The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Galloism]

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.

Technically we don't vote on those things either. There is no referendum method available at the federal level. Only representatives vote on the issues. The same representatives who would vote on repealing the 13th.

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.

Except we couldn't have voted on slavery even then. Only representatives could, because that's how the system works.

Right now there's not much conflict over slavery.

Keep in mind, 20% of trump fans think freeing the slaves was a bad idea.

[Camicon]

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

What, you think titles are at all indicative of content? In that case, I have a Democratic Peoples Republics to sell you.

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.

That is a very simplistic model of government which is open to essentially any kind of abuse of power you could care to think of.

Maybe that's your problem; that you can't conceive of how messy real life is.

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!

No, it would be a terrible system for government. No checks or balances, no recall mechanisms, it would be an absolute shitshow.

You think it's beneficial for taxpayers to pay for public goods that really don't match their preferences.

Yes, simply because I don't use something doesn't mean it isn't important to society. I never used car registration until I got a license and bought a car, but that doesn't mean car registries were useless for the first sixteen years of my life.

Yet, you don't think it would be beneficial for subscribers to pay for threads that really don't match their preferences.

That's because threads in online forums and important things, like food and water, are fundamentally different and require a fundamentally different approach.

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.

You're comparing non-digital content to digital content. That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to .jpgs of oranges.

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

Correct. Yours is much worse.

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.

If only very slightly, but any progress is good progress.

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.

You know what's more accurate and convenient than spending money that most of the world needs to use to avoid dying of starvation, dehydration, and exposure? Words.

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.

How 'bout no.

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.

I would, if Xero was willing, but it's next to impossible to teach someone that mistakenly thinks they know everything you are trying to teach them.

[Galloism]

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!

No, it would be a terrible system for government. No checks or balances, no recall mechanisms, it would be an absolute shitshow.

You mean electing kings wasn't the absolute best system ever and we shouldn't go back to circa 800s England?

[Camicon]

No, it would be a terrible system for government. No checks or balances, no recall mechanisms, it would be an absolute shitshow.

You mean electing kings wasn't the absolute best system ever and we shouldn't go back to circa 800s England?

Even a monarchy would be better than electing someone to hand your money to, and then waiting to see what they do with it. I mean, kings had to broker and maintain relationships with local lords in order to stay in power.

[Galloism]

You mean electing kings wasn't the absolute best system ever and we shouldn't go back to circa 800s England?

Even a monarchy would be better than electing someone to hand your money to, and then waiting to see what they do with it. I mean, kings had to broker and maintain relationships with local lords in order to stay in power.

Does this mean you'll elect me king?

I promise to maintain relationships with all the local ladies.

[Camicon]

Even a monarchy would be better than electing someone to hand your money to, and then waiting to see what they do with it. I mean, kings had to broker and maintain relationships with local lords in order to stay in power.

Does this mean you'll elect me king?

I promise to maintain relationships with all the local ladies.

Only if you make me a lord, and promise not to maintain a relationship with my local lady.

[Xerographica]

Yet, you don't think it would be beneficial for subscribers to pay for threads that really don't match their preferences.

That's because threads in online forums and important things, like food and water, are fundamentally different and require a fundamentally different approach.

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.

You're comparing non-digital content to digital content. That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to .jpgs of oranges.

Society is a bunch of brains solving different problems. Producing a thread is a problem. Producing an apple is a different problem. The more brains being used to solve the problem of producing fruit, the less brains available to solve the problem of producing threads.

If I go to the farmer's market and see somebody there selling poison oak... well... I'm going to pretty surprised! I'm going to ask him why in the world he's selling poison oak. Maybe there's some beneficial use of poison oak that I'm not aware of? But if the guy can't provide me with a reasonable justification for his behavior, then I'm certainly not going to encourage it or reward it. I'm certainly not going to give him my money. I'm really not going to help empower him to use more of society's limited resources to grow poison oak. I'm really not going to enable him to compete limited resources away from people growing crops that actually do match my preferences.

What about when I come to this forum? Just like at the farmer's market there's a pretty wide variety of products (threads) available for me to consume. And, just like at the farmer's market... the products here don't equally match my preferences. However, unlike at the farmer's market... if I do happen to find a product on this forum that closely matches my preferences... I don't spend any money on it. And when I don't spend any money on a thread that matches my preferences, then I don't empower the producer to use more of society's limited resources to produce similar threads. And I really do not enable him to compete limited resources away from people producing threads that really do not match my preferences.

Back in the olden days, a crazy high percentage of society's brains were allocated to solving the problems of producing food. Well... guess what happened? Obviously we solved more and more of the problems associated with producing food. This logically meant that we needed a smaller and smaller percentage of society's brains to solve the problems associated with producing food. This freed up more and more brains to solve other problems! And voila! Here we are not trying to solve problems associated with producing food.

Eh... well... actually... the problem that I'm trying to solve is the problem of solving problems. So I suppose that I'm indirectly trying to solve the problems associated with producing food and everything else.

You think there's some relevant difference about forum threads that can prevent us from using this virtual community to learn anything truly meaningful about different ways of allocating brains. This is a problem! Here I am using my brain to try and solve it!

We can each pay $10 dollars a year and elect one member to decide which threads to spend our money on. This would be like each of us spending $2,500 a year and electing one member to decide which food to spend our money on. It would be like all of us paying taxes and electing one representative to decide which public goods to spend our taxes on. So if you think it's a good idea for a representative to spend our taxes... then you should also think it's a good idea for a forum representative to spend our fees. Except, you really don't think that it would be a good idea for a forum representative to spend our fees. You think that forum threads are somehow relevantly different from apples and national defense. But they really aren't. The more brains that are allocated to solving defense problems... the less brains available to solving food problems and thread problems and clothing problems and all the other problems. The more brains that are allocated to solving problems with producing threads about education... the less brains available to solving problems with producing threads about economics.

Buchanan's rule is EQUALLY relevant to ALL goods. And this is exactly why it is entirely possible, and extremely desirable, to use every forum to understand really important things that are relevant to ALL goods. The issue is whether you're genuinely interested in being less blind.

[Camicon]

That's because threads in online forums and important things, like food and water, are fundamentally different and require a fundamentally different approach.

You're comparing non-digital content to digital content. That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to .jpgs of oranges.

*snip*

You are an expert at missing the point and wandering off into the Great Tangent.

None of your response is even remotely relevant to what I posted. Also, it's full of bullshit.

[Muthia]

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.

I'm pretty sure that someone has already brought this up, but if one person spends $100 (let's say that it is 5% of their budget) and anothe spends $10 (which is 10% of their budget), using your system it seems that the first person values whatever it is more, even though we can see that the second actually deems it more valuable.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

I'm pretty sure that someone has already brought this up, but if one person spends $100 (let's say that it is 5% of their budget) and anothe spends $10 (which is 10% of their budget), using your system it seems that the first person values whatever it is more, even though we can see that the second actually deems it more valuable.

That point was brought up several threads ago, yet Xero sill doesn't get it...

[Alvecia]

I'm pretty sure that someone has already brought this up, but if one person spends $100 (let's say that it is 5% of their budget) and anothe spends $10 (which is 10% of their budget), using your system it seems that the first person values whatever it is more, even though we can see that the second actually deems it more valuable.

That point was brought up several threads ago, yet Xero sill doesn't get it...

I suspect he doesn't quite grasp the concept of relativity

[Wulfenia]

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.

Honestly the fetishization of money by libertarians has gotten unsettling at this point.

[Pokemon Slow On The Draw]

No, bidding for a green light is a terrible idea.

[Neutraligon]

That point was brought up several threads ago, yet Xero sill doesn't get it...

I suspect he doesn't quite grasp the concept of relativity

A better (although not great) option is to look at how many people placed money down on a certain thing and how much as a percentage of their free income they spent on it. By free income I mean the amount left over after they pay for necessities like rent, bills, food, etc.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Can someone explain this too me, cuz it just looks like straight up plutocracy to me

[Camicon]

Can someone explain this too me, cuz it just looks like straight up plutocracy to me

That's exactly what it is. Xero just hides it behind a bunch of tangents and made up words.

[Salandriagado]

That's because threads in online forums and important things, like food and water, are fundamentally different and require a fundamentally different approach.

You're comparing non-digital content to digital content. That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to .jpgs of oranges.

Society is a bunch of brains solving different problems. Producing a thread is a problem. Producing an apple is a different problem. The more brains being used to solve the problem of producing fruit, the less brains available to solve the problem of producing threads.

If I go to the farmer's market and see somebody there selling poison oak... well... I'm going to pretty surprised! I'm going to ask him why in the world he's selling poison oak. Maybe there's some beneficial use of poison oak that I'm not aware of? But if the guy can't provide me with a reasonable justification for his behavior, then I'm certainly not going to encourage it or reward it. I'm certainly not going to give him my money. I'm really not going to help empower him to use more of society's limited resources to grow poison oak. I'm really not going to enable him to compete limited resources away from people growing crops that actually do match my preferences.

What about when I come to this forum? Just like at the farmer's market there's a pretty wide variety of products (threads) available for me to consume. And, just like at the farmer's market... the products here don't equally match my preferences. However, unlike at the farmer's market... if I do happen to find a product on this forum that closely matches my preferences... I don't spend any money on it. And when I don't spend any money on a thread that matches my preferences, then I don't empower the producer to use more of society's limited resources to produce similar threads. And I really do not enable him to compete limited resources away from people producing threads that really do not match my preferences.

Back in the olden days, a crazy high percentage of society's brains were allocated to solving the problems of producing food. Well... guess what happened? Obviously we solved more and more of the problems associated with producing food. This logically meant that we needed a smaller and smaller percentage of society's brains to solve the problems associated with producing food. This freed up more and more brains to solve other problems! And voila! Here we are not trying to solve problems associated with producing food.

Eh... well... actually... the problem that I'm trying to solve is the problem of solving problems. So I suppose that I'm indirectly trying to solve the problems associated with producing food and everything else.

You think there's some relevant difference about forum threads that can prevent us from using this virtual community to learn anything truly meaningful about different ways of allocating brains. This is a problem! Here I am using my brain to try and solve it!

We can each pay $10 dollars a year and elect one member to decide which threads to spend our money on. This would be like each of us spending $2,500 a year and electing one member to decide which food to spend our money on. It would be like all of us paying taxes and electing one representative to decide which public goods to spend our taxes on. So if you think it's a good idea for a representative to spend our taxes... then you should also think it's a good idea for a forum representative to spend our fees. Except, you really don't think that it would be a good idea for a forum representative to spend our fees. You think that forum threads are somehow relevantly different from apples and national defense. But they really aren't. The more brains that are allocated to solving defense problems... the less brains available to solving food problems and thread problems and clothing problems and all the other problems. The more brains that are allocated to solving problems with producing threads about education... the less brains available to solving problems with producing threads about economics.

Buchanan's rule is EQUALLY relevant to ALL goods. And this is exactly why it is entirely possible, and extremely desirable, to use every forum to understand really important things that are relevant to ALL goods. The issue is whether you're genuinely interested in being less blind.

Buchanan's rule is very explicitly not relevant to all resources, let alone equally relevant to all goods. It's relevant to most rivalous resources, sure. But those are a very long way from being all goods.

[Xerographica]

We should use our own money to determine/prove/signal/reveal/communicate/show/uncover the importance of things.

Exceptions...

- Themes
- Threads

Justifications...

A. These goods don't use resources.

OR

B. These goods do use resources... that have no other possible uses.

OR

C. People don't have the same amount of money.

From my perspective...

A. Dumb. Threads don't magically appear out of thin air. They are produced by people.
B. Also dumb. People always have other things that they could be doing with their time.
C. Maybe not dumb. Except, this is just as relevant to clothes, computers and cars as it is to threads and themes.

Am I missing any other justifications?

[Galloism]

Society is a bunch of brains solving different problems.

And a lot of brains producing problems for other brains to solve.

Producing a thread is a problem.

Well, some threads, like mine, are generally produced in order to solve problems.

Some threads, like yours, are generally produced in order to create problems.

Not all threads are equal, just as not all brains are equal.

Producing an apple is a different problem. The more brains being used to solve the problem of producing fruit, the less brains available to solve the problem of producing threads.

TIL you can't be an apple farmer and post on nationstates. Can't be done.

If I go to the farmer's market and see somebody there selling poison oak... well... I'm going to pretty surprised! I'm going to ask him why in the world he's selling poison oak. Maybe there's some beneficial use of poison oak that I'm not aware of? But if the guy can't provide me with a reasonable justification for his behavior, then I'm certainly not going to encourage it or reward it. I'm certainly not going to give him my money. I'm really not going to help empower him to use more of society's limited resources to grow poison oak. I'm really not going to enable him to compete limited resources away from people growing crops that actually do match my preferences.

It's actually worth noting that poison oak is a very ecologically useful plant. Poison Ivy is also useful to humans more directly in limit circumstances.

That being said, neither of us being birds nor in the business of homeopathic medicine, poison ivy and poison oak are not useful to us directly, so we'll likely not buy it.

[Galloism]

We should use our own money to determine/prove/signal/reveal/communicate/show/uncover the importance of things.

Exceptions...

- Themes
- Threads

Justifications...

A. These goods don't use resources.

OR

B. These goods do use resources... that have no other possible uses.

OR

C. People don't have the same amount of money.

From my perspective...

A. Dumb. Threads don't magically appear out of thin air. They are produced by people.
B. Also dumb. People always have other things that they could be doing with their time.
C. Maybe not dumb. Except, this is just as relevant to clothes, computers and cars as it is to threads and themes.

Am I missing any other justifications?

Adding a paywall would make people leave (basic economics - the higher raise the price, the fewer people will engage in it). Fewer people makes the forum less valuable, as a forum thrives with a lot of members. Therefore, adding a paywall lowers the value of the forum to its remaining members, who are then also more likely to leave.

Not adding a paywall and putting a donate button is likely to be ineffective to may any statistically significant number of people pay money for a good that can be had for free (basic economics - everyone wants a free lunch).

Therefore, either it's actively destructive to the forum, or useless in measuring what you want it to measure.

[The Two Jerseys]

That being said, neither of us being birds nor in the business of homeopathic medicine, poison ivy and poison oak are not useful to us directly, so we'll likely not buy it.

And if for some reason you do want to buy it, shouting "shut up and take my money!" as you throw handfuls of cash at the seller isn't the best way to indicate demand...

[Xerographica]

Adding a paywall would make people leave

Adding taxes doesn't make most people leave the country... because... ?

1. Leaving a country is hard
2. Most other countries also have taxes
3. Somalia sucks

Doesn't adding taxes do something obviously beneficial to the supply of goods that the taxes supposedly pay for? If not, then shouldn't we eliminate taxes?

From my perspective, adding taxes obviously increases the supply of public goods. Unfortunately, it doesn't necessarily do much to improve the quality and variety simply because people can't use their own taxes to communicate the importance of specific public goods.

See... there's this thing called the social contract. If we applied our current government to this forum, and most people left this forum... then what would this say about the social contract? It would entirely and definitively invalidate our social contract with the government. It would prove that we aren't citizens of this country by choice, we are citizens by lack of choice.

[Neutraligon]

Adding a paywall would make people leave

Adding taxes doesn't make most people leave the country... because... ?

1. Leaving a country is hard
2. Most other countries also have taxes
3. Somalia sucks

4.People like the result of taxes. But then taxes and having a paywall for a forum are not the same thing.

[Xerographica]

Adding taxes doesn't make most people leave the country... because... ?

1. Leaving a country is hard
2. Most other countries also have taxes
3. Somalia sucks

4.People like the result of taxes. But then taxes and having a paywall for a forum are not the same thing.

If people like the result of taxes... and a paywall and taxes aren't the same thing... then obviously we'd apply whatever is the equivalent of taxes to this forum... so that we, the members, would like the results.

[Neutraligon]

4.People like the result of taxes. But then taxes and having a paywall for a forum are not the same thing.

If people like the result of taxes... and a paywall and taxes aren't the same thing... then obviously we'd apply whatever is the equivalent of taxes to this forum... so that we, the members, would like the results.

You are assuming there is an equivalent.