Advertisement
by Grave_n_idle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:06 pm
by Galloism » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:26 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote: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?
by The Two Jerseys » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:42 pm
by Camicon » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:47 pm
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter
by Xerographica » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:03 pm
Xerographica wrote: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)
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:08 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote: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?
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by The Two Jerseys » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:16 pm
Xerographica wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote: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.
by Neutraligon » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:35 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Xerographica wrote: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.
by Internationalist Bastard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:39 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Xerographica wrote: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.
by Xerographica » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:40 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Camicon » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:01 pm
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote: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.
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter
by The Two Jerseys » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:03 pm
Neutraligon wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote: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.
by The Two Jerseys » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:12 pm
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote: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.
by Xerographica » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:17 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Xerographica wrote: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.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Senkaku » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:33 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Xerographica wrote: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...
by The Two Jerseys » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:49 pm
Xerographica wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote: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.
by Xerographica » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:50 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Xerographica wrote: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...
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Camicon » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:23 pm
Xerographica wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote: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.
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter
by Xerographica » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:47 am
Camicon wrote:Xerographica wrote: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.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Salandriagado » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:20 am
Xerographica wrote:Xerographica wrote:Salandriagado wrote:
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.
by Hydesland » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:51 am
by The Two Jerseys » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:57 am
Camicon wrote:Xerographica wrote: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.
by Intharia » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:05 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Al-Haqiqah, Boylover, Dumb Ideologies, Elejamie, Glorious Freedonia, Ifreann, Khardsland, Niolia, Ors Might, Perishna, Sarolandia, Simonia, Suriyanakhon, The Two Jerseys, Tungstan, Valrifall, Vonum, Yanitza
Advertisement