The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Xerographica]

The Libertarian Party (LP) has never won. But check this out…

https://www.lp.org/help-choose-theme-for-2018-convention/

Scroll down on that page and you’ll be able to see the actual demand for the different potential themes for their 2018 convention. We can see, in dollar amounts, just how important/relevant/valuable each theme is. We can see more! Being able to see more means being less blind! And whichever group is the least blind will win!

I’m pretty sure that markets work because they allow us to see the demand for things. In markets… people are less blind. The economic decisions they make more accurately reflect the rarity of resources in conditions and circumstances that are complex and constantly changing.

The LP is, in theory, the party that’s most supportive of markets. Now they are even allowing the market to choose the theme for their 2018 convention! If the LP allows the market to guide its biggest decisions then it will be the least blind group by far. And whichever group is the least blind will win!

Does anybody know of any other examples of surveys where voting has been replaced with spending? Do these type of surveys have a technical name?

[Galloism]

Unfortunately, by forcing people to pay to express their preference, they are blind to certain information available to those not behind a paywall.


Then again, this concept is so libertarian, I can't help but be disappointed the libertarian party didn't think of it sooner.

[Neutraligon]

Seems to me this could simply be a measure of how much money a person already has.

[Souseiseki]

yeah, they just want money because as a general rule libertarians really like money. they don't care if it's an effective way of actually gauging opinion and any positive side effects from it (of which there will be little) will be a complete coincidence.

[Xerographica]

Unfortunately, by forcing people to pay to express their preference, they are blind to certain information available to those not behind a paywall.

But shouldn't those members who spend more money to keep the LP alive have more say over its decisions? Isn't that kinda the same premise with shareholders?

Then again, this concept is so libertarian, I can't help but be disappointed the libertarian party didn't think of it sooner.

Me too! It's kinda rare when we agree. We should commorate this special occasion with applause...

[Galloism]

Unfortunately, by forcing people to pay to express their preference, they are blind to certain information available to those not behind a paywall.

But shouldn't those members who spend more money to keep the LP alive have more say over its decisions? Isn't that kinda the same premise with shareholders?

No.

If you bought a few thousand dollars worth of apple shares back in the 80s, you'd have more say than people who bought many many millions worth of shares now.

Then again, this concept is so libertarian, I can't help but be disappointed the libertarian party didn't think of it sooner.

Me too! It's kinda rare when we agree. We should commorate this special occasion with applause...

I seriously doubt that we agree on anything except "this is extremely libertarian". While it is an observation we can probably both agree on, the value judgements are very very different.

[Xerographica]

But shouldn't those members who spend more money to keep the LP alive have more say over its decisions? Isn't that kinda the same premise with shareholders?

No.

If you bought a few thousand dollars worth of apple shares back in the 80s, you'd have more say than people who bought many many millions worth of shares now.

Let's pretend that, for whatever reason, you own .0000001% of my house and I own the rest. Are you arguing that we should have an equal say over the color that I paint the house?

Me too! It's kinda rare when we agree. We should commorate this special occasion with applause...

I seriously doubt that we agree on anything except "this is extremely libertarian". While it is an observation we can probably both agree on, the value judgements are very very different.

We agree that...

1. The idea is very libertarian
2. It's disappointing that the LP didn't think of it sooner

This is the most that we've ever agreed!

[Galloism]

No.

If you bought a few thousand dollars worth of apple shares back in the 80s, you'd have more say than people who bought many many millions worth of shares now.

Let's pretend that, for whatever reason, you own .0000001% of my house and I own the rest. Are you arguing that we should have an equal say over the color that I paint the house?

No, but that's about ownership and control, not investment.

I would think the same if you spent $1 million for your 99.9999999% of the house, and I came along some years later and spent $2 million on the other 0.0000001%.

I seriously doubt that we agree on anything except "this is extremely libertarian". While it is an observation we can probably both agree on, the value judgements are very very different.

We agree that...

1. The idea is very libertarian
2. It's disappointing that the LP didn't think of it sooner

This is the most that we've ever agreed!

I guess.

Of course, I think the Libertarian party, as an organization, is basically full of fail, whereas you are probably thinking it's a great idea.

[Xerographica]

Let's pretend that, for whatever reason, you own .0000001% of my house and I own the rest. Are you arguing that we should have an equal say over the color that I paint the house?

No, but that's about ownership and control, not investment.

I would think the same if you spent $1 million for your 99.9999999% of the house, and I came along some years later and spent $2 million on the other 0.0000001%.

The issue is whether pay should equal say. From my perspective, the more money that you donate to the LP, the more influence that you should have over its direction. If you donate $0 dollars to the LP and I donate $1,000,000 to the LP... it would be ludicrous for us to have equal influence over the theme for their 2018 convention. If it wasn't for my donation, then there probably wouldn't even be a 2018 convention.

We agree that...

1. The idea is very libertarian
2. It's disappointing that the LP didn't think of it sooner

This is the most that we've ever agreed!

I guess.

Of course, I think the Libertarian party, as an organization, is basically full of fail, whereas you are probably thinking it's a great idea.

Well I'm not a libertarian. But how could the LP possibly be full of fail if its big decisions are determined by the market?

Is Uber full of fail for transitioning to robot-driven cars? The market is responsible for answering this question. If the market actually makes the big decisions... then clearly there's going to be a lot less chance of fail. The market is probably not going to disapprove of a decision that IT made.

The market is probably not going to smack the LP for a decision that the MARKET itself made. The market is choosing the LP's convention theme. So how is the LP going to lose funding for having a theme that was chosen by the market? In theory, it should be the other way around. By having the most valuable theme, the LP itself becomes more valuable, which means that people will donate more money to it. If these donors can use their contributions to help determine the LP's direction... then it will be a virtuous cycle. The LP will quickly become the most valuable party. And then it will finally win.

[Galloism]

The issue is whether pay should equal say. From my perspective, the more money that you donate to the LP, the more influence that you should have over its direction. If you donate $0 dollars to the LP and I donate $1,000,000 to the LP... it would be ludicrous for us to have equal influence over the theme for their 2018 convention. If it wasn't for my donation, then there probably wouldn't even be a 2018 convention.

In which case, you wouldn't let shareholder votes go by number shares. You would let them go by purchase price OF the shares.

Not sure how that would affect things. I'd have to ruminate on that for a while. It probably would mean corporate owners would very quickly lose control after going public, no matter how many shares they owned.

Not sure how that would affect things.

I guess.

Of course, I think the Libertarian party, as an organization, is basically full of fail, whereas you are probably thinking it's a great idea.

Well I'm not a libertarian. But how could the LP possibly be full of fail if its big decisions are determined by the market?

Look at the last election. Despite running against the two most unpopular candidates in modern history, and getting plenty of coverage of their guys, they only grabbed 3% of the vote.

Is Uber full of fail for transitioning to robot-driven cars? The market is responsible for answering this question. If the market actually makes the big decisions... then clearly there's going to be a lot less chance of fail. The market is probably not going to disapprove of a decision that IT made.

The market is probably not going to smack the LP for a decision that the MARKET itself made. The market is choosing the LP's convention theme. So how is the LP going to lose funding for having a theme that was chosen by the market? In theory, it should be the other way around. By having the most valuable theme, the LP itself becomes more valuable, which means that people will donate more money to it. If these donors can use their contributions to help determine the LP's direction... then it will be a virtuous cycle. The LP will quickly become the most valuable party. And then it will finally win.

This is just more of the insane blabble that we're all used to.

[Xerographica]

The market is probably not going to smack the LP for a decision that the MARKET itself made. The market is choosing the LP's convention theme. So how is the LP going to lose funding for having a theme that was chosen by the market? In theory, it should be the other way around. By having the most valuable theme, the LP itself becomes more valuable, which means that people will donate more money to it. If these donors can use their contributions to help determine the LP's direction... then it will be a virtuous cycle. The LP will quickly become the most valuable party. And then it will finally win.

This is just more of the insane blabble that we're all used to.

Yeah, it might be insane... but it would help if you could be more specific...

1. The market is choosing the LP's theme
2. The market will choose the most valuable theme for the LP
3. Having the most valuable theme will increase the value of the LP

Are any of these arguments insane? If so, which ones? And... why, exactly, are they insane?

[The Sauganash Union]

Make political parties limited liability partnerships again.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So basically, let's fix the system by literally having businessmen decide politics

[Galloism]

This is just more of the insane blabble that we're all used to.

Yeah, it might be insane... but it would help if you could be more specific...

1. The market is choosing the LP's theme
2. The market will choose the most valuable theme for the LP
3. Having the most valuable theme will increase the value of the LP

Are any of these arguments insane? If so, which ones? And... why, exactly, are they insane?

1, 2, and 3, specifically.

This is not a market, first off, as nothing is being exchanged.

Second, even if it were, there's no reason to assume this "market" (used in quotes because it's not really a market) will result in the most valuable choice being made, given the people who would actually donate to this probably mostly don't have a firm grasp of politics in the first place, given they're backing a horse that can't win.

Third, even if "the most valuable choice" is chosen, it doesn't change the electoral math. The system is very harsh to third parties, because this is how math works. A catchy slogan for the LP is like trying to propel a jumbo jet by farting out the back. Sure technically a fart creates thrust, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but if you get an extra nanometer of distance you should probably see a doctor.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, it might be insane... but it would help if you could be more specific...

1. The market is choosing the LP's theme
2. The market will choose the most valuable theme for the LP
3. Having the most valuable theme will increase the value of the LP

Are any of these arguments insane? If so, which ones? And... why, exactly, are they insane?

1, 2, and 3, specifically.

This is not a market, first off, as nothing is being exchanged.

Second, even if it were, there's no reason to assume this "market" (used in quotes because it's not really a market) will result in the most valuable choice being made, given the people who would actually donate to this probably mostly don't have a firm grasp of politics in the first place, given they're backing a horse that can't win.

Third, even if "the most valuable choice" is chosen, it doesn't change the electoral math. The system is very harsh to third parties, because this is how math works. A catchy slogan for the LP is like trying to propel a jumbo jet by farting out the back. Sure technically a fart creates thrust, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but if you get an extra nanometer of distance you should probably see a doctor.

Gallo, I'm insulted

[Galloism]

1, 2, and 3, specifically.

This is not a market, first off, as nothing is being exchanged.

Second, even if it were, there's no reason to assume this "market" (used in quotes because it's not really a market) will result in the most valuable choice being made, given the people who would actually donate to this probably mostly don't have a firm grasp of politics in the first place, given they're backing a horse that can't win.

Third, even if "the most valuable choice" is chosen, it doesn't change the electoral math. The system is very harsh to third parties, because this is how math works. A catchy slogan for the LP is like trying to propel a jumbo jet by farting out the back. Sure technically a fart creates thrust, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but if you get an extra nanometer of distance you should probably see a doctor.

Gallo, I'm insulted

I qualified with a "mostly".

[Lady Scylla]

Gallo, I'm insulted

I qualified with a "mostly".

I wouldn't vote for him. >.>

[The East Marches II]

Warthunder, World of Tanks and Life are all already pay2win. I don't see anything wrong about applying it to politics. Inb4 you have to purchase LiberCoins which have a strange exchange rate to vote for party stuff.

[Xerographica]

This is not a market, first off, as nothing is being exchanged.

Money is being exchanged for warm fuzzies... so it is a market.

Second, even if it were, there's no reason to assume this "market" (used in quotes because it's not really a market) will result in the most valuable choice being made, given the people who would actually donate to this probably mostly don't have a firm grasp of politics in the first place, given they're backing a horse that can't win.

You derive value from participating on this forum. This is true regardless of your grasp of politics or economics. How much value do you derive from participating on this forum? Obviously I can't know this. Only you can know this.

One way we reveal how much value we get from something is by our willingness to pay for it. So when I say that the market will choose the most valuable LP theme, I'm arguing that donors will spend their money on whichever theme will provide them with the greatest value.

Third, even if "the most valuable choice" is chosen, it doesn't change the electoral math. The system is very harsh to third parties, because this is how math works. A catchy slogan for the LP is like trying to propel a jumbo jet by farting out the back. Sure technically a fart creates thrust, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but if you get an extra nanometer of distance you should probably see a doctor.

If being a member of the LP provides people with more value than being a member of the DP or RP... then clearly the political system will change accordingly.

Let's think about two stores... Libertad and Nolibertad. In Libertad shoppers can decide how much money they spend on the different products. In Nolibertad the shoppers can't decide how much money they spend on the different products. So what's going to happen? In Libertad, shoppers are going to spend their money on the most valuable products. Libertad will constantly replace less valuable products with more valuable products. But in Nonlibertad, the less valuable products aren't going to be constantly replaced with more valuable products. Because, how will Nonlibertad actually know the value of its products?

Libertad will be the least blind store. Therefore, it will win.

[Lady Scylla]

This is not a market, first off, as nothing is being exchanged.

Money is being exchanged for warm fuzzies... so it is a market.

Erm. No. That's just a transaction. Markets are sectors involving thousands of transactions from numerous sources. And a transaction only happens if money is being exchanged for good, services, or financial assets. If money is being given expecting a return of either financial or other favours, it is an investment.

[Xerographica]

Money is being exchanged for warm fuzzies... so it is a market.

Erm. No. That's just a transaction. Markets are sectors involving thousands of transactions from numerous sources. And a transaction only happens if money is being exchanged for good, services, or financial assets. If money is being given expecting a return of either financial or other favours, it is an investment.

On CharityNavigator... you can shop around for a non-profit that is going to give you the most warm fuzzies for your dollars. So it's the market that decides how much money PETA gets. Just like it's the market that decides how much money each LP theme gets. Because it's certainly not up to the LP to decide how much money each theme gets.

[Lady Scylla]

Erm. No. That's just a transaction. Markets are sectors involving thousands of transactions from numerous sources. And a transaction only happens if money is being exchanged for good, services, or financial assets. If money is being given expecting a return of either financial or other favours, it is an investment.

On CharityNavigator... you can shop around for a non-profit that is going to give you the most warm fuzzies for your dollars. So it's the market that decides how much money PETA gets. Just like it's the market that decides how much money each LP theme gets. Because it's certainly not up to the LP to decide how much money each theme gets.

That is still not a market. Warm fuzzies are not goods, services, or financial assets -- and therefore not a transaction.

[Xerographica]

On CharityNavigator... you can shop around for a non-profit that is going to give you the most warm fuzzies for your dollars. So it's the market that decides how much money PETA gets. Just like it's the market that decides how much money each LP theme gets. Because it's certainly not up to the LP to decide how much money each theme gets.

That is still not a market. Warm fuzzies are not goods, services, or financial assets -- and therefore not a transaction.

Clearly the LP isn't deciding how much money is being allocated to each theme. Therefore, that rules out the Visible Hand. According to you, the market isn't deciding how much money is being allocated to each theme. Therefore, the Invisible Hand is also ruled out. Which leaves?

[Uiiop]

Let's see if there will be some troll donations....

[Xerographica]

Let's see if there will be some troll donations....

It would have been awesome if themes could have been suggested for a minimum donation of $20 bucks. How much money would "Libertarians Should Move To Somalia!" have received?