in control of our budget at all is the best idea.

[Galloism]

Congrats Lost heros, you've said that this made pragmatarianism even stupider, but you failed to explain how, exactly, it makes it stupider.

If all you're capable of saying is that something is stupid... then... well... your feedback is better than no feedback? Clearly though it's preferable if you are capable of explaining why, exactly, you think that something is stupid.

Gallup CEO: Hmm, I want more money.
Gallup CFO: Okay, let's send out a controversial poll. Like about abortion or the presidential election.
Gallup CEO: Yea, you're right. I'm glad we don't have to produce meaningful content anymore to turn a profit.

President: The stupid fucking citizens aren't funding our schools again.
Vice President: Just release more and more bidding options. Some people might "donate" to education.
President: Yea, you're right. I'm not sure that continually sending out polls after polls in order to get some more money for our infrastructure and not being in control of our budget at all is the best idea.

I still wonder if there's a majority who tell Gallup that slavery is preferable, how that translates into public policy.

Does this force it into an actual bidding referenda (IE, 'coasianism')?

[The Two Jerseys]

Gallup CEO: Hmm, I want more money.
Gallup CFO: Okay, let's send out a controversial poll. Like about abortion or the presidential election.
Gallup CEO: Yea, you're right. I'm glad we don't have to produce meaningful content anymore to turn a profit.

President: The stupid fucking citizens aren't funding our schools again.
Vice President: Just release more and more bidding options. Some people might "donate" to education.
President: Yea, you're right. I'm not sure that continually sending out polls after polls in order to get some more money for our infrastructure and not being in control of our budget at all is the best idea.

I still wonder if there's a majority who tell Gallup that slavery is preferable, how that translates into public policy.

Does this force it into an actual bidding referenda (IE, 'coasianism')?

What's so hard to understand? You use coasianism to make decisions, except when you use pragmatarianism to make decisions, duhhhh!