NationStates

But have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much "God" sacrificed every time? If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law – let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! – Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality

Right now Chicago is planning to destroy 20 acres of public park in order to erect the Obama Presidential Center. Does Chicago really need more buildings and less trees? Personally, I don't think that it does.

Here's the basic economic concern...

It is impossible for anyone, even if he be a statesman of genius, to weigh the whole community’s utility and sacrifice against each other. — Knut Wicksell, A New Principle of Just Taxation

I've attached a survey to this thread...

Should the presidential center be built in the public park?

Yes
No

We will be able to see which option is more popular. But what if we wanted to see which option is more useful? The city of Chicago could conduct the same survey but, instead of participants simply voting for their preferred option, they would spend any amount of money on it. This system would kill two birds with one stone...

1. Everybody would see and know the actual demand for/against the proposal.
2. The city would raise money to help reduce its ridiculously huge debt.

How much money would you be willing to spend on your preferred option?

From my perspective, the world needs a lot more trees and a lot less buildings. So I'd definitely spend my money on the "No" option. It's hard to say though exactly how much money that I'd be willing to spend. Definitely a dollar. Probably $5 dollars. Maybe $10 dollars. Not sure about $20 dollars.

From my perspective I'd say that they are being stupid. But it's also none of my concern.
As for the pay to play survey you suggest that's even stupider. It's literally setting up a paywall to voting AND making everyone vote count only as much as he can spend at once!

Not really concerned.

Why would a money survey make people choose the most useful option?

Purpelia wrote:From my perspective I'd say that they are being stupid. But it's also none of my concern.

Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?

Purpelia wrote:As for the pay to play survey you suggest that's even stupider. It's literally setting up a paywall to voting AND making everyone vote count only as much as he can spend at once!

People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

Community Values wrote:Why would a money survey make people choose the most useful option?

The more money that you're willing to spend on something, the more useful it is to you.

Xerographica wrote:

Community Values wrote:Why would a money survey make people choose the most useful option?

The more money that you're willing to spend on something, the more useful it is to you.

Oh hey, another thread on Xero's religious beliefs disguised as something else.

I'm shocked. Shocked!

I say build the presidential center in another area, not a public park. I'm sure there'll be open land somewhere on the edge of the Chicago suburbs.

Xerographica wrote:

Purpelia wrote:From my perspective I'd say that they are being stupid. But it's also none of my concern.

Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?

Purpelia wrote:As for the pay to play survey you suggest that's even stupider. It's literally setting up a paywall to voting AND making everyone vote count only as much as he can spend at once!

People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share. That's not even close to being anti rain forest. That's just a different city with different spending priorities. Meh. But I do hate the fact that ANY government (federal, state, local) builds and maintains ANY monuments at all (confederate one, Lincoln memorial, etc) I just don't get it:
Republicans could use the money spent on these monuments to buy military equipment or JUSTIFY lowering taxes.
Democrats could use that money spent on these monuments to thicken the safety net.

I'm against all three of those, but they're better options than mother fucking rocks.

2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.

Well the OP went from "Proposal to build building on a place of nature and rec/relaxation" to...Xero's obsession with putting-money-towards-things-for-reasons on a dime.

It kinda sucks that they might build on a natural landscape.
I'll just ignore the second half of the OP.

Zanera wrote:Well the OP went from "Proposal to build building on a place of nature and rec/relaxation" to...Xero's obsession with putting-money-towards-things-for-reasons on a dime.

It kinda sucks that they might build on a natural landscape.
I'll just ignore the second half of the OP.

Wise.

Vovodoco wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?


People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share. That's not even close to being anti rain forest. That's just a different city with different spending priorities. Meh. But I do hate the fact that ANY government (federal, state, local) builds and maintains ANY monuments at all (confederate one, Lincoln memorial, etc) I just don't get it:
Republicans could use the money spent on these monuments to buy military equipment or JUSTIFY lowering taxes.
Democrats could use that money spent on these monuments to thicken the safety net.

I'm against all three of those, but they're better options than mother fucking rocks.

2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.

i'd have to disagree. Monuments can be great sources of local, state, or national pride. Or be used to commemorate an important historical event or person.

Vovodoco wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?


People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share.

If "foreigners" are wiling to spend their money on one of the options, then this proves that it's their business.

Vovodoco wrote:2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.

Markets are psychotic? I disagree.

Really, don’t care about Chicago and what it wants to do.

Xerographica wrote:Markets are psychotic? I disagree.

Than you literally know nothing about economics.

Xerographica wrote:

Vovodoco wrote:(S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share.

If 1."foreigners" 2.are wiling to spend their money on one of the options, 3.then this proves that it's their business.

Vovodoco wrote:Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.

4.Markets are psychotic? I disagree.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa
1. Why the quotes around foreigners?
2. But people AREN'T willing to spend money on voting for an option. Thus, the huge amount of dissent you've face on NS the numerous times you've tried to apply your micro payments plan thingy. Have you seen that app Zip? SUPER popular, free voting, more accurate representation of how the populace feels.
3. No it doesn't. Simply a few individuals donating to a political cause in a different state or even another country doesn't prove it's actually their business. And it sure as hell doesn't prove that "foreigners" should care.
4. I'm pro market. You're applying market logic to areas of life that the markets don't apply.

Bruke wrote:

Vovodoco wrote:1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share. That's not even close to being anti rain forest. That's just a different city with different spending priorities. Meh. But I do hate the fact that ANY government (federal, state, local) builds and maintains ANY monuments at all (confederate one, Lincoln memorial, etc) I just don't get it:
Republicans could use the money spent on these monuments to buy military equipment or JUSTIFY lowering taxes.
Democrats could use that money spent on these monuments to thicken the safety net.

I'm against all three of those, but they're better options than mother fucking rocks.

2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.

i'd have to disagree. Monuments can be great sources of local, state, or national pride. Or be used to commemorate an important historical event or person.

If I can stereotype your politics from the stats of your nation (which is often foolish), I'd say you're a Republican.

Yes, monuments can be a source of pride. So can a strong military. So can responsible government spending. Why should the government take everybody's tax payer dollars and use them to build giant rocks in favor of, or in support of, a person/event/etc that they don't want their money being used to commemorate? What if they'd rather that money be used to defend them via more police/military? Or a tax break, to help feed their families? Why rocks?

Well I think Obama is an important symbolic point in American history and..

...



..wait a minute..

Bombadil wrote:Well I think Obama is an important symbolic point in American history and..

...



..wait a minute..

Lemme guess, just finished the last half of the OP?

Just caught on to the bait and switch?

Just got seriously disappointed?

Vovodoco wrote:

Bruke wrote:
i'd have to disagree. Monuments can be great sources of local, state, or national pride. Or be used to commemorate an important historical event or person.

If I can stereotype your politics from the stats of your nation (which is often foolish), I'd say you're a Republican.

Yes, monuments can be a source of pride. So can a strong military. So can responsible government spending. Why should the government take everybody's tax payer dollars and use them to build giant rocks in favor of, or in support of, a person/event/etc that they don't want their money being used to commemorate? What if they'd rather that money be used to defend them via more police/military? Or a tax break, to help feed their families? Why rocks?

Ideally, the government would focus on commemorating people/events/things that are recognized by the vast majority of Americans as positive. Perhaps something for the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Or putting a man on the moon. Or Mr. Rogers. I don;t think there could be anyone who would object to Mr. Rogers But you get my point.

PS: A national monument could also NOT be giant rocks The designation can, should, and has been used to preserve and protect places that are already historical.

*shrugs* What's your views on the National Park reductions?

It doesn't have to be built at Jackson Park. Yeah - I get the symbolism of building it in the South Side, but that park has a degree of importance overall. Maybe somewhere else in Chicago? Lots of vacant land just due north of Midway Airport.

That said, if the park is the only option, then so be it, I suppose.

Major-Tom wrote:It doesn't have to be built at Jackson Park. Yeah - I get the symbolism of building it in the South Side, but that park has a degree of importance overall. Maybe somewhere else in Chicago? Lots of vacant land just due north of Midway Airport.

That said, if the park is the only option, then so be it, I suppose.

You sir, are the real MVP.

Bruke wrote:

Vovodoco wrote:If I can stereotype your politics from the stats of your nation (which is often foolish), I'd say you're a Republican.

Yes, monuments can be a source of pride. So can a strong military. So can responsible government spending. Why should the government take everybody's tax payer dollars and use them to build giant rocks in favor of, or in support of, a person/event/etc that they don't want their money being used to commemorate? What if they'd rather that money be used to defend them via more police/military? Or a tax break, to help feed their families? Why rocks?

Ideally, the government would focus on commemorating people/events/things that are recognized by the vast majority of Americans as positive. Perhaps something for the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Or putting a man on the moon. Or Mr. Rogers.

How big a majority? And why can't we just put it on the tax forms, "If you support the Obama monument, please check here to donate [absurdly small %or$] to its maintenance." And if not enough people support it, than shabam. It's obviously not worth forcing everyone to spend money on.
(Take note Xerographica, that was a reasonable application of micro-payments.)

Also there are some popular figures in American history who have had some vices in their lives. People who feel that it would be unethical to support them, shouldn't have too, regardless of how popular the monument is to everyone.

Vovodoco wrote:

Bruke wrote:
Ideally, the government would focus on commemorating people/events/things that are recognized by the vast majority of Americans as positive. Perhaps something for the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Or putting a man on the moon. Or Mr. Rogers.

How big a majority? And why can't we just put it on the tax forms, "If you support the Obama monument, please check here to donate [absurdly small %or$] to its maintenance." And if not enough people support it, than shabam. It's obviously not worth forcing everyone to spend money on.
(Take note Xerographica, that was a reasonable application of micro-payments.)

Also there are some popular figures in American history who have had some vices in their lives. People who feel that it would be unethical to support them, shouldn't have, regardless of how popular the monument is to everyone.

I do like your proposal about the tax forms, but practically speaking: applying that to every national monument would take up a lot of space... Perhaps the government could have a special website instead, to inform people about the monuments, and why they are important. Have local, state, or national historical societies take care of the monuments, but have the feds, states, and localities encourage people to donate money.