The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Grave_n_idle]

If I really understand this thread, I think the logical conclusion is that bees have it right, and all decisions have to be made by dancing in the most convincing fashion.

That's right, right?

[Galloism]

If I really understand this thread, I think the logical conclusion is that bees have it right, and all decisions have to be made by dancing in the most convincing fashion.

That's right, right?

Imagine the presidential debates.

[The Two Jerseys]

If I really understand this thread, I think the logical conclusion is that bees have it right, and all decisions have to be made by dancing in the most convincing fashion.

That's right, right?

Imagine the presidential debates.

"Bob Dole isn't communicating, Bob Dole is having a seizure! Bob Dole needs an ambulance, help Bob Dole!"

[Camicon]

If I really understand this thread, I think the logical conclusion is that bees have it right, and all decisions have to be made by dancing in the most convincing fashion.

That's right, right?

Imagine the presidential debates.

So, just Dancing With The Stars, yeah? Bleh.

[Xerographica]

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.

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

Something entirely different from what I'm talking about...

It's like you're trying to kill us with suspense. Hey guy, guess what? The suspense isn't going to literally kill us. It's just really stupid for any of us to have to ask you what Corbyn was actually talking about.

Do you even know what Corbyn was actually talking about? If not, then just say so. Say, "I don't actually know what he was talking about, but he sure wasn't talking about people having the option to divert their own tax dollars from war to peace!"

But if you do know what Corbyn was actually talk about... then just tell us what he was actually talking about. Stop trying to kill us with suspense.

[Xerographica]

If I really understand this thread, I think the logical conclusion is that bees have it right, and all decisions have to be made by dancing in the most convincing fashion.

That's right, right?

The bees sacrifice their precious calories in order to communicate the value of things. Humans, on the other hand, sacrifice precious dollars in order to communicate the value of things. Sacrifice is how we both communicate the value of things.

Whichever group does a better job of seeing and knowing the value of things will be less blind. The least blind group will win.

[The Two Jerseys]

If I really understand this thread, I think the logical conclusion is that bees have it right, and all decisions have to be made by dancing in the most convincing fashion.

That's right, right?

The bees sacrifice their precious calories in order to communicate the value of things. Humans, on the other hand, sacrifice precious dollars in order to communicate the value of things. Sacrifice is how we both communicate the value of things.

Whichever group does a better job of seeing and knowing the value of things will be less blind. The least blind group will win.

Humans don't "sacrifice" dollars to communicate the value of things.

Humans "sacrifice" dollars because we want stuff, and the people who produce that stuff want that many dollars in exchange.

[Neutraligon]

The bees sacrifice their precious calories in order to communicate the value of things. Humans, on the other hand, sacrifice precious dollars in order to communicate the value of things. Sacrifice is how we both communicate the value of things.

Whichever group does a better job of seeing and knowing the value of things will be less blind. The least blind group will win.

Humans don't "sacrifice" dollars to communicate the value of things.

Humans "sacrifice" dollars because we want stuff, and the people who produce that stuff want that many dollars in exchange.

Like has been mentioned before, I pay for something if the cost to buy it is my valuation or cheaper. If I value a pair of sunglasses at $5 and it costs 10 I do not buy. If it costs $2 I buy, even though I value it at 3 dollars more.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The bees sacrifice their precious calories in order to communicate the value of things. Humans, on the other hand, sacrifice precious dollars in order to communicate the value of things. Sacrifice is how we both communicate the value of things.

Whichever group does a better job of seeing and knowing the value of things will be less blind. The least blind group will win.

Humans don't "sacrifice" dollars to communicate the value of things.

Humans "sacrifice" dollars because we want stuff, and the people who produce that stuff want that many dollars in exchange.

I'm starting a petion that monetary exchanges will be over a ritual pyre.

[Xerographica]

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.

Coasianism replaces voting with trading. Right now are we going to vote on whether slavery should be legal? Nope. Instead, we vote on things like who should be president. And whether or not drugs and abortion and gay marriage and prostitution should be legal.

Before the civil war we certainly could have voted on the legality of slavery. And for sure in that case, voting should have been replaced with spending. And then we wouldn't have had a civil war. Millions of people would not have been killed. Instead, a mutually beneficial trade would have been made between people who opposed slavery and those who supported it.

Voting is one way to resolve conflict. So is fighting. And so is trading. Right now there's not much conflict over slavery. So there's no point in voting or fighting or trading over a non-issue. But if there was considerable conflict over slavery, then trading would be by far the best way to resolve the conflict.

Right now I suppose it's reasonable to say that there's some conflict over the LP's theme. And yeah, coasianism could sure be used to resolve it. But then the "losers" would get the money... rather than the LP. With the LP's current system... it gets the money.

Could the LP's current system have been used before the civil war? Sure, both sides could have donated money to the government. Whichever side was willing to donate the most money would have gotten its way... for another year. People would certainly have seen the value of each idea (pro-slavery, anti-slavery)... and everybody would have been less blind. I'm sure that this knowledge would have decreased the chances of civil war. But I'm guessing that facilitating a trade between both sides would have been a safer bet.

[Camicon]

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.

Coasianism replaces voting with trading. Right now are we going to vote on whether slavery should be legal? Nope. Instead, we vote on things like who should be president. And whether or not drugs and abortion and gay marriage and prostitution should be legal.

Before the civil war we certainly could have voted on the legality of slavery. And for sure in that case, voting should have been replaced with spending. And then we wouldn't have had a civil war. Millions of people would not have been killed. Instead, a mutually beneficial trade would have been made between people who opposed slavery and those who supported it.

Voting is one way to resolve conflict. So is fighting. And so is trading. Right now there's not much conflict over slavery. So there's no point in voting or fighting or trading over a non-issue. But if there was considerable conflict over slavery, then trading would be by far the best way to resolve the conflict.

Right now I suppose it's reasonable to say that there's some conflict over the LP's theme. And yeah, coasianism could sure be used to resolve it. But then the "losers" would get the money... rather than the LP. With the LP's current system... it gets the money.

Could the LP's current system have been used before the civil war? Sure, both sides could have donated money to the government. Whichever side was willing to donate the most money would have gotten its way... for another year. People would certainly have seen the value of each idea (pro-slavery, anti-slavery)... and everybody would have been less blind. I'm sure that this knowledge would have decreased the chances of civil war. But I'm guessing that facilitating a trade between both sides would have been a safer bet.

There are some things worth dying for, and those things also tend to be too important to risk gambling.

Or do you not understand that?

[The Two Jerseys]

Humans don't "sacrifice" dollars to communicate the value of things.

Humans "sacrifice" dollars because we want stuff, and the people who produce that stuff want that many dollars in exchange.

Like has been mentioned before, I pay for something if the cost to buy it is my valuation or cheaper. If I value a pair of sunglasses at $5 and it costs 10 I do not buy. If it costs $2 I buy, even though I value it at 3 dollars more.

And of course there will be some people who would pay $10 for those sunglasses, because to them expensive=better.

There will also be people who would pay $10 for those sunglasses, but they don't buy them because they don't like the style.

Which is why manufacturers use focus groups to determine what will sell, instead of just making what they want and hoping that people buy it at the set price.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

Coasianism replaces voting with trading. Right now are we going to vote on whether slavery should be legal? Nope. Instead, we vote on things like who should be president. And whether or not drugs and abortion and gay marriage and prostitution should be legal.

Before the civil war we certainly could have voted on the legality of slavery. And for sure in that case, voting should have been replaced with spending. And then we wouldn't have had a civil war. Millions of people would not have been killed. Instead, a mutually beneficial trade would have been made between people who opposed slavery and those who supported it.

Voting is one way to resolve conflict. So is fighting. And so is trading. Right now there's not much conflict over slavery. So there's no point in voting or fighting or trading over a non-issue. But if there was considerable conflict over slavery, then trading would be by far the best way to resolve the conflict.

Right now I suppose it's reasonable to say that there's some conflict over the LP's theme. And yeah, coasianism could sure be used to resolve it. But then the "losers" would get the money... rather than the LP. With the LP's current system... it gets the money.

Could the LP's current system have been used before the civil war? Sure, both sides could have donated money to the government. Whichever side was willing to donate the most money would have gotten its way... for another year. People would certainly have seen the value of each idea (pro-slavery, anti-slavery)... and everybody would have been less blind. I'm sure that this knowledge would have decreased the chances of civil war. But I'm guessing that facilitating a trade between both sides would have been a safer bet.

So with the LP system...

• North outbids South
• Slavery is abolished
• Feds keep the South's money

Congratulations, you've just guaranteed secession...

[Xerographica]

The bees sacrifice their precious calories in order to communicate the value of things. Humans, on the other hand, sacrifice precious dollars in order to communicate the value of things. Sacrifice is how we both communicate the value of things.

Whichever group does a better job of seeing and knowing the value of things will be less blind. The least blind group will win.

Humans don't "sacrifice" dollars to communicate the value of things.

Humans "sacrifice" dollars because we want stuff, and the people who produce that stuff want that many dollars in exchange.

Herein lies the problem. People think of spending money as a way to get stuff. But people really fail to appreciate that spending money signals what they want and how badly they want it.

Communication can be defined as the transmission of information. When you spend your money on artichokes then sure, you're exchanging your money for artichokes. But the amount of money that you're willing to spend on artichokes transmits information about how important artichokes are to you. The more money that you're willing to spend on artichokes, the more important they are to you.

The more important artichokes are to society, the more resources that should be used to produce them. How many resources should be used to produce poison oak? None... because people obviously aren't willing to spend any money on poison oak.

So if everybody focused on the fact that spending money is nonverbal communication... then we'd focus on being concerned regarding the accuracy of the communication.

With the current system, people are primarily concerned with getting a deal. But what's a deal? It's when the amount you paid is a lot less than your valuation. This means that the amount that you paid did not accurately communicate how important the good or service truly is to you. When this is a one-off kinda thing, no big problem. But when this happens systematically, clearly society simply shoots itself in the foot.

Right now everybody can read Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations (WON) for free. Well... if you read and highly value it, then it's a really great deal! But... except... what about the accuracy of communication? Doesn't it matter how much society values Smith's book?

Let's say that the LP realized that allowing donors to spend their money on a theme really helped increase donations. So they had the bright idea to do the same thing for books. If I donated $50 bucks to the LP, then I could tell them to put it on the WON. They'd have a list of books that was sorted by their value to donors. Which book would be on top of the list? Right now we can guess, but we don't know. We can't see the list. We are more blind. But if the LP gave donors the option to use their contributions to communicate their valuations of their favorite books... then we'd see and know which book was on top of the list. We'd be less blind. The least blind group will win.

The Classtopians are already using this system... Favorite Books. When Classtopians give their money to the Book Dept, they have the option to use their money to communicate their valuations of their favorite books.

[Senkaku]

Coasianism replaces voting with trading. Right now are we going to vote on whether slavery should be legal? Nope. Instead, we vote on things like who should be president. And whether or not drugs and abortion and gay marriage and prostitution should be legal.

Before the civil war we certainly could have voted on the legality of slavery. And for sure in that case, voting should have been replaced with spending. And then we wouldn't have had a civil war. Millions of people would not have been killed. Instead, a mutually beneficial trade would have been made between people who opposed slavery and those who supported it.

Voting is one way to resolve conflict. So is fighting. And so is trading. Right now there's not much conflict over slavery. So there's no point in voting or fighting or trading over a non-issue. But if there was considerable conflict over slavery, then trading would be by far the best way to resolve the conflict.

Right now I suppose it's reasonable to say that there's some conflict over the LP's theme. And yeah, coasianism could sure be used to resolve it. But then the "losers" would get the money... rather than the LP. With the LP's current system... it gets the money.

Could the LP's current system have been used before the civil war? Sure, both sides could have donated money to the government. Whichever side was willing to donate the most money would have gotten its way... for another year. People would certainly have seen the value of each idea (pro-slavery, anti-slavery)... and everybody would have been less blind. I'm sure that this knowledge would have decreased the chances of civil war. But I'm guessing that facilitating a trade between both sides would have been a safer bet.

So with the LP system...

• North outbids South
• Slavery is abolished
• Feds keep the South's money

Congratulations, you've just guaranteed secession...

People have repeatedly pointed out to Xero the futility of coasianism in the face of grumpy people with Glocks, but he's never let silly things like bullets stop him.

[The Two Jerseys]

Humans don't "sacrifice" dollars to communicate the value of things.

Humans "sacrifice" dollars because we want stuff, and the people who produce that stuff want that many dollars in exchange.

Herein lies the problem. People think of spending money as a way to get stuff. But people really fail to appreciate that spending money signals what they want and how badly they want it.

Communication can be defined as the transmission of information. When you spend your money on artichokes then sure, you're exchanging your money for artichokes. But the amount of money that you're willing to spend on artichokes transmits information about how important artichokes are to you. The more money that you're willing to spend on artichokes, the more important they are to you.

The more important artichokes are to society, the more resources that should be used to produce them. How many resources should be used to produce poison oak? None... because people obviously aren't willing to spend any money on poison oak.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how economies crash...

[Xerographica]

Coasianism replaces voting with trading. Right now are we going to vote on whether slavery should be legal? Nope. Instead, we vote on things like who should be president. And whether or not drugs and abortion and gay marriage and prostitution should be legal.

Before the civil war we certainly could have voted on the legality of slavery. And for sure in that case, voting should have been replaced with spending. And then we wouldn't have had a civil war. Millions of people would not have been killed. Instead, a mutually beneficial trade would have been made between people who opposed slavery and those who supported it.

Voting is one way to resolve conflict. So is fighting. And so is trading. Right now there's not much conflict over slavery. So there's no point in voting or fighting or trading over a non-issue. But if there was considerable conflict over slavery, then trading would be by far the best way to resolve the conflict.

Right now I suppose it's reasonable to say that there's some conflict over the LP's theme. And yeah, coasianism could sure be used to resolve it. But then the "losers" would get the money... rather than the LP. With the LP's current system... it gets the money.

Could the LP's current system have been used before the civil war? Sure, both sides could have donated money to the government. Whichever side was willing to donate the most money would have gotten its way... for another year. People would certainly have seen the value of each idea (pro-slavery, anti-slavery)... and everybody would have been less blind. I'm sure that this knowledge would have decreased the chances of civil war. But I'm guessing that facilitating a trade between both sides would have been a safer bet.

So with the LP system...

• North outbids South
• Slavery is abolished
• Feds keep the South's money

Congratulations, you've just guaranteed secession...

Congratulations, you've just proved that we're better off not knowing the value of things...

Except, I'm pretty sure that you didn't. I think that you'd agree that we're better off knowing the value of gold, artichokes and Harry Potter books. But you don't seem to agree that we're better off knowing the value of LP convention themes, The Wealth of Nations (WON) and national defense.

Why the double standard? Why is ignorance bliss when it comes to convention themes, old books and public goods? Why is ignorance not bliss when it comes to rocks, veggies and new books?

Why does it matter how important gold is to you but it doesn't matter how important the WON is to you? Why does it matter if you perceive that there's a shortage of pretty and useful rocks but it doesn't matter if you perceive that there's a shortage of excellent books about economics?

From my perspective, YOU matter. And YOU are defined by everything that you want and need in your life.

[Camicon]

So with the LP system...

• North outbids South
• Slavery is abolished
• Feds keep the South's money

Congratulations, you've just guaranteed secession...

Congratulations, you've just proved that we're better off not knowing the value of things...

Except, I'm pretty sure that you didn't. I think that you'd agree that we're better off knowing the value of gold, artichokes and Harry Potter books. But you don't seem to agree that we're better off knowing the value of LP convention themes, The Wealth of Nations (WON) and national defense.

Why the double standard? Why is ignorance bliss when it comes to convention themes, old books and public goods? Why is ignorance not bliss when it comes to rocks, veggies and new books?

Why does it matter how important gold is to you but it doesn't matter how important the WON is to you? Why does it matter if you perceive that there's a shortage of pretty and useful rocks but it doesn't matter if you perceive that there's a shortage of excellent books about economics?

From my perspective, YOU matter. And YOU are defined by everything that you want and need in your life.

Ignoring reality in favour of fever dreams is why Marxism has never been fully implemented by a state. There's a lesson there you could learn.

[Xerographica]

Congratulations, you've just proved that we're better off not knowing the value of things...

Except, I'm pretty sure that you didn't. I think that you'd agree that we're better off knowing the value of gold, artichokes and Harry Potter books. But you don't seem to agree that we're better off knowing the value of LP convention themes, The Wealth of Nations (WON) and national defense.

Why the double standard? Why is ignorance bliss when it comes to convention themes, old books and public goods? Why is ignorance not bliss when it comes to rocks, veggies and new books?

Why does it matter how important gold is to you but it doesn't matter how important the WON is to you? Why does it matter if you perceive that there's a shortage of pretty and useful rocks but it doesn't matter if you perceive that there's a shortage of excellent books about economics?

From my perspective, YOU matter. And YOU are defined by everything that you want and need in your life.

Ignoring reality in favour of fever dreams is why Marxism has never been fully implemented by a state. There's a lesson there you could learn.

Ignoring reality? That's anathema to me. Maybe you ignored the title of this thread... The Least Blind Group Will Win

Here on Nation States we could each pay $10 dollars a year. Then we could elect one member to decide which threads to spend our money on. Our elected representative could decide how much money to spend on threads about politics.

Would this be a good system? Let me guess. You think that this is a good system for a government but a terrible system for a virtual community. Well... we both agree that it would be a terrible system for a virtual community! But I'm pretty sure that you don't truly understand why, exactly, it would be a terrible system for a virtual community. You know why I'm pretty sure? Because you think it's a good system for a government!

You think it's beneficial for taxpayers to pay for public goods that really don't match their preferences. Yet, you don't think it would be beneficial for subscribers to pay for threads that really don't match their preferences. Yet, you probably don't have a problem with Netflix. Netflix subscribers certainly pay for content that really doesn't match their preferences. However, at the grocery store I'm pretty sure that you don't intentionally buy things that do not match your preferences.

These systems are very different. They can't be equally good at opening people's eyes and helping them see and understand reality.

With the LP's system... now we can see that "Taxation Is Theft" is not a very valuable theme. Before, I didn't know this... but now I do. I now have a better grasp and understanding of reality.

When we can choose which things we spend our money on, then we can all see and know more. We are all less blind. We all have a better grasp and understanding of reality. I have a better understanding of your reality and you have a better understanding of my reality.

If you think that representatives have a better grasp of your reality than you do... then let's test your belief! Let's use this community to test your belief! Let's all pay $10 dollars a year and vote for the smartest and wisest member of Nation States to decide which threads to spend our money on. And then we'll all be able to decide for ourselves whether this representative has a better grasp of our reality than we do. The members who are unhappy with our representative will be given the option to decide for themselves which threads they spend their money on. How many members will choose this option? Let's find out.

[Alvecia]

If spending money is how you communicate the value of something, how would you communicate that you value something not costing money?

[Salandriagado]

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

Something entirely different from what I'm talking about...

It's like you're trying to kill us with suspense. Hey guy, guess what? The suspense isn't going to literally kill us. It's just really stupid for any of us to have to ask you what Corbyn was actually talking about.

Do you even know what Corbyn was actually talking about? If not, then just say so. Say, "I don't actually know what he was talking about, but he sure wasn't talking about people having the option to divert their own tax dollars from war to peace!"

But if you do know what Corbyn was actually talk about... then just tell us what he was actually talking about. Stop trying to kill us with suspense.

I have no interest in teaching you elementary reading comprehension.

[Hydesland]

Unfortunately, this is how politics, at least at mid level, roughly works in much of the western world. Campaigning is expensive; those with bigger wallets or more wallets to draw from get the bigger and broader campaigns.

[The Two Jerseys]

Congratulations, you've just proved that we're better off not knowing the value of things...

Except, I'm pretty sure that you didn't. I think that you'd agree that we're better off knowing the value of gold, artichokes and Harry Potter books. But you don't seem to agree that we're better off knowing the value of LP convention themes, The Wealth of Nations (WON) and national defense.

Why the double standard? Why is ignorance bliss when it comes to convention themes, old books and public goods? Why is ignorance not bliss when it comes to rocks, veggies and new books?

Why does it matter how important gold is to you but it doesn't matter how important the WON is to you? Why does it matter if you perceive that there's a shortage of pretty and useful rocks but it doesn't matter if you perceive that there's a shortage of excellent books about economics?

From my perspective, YOU matter. And YOU are defined by everything that you want and need in your life.

Ignoring reality in favour of fever dreams is why Marxism has never been fully implemented by a state. There's a lesson there you could learn.

Maybe we need an independent Scotland to crash and burn in front of our eyes to show Xero the folly of putting pipe dreams before facts...

[Intharia]

... I'm trying to make sense of this thread, but it just seems really peculiar.

Then again I'm of the opinion that 'free markets' are an illusory concept every bit as fictitious in practice as the theoretical basis of Marxist communism.

Eg, it sounds great on paper, but nothing in reality has ever looked like the theory.
There are no free markets, just a lot of crony capitalism and various forms of corruption and huge imbalanced systems that lead to monopolies rather than the theoretical conditions under which a 'free market' would even work.

Applying this to a political party also seems absurd, since while it may work out internally for the party on some level, it's going to have no influence on anything in the wider world - The people 'voting' with money are largely only the people that care about that party in the first place.

That's not a market, that's a subsection of one that ignores the rest of the most relevant part of the 'market'.

Then again maybe I'm not understanding what this thread is even about, but on the whole it sounds absurd.

[Alvecia]

-snip-

Pretty much all of Xero's threads can be summed up with the response:
"Wait....what?....No....but....what?"