The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Galloism]

some of the students decided that they would deliberately and intentionally spend their money on a candidate who they felt was sure to lose... Christopher. However, too many other students had the same exact idea...

And this is how slavery comes back.

Thank you for admitting it.

[Neutraligon]

some of the students decided that they would deliberately and intentionally spend their money on a candidate who they felt was sure to lose... Christopher. However, too many other students had the same exact idea...

And this is how slavery comes back.

Thank you for admitting it.

That "experiment" is still going on? I wonder how it finished up in the higher level classes.

[Xerographica]

some of the students decided that they would deliberately and intentionally spend their money on a candidate who they felt was sure to lose... Christopher. However, too many other students had the same exact idea...

And this is how slavery comes back.

Thank you for admitting it.

The Classtopians used coasianism to choose who should be in charge of their Justice Department. The LP is using pragmatarianism to choose its theme for their convention.

When it comes to the issue of slavery... would we use coasianism or pragmatarianism?

Imagine if "Bring Slavery Back" was one of the LP's potential themes. How much money would you be willing to spend on this theme? How much money would the market be willing to spend on this theme? What would be the actual demand for this theme? Should we know the actual demand for this theme? Or, is ignorance bliss?

The LP doesn't sort its themes according to their value. But what if it did? And what if anybody could submit any theme? How would "Bring Slavery Back" rank as a theme?

[Galloism]

And this is how slavery comes back.

Thank you for admitting it.

That "experiment" is still going on? I wonder how it finished up in the higher level classes.

An agreement was reached by both classes, eventually, that if nobody would bid they could all vote and it would be fairer.

[Galloism]

When it comes to the issue of slavery...

Speculators would inadvertently bring slavery back, yes.

[Senkaku]

And, three pages in, it appears we've gotten back to the same nonsense Xero's threads are always about.

[Galloism]

And, three pages in, it appears we've gotten back to the same nonsense Xero's threads are always about.

They're never about anything else.

[Xerographica]

And, three pages in, it appears we've gotten back to the same nonsense Xero's threads are always about.

Actually, it was two pages in and I didn't bring it up.

[Xerographica]

When it comes to the issue of slavery...

Speculators would inadvertently bring slavery back, yes.

Everybody can clearly see that you completely failed to address or even acknowledge my arguments. So why do you think that simply reiterating your own argument will win you any points?

[Galloism]

Speculators would inadvertently bring slavery back, yes.

Everybody can clearly see that you completely failed to address or even acknowledge my arguments. So why do you think that simply reiterating your own argument will win you any points?

You complained we couldn't bring back slavery with 'coasianism' because people woudl by and large bid their true valuation, in spite of their own best interests.

Your classroom backed me up, by your own admission.

I'm satisfied.

[Neutraligon]

That "experiment" is still going on? I wonder how it finished up in the higher level classes.

An agreement was reached by both classes, eventually, that if nobody would bid they could all vote and it would be fairer.

An interesting outcome.

[Galloism]

An agreement was reached by both classes, eventually, that if nobody would bid they could all vote and it would be fairer.

An interesting outcome.

The professor thought so - said he's going to do this again to see if unmitigated bidding like this naturally trends towards government, or if it was a one-off.

[Xerographica]

Everybody can clearly see that you completely failed to address or even acknowledge my arguments. So why do you think that simply reiterating your own argument will win you any points?

You complained we couldn't bring back slavery with 'coasianism' because people woudl by and large bid their true valuation, in spite of their own best interests.

Your classroom backed me up, by your own admission.

No, I didn't "complain" that coasianism wouldn't bring back slavery. I explained that we'd use the LP's system to see and know the value of the idea of slavery.

Again, if "Bring Slavery Back" was one of the LP's themes... how much money would you be willing to spend on it? How much money would the market be willing to spend on it?

[Neutraligon]

An interesting outcome.

The professor thought so - said he's going to do this again to see if unmitigated bidding like this naturally trends towards government, or if it was a one-off.

Haha, so this experiment proved to have some use after all. It does suggest that there is an issue with how the most extreme libertarians/anarchists think of things.

[The Holy Therns]

Speculators would inadvertently bring slavery back, yes.

Everybody can clearly see that you completely failed to address or even acknowledge my arguments. So why do you think that simply reiterating your own argument will win you any points?

Well, it's what you keep doing, thread after thread after thread.

[The Two Jerseys]

People are going to troll the LP by giving it money?! Hehe.

Sure, if this is a binding contract they would pick a stupid slogan to troll.

Now imagine if the stakes are higher...

[Xerographica]

Everybody can clearly see that you completely failed to address or even acknowledge my arguments. So why do you think that simply reiterating your own argument will win you any points?

Well, it's what you keep doing, thread after thread after thread.

I didn't address or even acknowledge Galloism's argument? Seriously?

Galloism argued that coasianism would bring slavery back. I explained to him that we wouldn't use coasianism to determine the value of slavery... we'd use the LP's system. If "Bring Slavery Back" was a theme, then I'm pretty sure that it would receive barely any money. So everybody could see that slavery, as an idea, was virtually worthless. So why would society implement an idea that was virtually worthless? It really wouldn't.

Right now one of the LP's themes is "Taxation Is Theft". We can all clearly see the demand for this idea. And the demand is relatively insignificant. So why in the world would the LP want to choose this theme? Why in the world would society want to eliminate taxation?

Galloism made an argument and I refuted it. This is what I keep doing thread after thread.

[Galloism]

I explained to him that we wouldn't use coasianism to determine the value of slavery... we'd use the LP's system.

Why?

I'm being harmed by the lack of slavery with my cotton fields. I should get compensated for the harm of not having slavery.

[The Two Jerseys]

Well, it's what you keep doing, thread after thread after thread.

I didn't address or even acknowledge Galloism's argument? Seriously?

Galloism argued that coasianism would bring slavery back.

It will. We've been over this before.

I explained to him that we wouldn't use coasianism to determine the value of slavery... we'd use the LP's system. If "Bring Slavery Back" was a theme, then I'm pretty sure that it would receive barely any money. So everybody could see that slavery, as an idea, was virtually worthless. So why would society implement an idea that was virtually worthless? It really wouldn't.

So who gets all the money in the LP's system?

[Galloism]

I explained to him that we wouldn't use coasianism to determine the value of slavery... we'd use the LP's system. If "Bring Slavery Back" was a theme, then I'm pretty sure that it would receive barely any money. So everybody could see that slavery, as an idea, was virtually worthless. So why would society implement an idea that was virtually worthless? It really wouldn't.

So who gets all the money in the LP's system?

This one is easy and I can answer it: the LP does.

So people who choose the other options aren't being compensated if they lose. They just gave their money away and didn't get the option they want anyway.

Because it was never a market transaction in the first place.

[Neutraligon]

So who gets all the money in the LP's system?

This one is easy and I can answer it: the LP does.

So people who choose the other options aren't being compensated if they lose. They just gave their money away and didn't get the option they want anyway.

Because it was never a market transaction in the first place.

So, gambling, sorta.

[Xerographica]

Sure, if this is a binding contract they would pick a stupid slogan to troll.

Now imagine if the stakes are higher...

Ok, this is really funny weird. Let me see if I can get it straight...

The UK conservatives are advocating that people spend $3 dollars in order to have the opportunity to help Jeremy Corbyn become head of the liberal party. Clearly the conservatives are under the impression that Corbyn winning will really hurt the liberal party. However, here's what Corbyn said a while back...

Could the Minister consider whether it would be right to introduce such a measure? The Italian Parliament has draft legislation before it that would allow Italian taxpayers to divert a proportion of their tax from the armed services to peace building, and there are three relevant petitions before this House. Given the huge rebuilding costs that will fall to this country and others in Kosovo and elsewhere where there has been conflict, perhaps we should have a peace-building fund that could invest in conflict resolution, reconstruction and trying to prevent terrible wars and civilian conflicts.

British taxpayers have a right of conscience not to participate in the armed forces in time of conscription and should have a similar right in time of peace to ensure that part of their tax goes to peace, not war. - Jeremy Corbyn, Taxpayers (Conscience)

Corbyn essentially advocated for people's freedom to choose where their tax dollars go. And now conservatives are encouraging people to spend their money for Corbyn. But only because they want Corbyn to be in charge of the liberal party so that the liberal party isn't in charge of the government.

So... it's really funny weird. Admittedly, my grasp of UK politics is pretty limited. So I'm probably missing, or misunderstanding, something.

[The Two Jerseys]

So who gets all the money in the LP's system?

This one is easy and I can answer it: the LP does.

So people who choose the other options aren't being compensated if they lose. They just gave their money away and didn't get the option they want anyway.

Because it was never a market transaction in the first place.

So coasianism now isn't the best thing since sliced bread?

How the hell is Xero's society supposed to function when it has 20 different economic systems jockeying for prominence?

Now imagine if the stakes are higher...

Ok, this is really funny weird. Let me see if I can get it straight...

The UK conservatives are advocating that people spend $3 dollars in order to have the opportunity to help Jeremy Corbyn become head of the liberal party. Clearly the conservatives are under the impression that Corbyn winning will really hurt the liberal party. However, here's what Corbyn said a while back...

Could the Minister consider whether it would be right to introduce such a measure? The Italian Parliament has draft legislation before it that would allow Italian taxpayers to divert a proportion of their tax from the armed services to peace building, and there are three relevant petitions before this House. Given the huge rebuilding costs that will fall to this country and others in Kosovo and elsewhere where there has been conflict, perhaps we should have a peace-building fund that could invest in conflict resolution, reconstruction and trying to prevent terrible wars and civilian conflicts.

British taxpayers have a right of conscience not to participate in the armed forces in time of conscription and should have a similar right in time of peace to ensure that part of their tax goes to peace, not war. - Jeremy Corbyn, Taxpayers (Conscience)

Corbyn essentially advocated for people's freedom to choose where their tax dollars go. And now conservatives are encouraging people to spend their money for Corbyn. But only because they want Corbyn to be in charge of the liberal party so that the liberal party isn't in charge of the government.

So... it's really funny weird. Admittedly, my grasp of UK politics is pretty limited. So I'm probably missing, or misunderstanding, something.

Some Tories wanted fellow Tories to sign up as Labour Party members and vote for Corbyn as Labour Party leader, because the majority of the British public think that Corbyn's policies are batshit insane, which would pretty much guarantee that the Tories would win every election while Corbyn is in charge of the Labour Party.

So yes, trolling the Libertarians by giving money to a shitty slogan is chump change compared to what else could happen if we let the "market" decide things.

[Salandriagado]

Now imagine if the stakes are higher...

Ok, this is really funny weird. Let me see if I can get it straight...

The UK conservatives are advocating that people spend $£3 dollars in order to have the opportunity to help Jeremy Corbyn become head of the liberalLabour party. Clearly the conservatives are under the impression that Corbyn winning will really hurt the liberalLabour party. However, here's what Corbyn said a while back...

Could the Minister consider whether it would be right to introduce such a measure? The Italian Parliament has draft legislation before it that would allow Italian taxpayers to divert a proportion of their tax from the armed services to peace building, and there are three relevant petitions before this House. Given the huge rebuilding costs that will fall to this country and others in Kosovo and elsewhere where there has been conflict, perhaps we should have a peace-building fund that could invest in conflict resolution, reconstruction and trying to prevent terrible wars and civilian conflicts.

British taxpayers have a right of conscience not to participate in the armed forces in time of conscription and should have a similar right in time of peace to ensure that part of their tax goes to peace, not war. - Jeremy Corbyn, Taxpayers (Conscience)

Corbyn essentially advocated for people's freedom to choose where their tax dollars gosomething entirely different from what you are talking about. And now conservatives are encouraging people to spend their money for Corbyn. But only because they want Corbyn to be in charge of the liberalLabour party so that the liberalLabour party isn't in charge of the government.

So... it's really funny weird. Admittedly, my grasp of UK politics is pretty limited. So I'm probably missing, or misunderstanding, something.

Fixed that for you. This isn't a lack of understanding issue: this is a lack of reading issue.

[Galloism]

Ok, this is really funny weird. Let me see if I can get it straight...

The UK conservatives are advocating that people spend $£3 dollars in order to have the opportunity to help Jeremy Corbyn become head of the liberalLabour party. Clearly the conservatives are under the impression that Corbyn winning will really hurt the liberalLabour party. However, here's what Corbyn said a while back...


Corbyn essentially advocated for people's freedom to choose where their tax dollars gosomething entirely different from what you are talking about. And now conservatives are encouraging people to spend their money for Corbyn. But only because they want Corbyn to be in charge of the liberalLabour party so that the liberalLabour party isn't in charge of the government.

So... it's really funny weird. Admittedly, my grasp of UK politics is pretty limited. So I'm probably missing, or misunderstanding, something.

Fixed that for you. This isn't a lack of understanding issue: this is a lack of reading issue.

You mean someone might spend money to deliberately undercut or attack something else to deliberately destroy value, and therefore it might not result in a utopia of great economics?

The devil you say.