The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Lady Scylla]

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?

Nothing. The invisible hand is rubbish.

[Galloism]

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

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

Not really. A market is defined as:

An actual or nominal place where forces of demand and supply operate, and where buyers and sellers interact (directly or through intermediaries) to trade goods, services, or contracts or instruments, for money or barter.
Markets include mechanisms or means for (1) determining price of the traded item, (2) communicating the price information, (3) facilitating deals and transactions, and (4) effecting distribution. The market for a particular item is made up of existing and potential customers who need it and have the ability and willingness to pay for it.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... arket.html

Since the LP is not giving out a good, service, contract, or instrument, it's not 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.

I don't expect this forum to run for president and win. I mostly exist here to point out bullshit arguments.

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.

Eh, or they might troll with it. Or people will decide not to donate because the LP 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.

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.

Except that's not likely to happen. People know (mostly) that LP principles are unworkable in practice in a modern society. Besides that, they know LP can't win.

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?

Nolibertad has a shot at becoming a successful business, although many businesses fail. Libertad will be bankrupt before the year is out and has no significant chance at success. This is because they can't set prices on their products that will provide them with an acceptable margin of profit.

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?

Whether people buy them at the stated price or not, and at what rate.

If the product flies off the shelves, and they literally can't get enough shipped in, the price is too low. If it sits on the shelf for years, the price is too high.

Easy peasy.

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

Libertad will be bankrupt. Here's why.

Let's suppose I go into libertad and fill up the basket with groceries that would cost $150 at nonlibertad. However, at libertad, *I* can say what I value the most and price things accordingly. Consequently, because it's rational, I will constantly underprice things compared to my "True" value. Heck, if there's no controls at all, I'll put in $0.01 for each thing, regardless of value.

This is broadly generalizable - lots of people will do this They will do this because it's rational.

Unless you're arguing that shoppers are irrational.

[Community Values]

These themes are hilarious, with my personal favorite being "Jazzed about Liberty"

I have nothing to contribute to this conversation though, mainly because I still have no idea what Xerographica is saying.

[Galloism]

These themes are hilarious, with my personal favorite being "Jazzed about Liberty"

I have nothing to contribute to this conversation though, mainly because I still have no idea what Xerographica is saying.

Market = Good
Government = Bad
Everything's a market, except the government.

People should be able to choose where their taxes go, but not choose where their product purchase price goes. Because reasons.

[Ifreann]

Is this thread just Xero being excited that someone somewhere is doing something like what he wants everyone everywhere to do for everything?

[Community Values]

These themes are hilarious, with my personal favorite being "Jazzed about Liberty"

I have nothing to contribute to this conversation though, mainly because I still have no idea what Xerographica is saying.

Market = Good
Government = Bad
Everything's a market, except the government.

People should be able to choose where their taxes go, but not choose where their product purchase price goes. Because reasons.

I could see tax choice being a somewhat good idea. If you had a base level of taxes that you had to pay towards government salaries and such, and then an extra amount that you would allocate towards your selected program. Might be too much bureaucracy though.

[Socialist Nordia]

Typical elitist libertarianism, weighting the value of people's opinions based on how much they can afford to pay.

[Washington Resistance Army]

These themes are hilarious, with my personal favorite being "Jazzed about Liberty"

I have nothing to contribute to this conversation though, mainly because I still have no idea what Xerographica is saying.

Market = Good
Government = Bad
Everything's a market, except the government.

People should be able to choose where their taxes go, but not choose where their product purchase price goes. Because reasons.

See, that makes a lot more sense than how he always tries to explain shit.

[Ifreann]

These themes are hilarious, with my personal favorite being "Jazzed about Liberty"

I have nothing to contribute to this conversation though, mainly because I still have no idea what Xerographica is saying.

Market = Good
Government = Bad
Everything's a market, except the government.

People should be able to choose where their taxes go, but not choose where their product purchase price goes. Because reasons.

My favourite was the one about bidding on traffic lights.

[Salandriagado]

Market = Good
Government = Bad
Everything's a market, except the government.

People should be able to choose where their taxes go, but not choose where their product purchase price goes. Because reasons.

I could see tax choice being a somewhat good idea. If you had a base level of taxes that you had to pay towards government salaries and such, and then an extra amount that you would allocate towards your selected program. Might be too much bureaucracy though.

Yeah, the bureaucracy is the real killer: it inevitably ends up that the cost of managing it massively outweighs the optional cost, to the point that the base level of tax would have to be higher than current costs, just to pay for that bureaucracy.

[Lady Scylla]

These themes are hilarious, with my personal favorite being "Jazzed about Liberty"

I have nothing to contribute to this conversation though, mainly because I still have no idea what Xerographica is saying.

I feel like this when I read his threads most of the time. They're difficult to parse, and often deal with such weird subjects. As such, I have to wait til Gallo comes around to make some sense of whatever is being read before I can effectively comment.

These themes are hilarious, with my personal favorite being "Jazzed about Liberty"

I have nothing to contribute to this conversation though, mainly because I still have no idea what Xerographica is saying.

Market = Good
Government = Bad
Everything's a market, except the government.

People should be able to choose where their taxes go, but not choose where their product purchase price goes. Because reasons.

Not to mention things that are markets that shouldn't be. The economics education I have writhes in abject horror.

[Socialist Nordia]

Am I Being Detained!

Are you literally trying to be a meme?

Building Bridges, Not Walls

I thought your party was allergic to roads and other basic infrastructure.

Jazzed About Liberty

This is so bad, I think I might throw up.

Make Taxation Theft Again

This is implying that taxation isn't theft, and libertarians plan to make it theft. That just doesn't sound appealing.

Pro Choice on Everything

Everything, you say? Get ready for some really sarcastic counters to that.

Rise of the Libertarians

If you're lucky, you might even make it to a solid 4%!!! It would be a miracle for the party.


Srsly, get better themes.

[Galloism]

Market = Good
Government = Bad
Everything's a market, except the government.

People should be able to choose where their taxes go, but not choose where their product purchase price goes. Because reasons.

I could see tax choice being a somewhat good idea. If you had a base level of taxes that you had to pay towards government salaries and such, and then an extra amount that you would allocate towards your selected program. Might be too much bureaucracy though.

Well, I mean maybe, if it was only in the income tax sector, and, as you said, a limited amount. It would be mostly illusory though, as Congress would then just fund things to a way to fill the gaps.

However, he wants it to apply to all taxes, and to say that would require bureaucracy would not even begin to cover it.

[Community Values]

I could see tax choice being a somewhat good idea. If you had a base level of taxes that you had to pay towards government salaries and such, and then an extra amount that you would allocate towards your selected program. Might be too much bureaucracy though.

Well, I mean maybe, if it was only in the income tax sector, and, as you said, a limited amount. It would be mostly illusory though, as Congress would then just fund things to a way to fill the gaps.

However, he wants it to apply to all taxes, and to say that would require bureaucracy would not even begin to cover it.

I used to think that all taxes should be voluntary. Glad I'm not an uber voluntarist anymore.

[Galloism]

Well, I mean maybe, if it was only in the income tax sector, and, as you said, a limited amount. It would be mostly illusory though, as Congress would then just fund things to a way to fill the gaps.

However, he wants it to apply to all taxes, and to say that would require bureaucracy would not even begin to cover it.

I used to think that all taxes should be voluntary. Glad I'm not an uber voluntarist anymore.

Yeah, well, people aren't superrational.

[Xerographica]

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?

Nothing. The invisible hand is rubbish.

Bees...

Today’s Mandeville is the renowned biologist Thomas D. Seeley, who was part of a team which discovered that colonies of honey bees look for new pollen sources to harvest by sending out scouts who search for the most attractive places. When the scouts return to the hive, they perform complicated dances in front of their comrades. The duration and intensity of these dances vary: bees who have found more attractive sources of pollen dance longer and more excitedly to signal the value of their location. The other bees will fly to the locations that are signified as most attractive and then return and do their own dances if they concur. Eventually a consensus is reached, and the colony concentrates on the new food source. — Rory Sutherland and Glen Weyl, Humans are doing democracy wrong. Bees are doing it right

Ants...

In Experiment 1 colonies distributed a greater proportion of their foragers towards the higher quality resource. This behaviour supports work by Sumpter and Beekman (2003) on M. pharaonis and is typical of this mass-recruiting species (Jackson et al. 2004; Jackson and Châline 2007; Evison et al. 2012b). The stronger allocation of workers to higher quality feeders is most likely due to a greater pheromone trail laying intensity by ants coming from these feeders (Jackson and Châline 2007) leading to faster exploitation of the higher quality food source via positive feedback influencing the decision by nestmates to lay pheromone trail (Sumpter and Beekman 2003; von Thienen et al. 2014). A greater disparity in quality should create greater disparity in foraging effort between two food sources, a simple behaviour that is integral to colony survival (Stroeymeyt et al. 2010), and this is indeed what we found (Fig. 2). — R. I’Anson Price, C. Grüter, W. O. H Hughes, S. E. F. Evison, Symmetry breaking in mass-recruiting ants: extent of foraging biases depends on resource quality

Humans...

It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Which system is the Invisible Hand? And why, exactly, is it rubbish?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well, I mean maybe, if it was only in the income tax sector, and, as you said, a limited amount. It would be mostly illusory though, as Congress would then just fund things to a way to fill the gaps.

However, he wants it to apply to all taxes, and to say that would require bureaucracy would not even begin to cover it.

I used to think that all taxes should be voluntary. Glad I'm not an uber voluntarist anymore.

How would that work?

[Xerographica]

Since the LP is not giving out a good, service, contract, or instrument, it's not a market.

The LP isn't providing a service? PETA isn't providing a service? The NRA isn't providing a service? The Red Cross isn't providing a service? Seriously?

I don't expect this forum to run for president and win.

This doesn't at all negate the fact that you derive value from this forum.

Eh, or they might troll with it. Or people will decide not to donate because the LP can't win.

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

Except that's not likely to happen. People know (mostly) that LP principles are unworkable in practice in a modern society. Besides that, they know LP can't win.

As usual, you place little significance and importance on actually seeing and knowing the demand for things.

Nolibertad has a shot at becoming a successful business, although many businesses fail. Libertad will be bankrupt before the year is out and has no significant chance at success. This is because they can't set prices on their products that will provide them with an acceptable margin of profit.

What are you talking about?

If you go to Vons, you can choose which products you purchase. As a result, Vons sees and knows the demand for its products. Well... what's the point of Vons seeing and knowing the demand for its products? Vons will be less blind. It will better see and know the value and relevance and importance of its products. It will use this information to provide even more valuable and relevant and important products.

So the LP doesn't sell artichokes and cereal. Instead, it provides a variety of different but related services. And is an artichoke different than a theme? From the perspective of economics, the most important question is always the same... how closely does it match your preferences? In other words, how much do you value it? In other words, what is your demand for it? This question is just as relevant for an artichoke as it is for a theme.

And for sure we tend to think of the decision to offer artichokes as being different from the artichokes itself. A decision and a product are different. But from the perspective of economics? Nope. The decision and the product aren't different. The important question is equally relevant to both. How closely does the decision to offer artichokes match your preferences? How closely do artichokes match your preferences?

The LP could have decided on its own which theme to use for its 2018 convention. Instead, it allowed you to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed me to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every member of this forum to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every person in this country to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every person on this planet to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every sentient being in the universe to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention.

And how do we communicate our preference for a theme? By spending our money. Just like we spend our money on artichokes.

The LP can see and know the demand for its themes. And in this regard, it is less blind. Perhaps this is a one-off sort of thing. But if it isn't... if the LP decides to regularly utilize everybody's brainpower and information... then it will be a lot less blind than the DP and the RP. So for sure the LP will win. It will stomp the DP and the RP.

However, if the DP and RP are flexible and fast and smart enough, then they will simply start allowing the market to guide their big decisions. Except, well, by then everybody will be able to clearly see and understand the benefit and point of the Invisible Hand. And everybody will realize just how pointless political parties truly are. People will use their taxes to guide the government's big decisions. And the government will be less blind.

[Tinhampton]

The LP could have decided on its own which theme to use for its 2018 convention. Instead, it allowed you to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed me to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every member of this forum to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every person in this country to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every person on this planet to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every sentient being in the universe to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention.

I'm not too sure about the bit in bold. After all, people outside of the US can't legally donate to American political parties...
EDIT TO ADD: Also bolded the "every person on this forum" statement. Some of us live outside the USA.

[Xerographica]

The LP could have decided on its own which theme to use for its 2018 convention. Instead, it allowed you to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed me to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every member of this forum to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every person in this country to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every person on this planet to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every sentient being in the universe to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention.

I'm not too sure about the bit in bold. After all, people outside of the US can't legally donate to American political parties...

From the perspective of utilizing more brains and information, this rule is entirely stupid and detrimental.

[Galloism]

Since the LP is not giving out a good, service, contract, or instrument, it's not a market.

The LP isn't providing a service? PETA isn't providing a service? The NRA isn't providing a service? The Red Cross isn't providing a service? Seriously?

Not to donators, no. Specifically, if the donors received a good or service in exchange for their donations to PETA or the NRA, they couldn't deduct them on their taxes.

(which is why a donation to the NRA is deductible, but buying NRA insurance is not)

Donations to a political party are not deductible anyway - by legislative fiat.

I don't expect this forum to run for president and win.

This doesn't at all negate the fact that you derive value from this forum.

I guess, but if it were required I pay for it, I would go elsewhere where the grass is greener.

Eh, or they might troll with it. Or people will decide not to donate because the LP can't win.

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.

Except that's not likely to happen. People know (mostly) that LP principles are unworkable in practice in a modern society. Besides that, they know LP can't win.

As usual, you place little significance and importance on actually seeing and knowing the demand for things.

I place little faith that this little experiment from the LP actually represents "seeing and knowing the demand" of anything in any kind of a macro sense. Too many confounding factors.

Nolibertad has a shot at becoming a successful business, although many businesses fail. Libertad will be bankrupt before the year is out and has no significant chance at success. This is because they can't set prices on their products that will provide them with an acceptable margin of profit.

What are you talking about?

If you go to Vons, you can choose which products you purchase. As a result, Vons sees and knows the demand for its products. Well... what's the point of Vons seeing and knowing the demand for its products? Vons will be less blind. It will better see and know the value and relevance and importance of its products. It will use this information to provide even more valuable and relevant and important products.

And if I can go into Von and get a 80in flat screen TV for $0.30 because that's what I feel it's worth, and they can't say no, Vons will fold.

So the LP doesn't sell artichokes and cereal. Instead, it provides a variety of different but related services. And is an artichoke different than a theme? From the perspective of economics, the most important question is always the same... how closely does it match your preferences? In other words, how much do you value it? In other words, what is your demand for it? This question is just as relevant for an artichoke as it is for a theme.

And for sure we tend to think of the decision to offer artichokes as being different from the artichokes itself. A decision and a product are different. But from the perspective of economics? Nope. The decision and the product aren't different. The important question is equally relevant to both. How closely does the decision to offer artichokes match your preferences? How closely do artichokes match your preferences?

The LP could have decided on its own which theme to use for its 2018 convention. Instead, it allowed you to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed me to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every member of this forum to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every person in this country to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every person on this planet to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention. It allowed every sentient being in the universe to decide which theme to use for its 2018 convention.

And how do we communicate our preference for a theme? By spending our money. Just like we spend our money on artichokes.

The LP can see and know the demand for its themes. And in this regard, it is less blind. Perhaps this is a one-off sort of thing. But if it isn't... if the LP decides to regularly utilize everybody's brainpower and information... then it will be a lot less blind than the DP and the RP. So for sure the LP will win. It will stomp the DP and the RP.

However, if the DP and RP are flexible and fast and smart enough, then they will simply start allowing the market to guide their big decisions. Except, well, by then everybody will be able to clearly see and understand the benefit and point of the Invisible Hand. And everybody will realize just how pointless political parties truly are. People will use their taxes to guide the government's big decisions. And the government will be less blind.

The LP provides no goods or services to its donors directly. It's a political party, not an ice cream parlor.

LP will lose because if they ever do start getting voting share, the RP or DP will incorporate an idea or two of theirs to draw their voter base into the party and relegate them to irrelevance again, until they can get some kind of wedge issue where they can get up to 5-6% of the vote share again, whereupon the previous action repeats.

This is normal.

[Galloism]

I'm not too sure about the bit in bold. After all, people outside of the US can't legally donate to American political parties...

From the perspective of utilizing more brains and information, this rule is entirely stupid and detrimental.

It's to keep foreign governments from buying our politics and then using them to undermine us.

After all, if I get to destroy $1,000,000 in your pocket, and as a result reap $1,000 in mine and mine only, it's a good action for me to take, even though from a global perspective it's detrimental.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I have to commend the OP's sheer commitment to fully exploring this blind alley.

[The Holy Therns]

What are you talking about?

Uh yeah, right back atcha.

[Xerographica]

Today Classtopia created their Justice Department. It's their 9th dept.

Just like with the LP theme... the Classtopians use spending rather than voting to make important decisions. However, in Classtopia the winners compensate the losers. I refer to this system as coasianism.

Of course the students like being compensated. Back in November, when they were deciding who should be in charge of their Book Dept, 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 Christopher ended up winning. So all the students who essentially lied about their preferences ending up having to pay for a candidate that they really didn't prefer. They learned their lesson and since then, most of the students have been more or less honest with their valuations.

Christopher didn't remain in charge of the Book Dept for long. Shortly after, another student in the dept ended up simply taking charge of it.

Today their teacher, Michelle, texted me a pic of their valuations for head of their Justice Dept...

It's by far the most options that have been available for a coasian decision. So it took me a couple seconds before I noticed the last valuation. Somebody in the classroom was willing to spend a whopping $3.98 so that Christopher could be in charge of the Justice Dept. It was the only valuation for Christopher. My math isn't too great so I looked at the other valuations and eventually figured out that he had won. I asked Michelle who was willing to spend so much money on Christopher. She replied that he was.

We were both rather surprised by the outcome. It was the very first time that a student had single-handedly won. She said that the students had been pretty surprised as well. One of the students had asked, "Does he even have that much money?"

Well... here's his piggy bank...

Of course now it's empty. All the money in Christopher's piggy bank has been proportionally divided among all the students. They didn't get their preferred candidate... so they didn't have to pay any money. Instead, they were compensated according to how much money that they had been willing to pay for their preferred candidate.

Earlier in this thread The East Marches II used the video game term... "pay2win". It was the first time that I had heard the term. But it certainly applies to Christopher. He paid to win. However, it's not like he has a crystal ball. He couldn't know for sure how much money the other students were going to be willing to pay for their preferred candidates. For all he knew they were willing to pay more money and then he would have lost and been proportionally compensated.

If voting had been used instead, then we would have seen how many votes the candidates received. We would have seen and known how popular the candidates were. But with spending, we get to see the actual demand for the candidates. We can see and know how valuable the candidates are. We get to see more. We get to know more. The least blind group will win.