Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Galloism]

Then your argument is trash, as usual. Glad we sorted that out.

Nothing has been sorted out.

You've yet to address the point that's been made, which is that 99-100% of all political decisions come down to the allocation of scarce resources (which is what economics is about) and competing self interests in a context of limited resources/scarcity

sounds like Economics

Sure, of course, this is also true of corporate boards - which are also elected.

hence voting, is an economic problem (we've decided that "votes/voting power" should be free, but should it be?)

It's arguably better than the alternatives. That doesn't mean it's great, but we've come up with no better ideas.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then your argument is trash, as usual. Glad we sorted that out.

Nothing has been sorted out.

You've yet to address the point that's been made, which is that 99-100% of all political decisions come down to the allocation of scarce resources (which is what economics is about) and competing self interests in a context of limited resources/scarcity

sounds like Economics

hence voting, is an economic problem (we've decided that "votes/voting power" should be free, but should it be?)

You have yet to declare that my point is wrong, namely, that you're expecting people who work on routers to be able to design and engineer one.

"In an ideal world" is as much of a weasel-tier answer as Xero's "well but you are not an expert" weasel answer.

[Bombadil]

Indeed, and in context response is to mean 'running the experiment', none have. None seem to think it worthwhile. Much as I just asked my biology professor friend to run an experiment proving unicorns are real and he moved straight past it. Yet HE DIDN'T PROVE ME INCORRECT!

Have you considered emailing North Korea?

Kim Jong Un replied to say he has a stable of 7 unicorns.

[Xerographica]

Right, he's not the most relevant expert, but he's still an expert. His paper is somewhat relevant to the topic. You would know this if you've actually read it.

It's a philosophy professor.

Quit weaseling out of your hypocrisy. You want us to find an economics professor when the only professor who gave you the light of day was a philosophy professor.

That is being a hypocrite.

Why don't you share some of the responses when you've shared your ideas with economists? They're a hoot.

Here's one of the more recent responses...

I think I see what you mean now when you said “voting isn’t the same as spending”. People may say what they want, but it doesn’t always reflect in their “revealed preferences”. Brexit was a good example, as you cleverly pointed out in your previous email.

Might be worth further investigation, I think! - Nattavudh Powdthavee

If he had said that I was wrong, then this would have given me pause, especially if he had supplied evidence that a crowd of voters is wiser than a crowd of donors.

Ok, now it's your turn. Show us one of the responses that you have received from a relevant professor.

[Alvecia]

Why would you be willing to sacrifice your true preference for a fake preference?

Because it might cost me less

You know what, this sounds like a flaw of your system Xero. Wouldn't you agree?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's a philosophy professor.

Quit weaseling out of your hypocrisy. You want us to find an economics professor when the only professor who gave you the light of day was a philosophy professor.

That is being a hypocrite.

Here's one of the more recent responses...


If he had said that I was wrong, then this would have given me pause, especially if he had supplied evidence that a crowd of voters is wiser than a crowd of donors.

Ok, now it's your turn. Show us one of the responses that you have received from a relevant professor.

You said the expert of your OP.

Now you are moving the goalpost.

[Xerographica]

Because it might cost me less

You know what, this sounds like a flaw of your system Xero. Wouldn't you agree?

Freedom means that you can shoot yourself in the foot. I don't perceive this to be a flaw of freedom.

[Galloism]

You know what, this sounds like a flaw of your system Xero. Wouldn't you agree?

Freedom means that you can shoot yourself in the foot. I don't perceive this to be a flaw of freedom.

Well you've certainly done that plenty on this forum, and you keep coming back for more.

I gotta say, the humor you've been providing us is of immense value.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You know what, this sounds like a flaw of your system Xero. Wouldn't you agree?

Freedom means that you can shoot yourself in the foot. I don't perceive this to be a flaw of freedom.

But it is a flaw of your system, which you said would reveal TRUE valuations since we would have to pay for it.

How has that worked out for you Xero?

[Infected Mushroom]

Nothing has been sorted out.

You've yet to address the point that's been made, which is that 99-100% of all political decisions come down to the allocation of scarce resources (which is what economics is about) and competing self interests in a context of limited resources/scarcity

sounds like Economics

hence voting, is an economic problem (we've decided that "votes/voting power" should be free, but should it be?)

You have yet to declare that my point is wrong, namely, that you're expecting people who work on routers to be able to design and engineer one.

"In an ideal world" is as much of a weasel-tier answer as Xero's "well but you are not an expert" weasel answer.

they are both involved in the application of computer science to real life problems... in the same sense that politicians are involved in the application of economics to real life problems... what we expect each participant in either system to know to be able to do their jobs depends on the system we've set up

its possible to have a system where router operators are required to know how to engineer and build one as well... I expect such a system would be more efficient because the operators consistently work with a broader picture/understanding in mind. It is also possible to have a system where the knowledge is compartmentalised between two groups (one group focuses on building/designing and the other group on its actual on the ground operations). Both have pros and cons.

Similarly with politics, we've chosen to have people with very limited to no knowlege at the very top, running a massive bureaucracy filled with actual experts. It's not necessarily the best way to run things but its what we do have now

[Alvecia]

You know what, this sounds like a flaw of your system Xero. Wouldn't you agree?

Freedom means that you can shoot yourself in the foot. I don't perceive this to be a flaw of freedom.

How am I shooting myself in the foot?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You have yet to declare that my point is wrong, namely, that you're expecting people who work on routers to be able to design and engineer one.

"In an ideal world" is as much of a weasel-tier answer as Xero's "well but you are not an expert" weasel answer.

they are both involved in the application of computer science to real life problems... in the same sense that politicians are involved in the application of economics to real life problems... what we expect each participant in either system to know to be able to do their jobs depends on the system we've set up

its possible to have a system where router operators are required to know how to engineer and build one as well... I expect such a system would be more efficient because the operators consistently work with a broader picture/understanding in mind. It is also possible to have a system where the knowledge is compartmentalised between two groups (one group focuses on building/designing and the other group on its actual on the ground operations). Both have pros and cons.

Similarly with politics, we've chosen to have people with very limited to no knowlege at the very top, running a massive bureaucracy filled with actual experts. It's not necessarily the best way to run things but its what we do have now

Yes, but that wasn't your argument.

Your argument was "well why wouldn't economics be the same as political science since it is dealing with allocation of resources?" which is a completely daft notion.

I find the notion that router operations would be more efficient if router engineers were working on them but for different reasons, namely a router engineer would know the ins and out, but he wouldn't know how to efficiently deal with a problem. Just because you build something doesn't mean you know how to troubleshoot it.

It's why troubleshooting is highly paid.

[Xerographica]

Freedom means that you can shoot yourself in the foot. I don't perceive this to be a flaw of freedom.

But it is a flaw of your system, which you said would reveal TRUE valuations since we would have to pay for it.

How has that worked out for you Xero?

Use your words to tell me your true valuation of your truly preferred political system.

[Alvecia]

But it is a flaw of your system, which you said would reveal TRUE valuations since we would have to pay for it.

How has that worked out for you Xero?

Use your words to tell me your true valuation of your truly preferred political system.

"I value this system the most"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But it is a flaw of your system, which you said would reveal TRUE valuations since we would have to pay for it.

How has that worked out for you Xero?

Use your words to tell me your true valuation of your truly preferred political system.

I'm not gonna tell you. Not while you are capable of manipulating the shit out of your kangaroo poll.
You're just gonna have to settle to know that capracracy is what I paid to prop up in the poll for my own reasons.

[Xerographica]

Freedom means that you can shoot yourself in the foot. I don't perceive this to be a flaw of freedom.

How am I shooting myself in the foot?

You're foregoing the opportunity to influence the outcome in a way that would benefit you.

[Galloism]

Similarly with politics, we've chosen to have people with very limited to no knowlege at the very top, running a massive bureaucracy filled with actual experts. It's not necessarily the best way to run things but its what we do have now

There is a valid complaint here - that many politicians are conspicuously under-qualified for the job they've gotten elected for (I can think of one in particular that jumps out at me).

We probably should, as a society, be electing people who are experts in various fields to fill congress - economists, philosophers, accountants, tax professionals, teachers, physicists, biologists, doctors, lawyers, etc. Only, they're almost all lawyers. Nearly every one of em. It's crazy the number of lawyers in congress.

That's not cause to upend the whole system, but it would be good cause to get people to vote in a varied group of qualified experts across various fields.

[Galloism]

Use your words to tell me your true valuation of your truly preferred political system.

I'm not gonna tell you. Not while you are capable of manipulating the shit out of your kangaroo poll.

Good man. You know the moment you open your mouth he'll try to change your monetary input from autocratic goat rule to that, just to try and make "pragmatarianism" win.

[Alvecia]

How am I shooting myself in the foot?

You're foregoing the opportunity to influence the outcome in a way that would benefit you.

If I pay exactly £1 more than the next most popular choice, then I get to influence the outcome and save money.
If I paid exactly how much I valued it straight up, then I'd only influence the outcome.
Faking my preference is more beneficial than telling the truth.

Edit: Hell, if other people pay into the choice I want to win, then I get to pay even less and still win.

[Xerographica]

You're foregoing the opportunity to influence the outcome in a way that would benefit you.

If I pay exactly £1 more than the next most popular choice, then I get to influence the outcome and save money.
If I paid exactly how much I valued it straight up, then I'd only influence the outcome.
Faking my preference is more beneficial than telling the truth.

Edit: Hell, if other people pay into the choice I want to win, then I get to pay even less and still win.

This is too nebulous. Apply it to the experiment in this thread. I'm guessing that you don't prefer pragmatarianism or rule by goat.

[Bombadil]

Similarly with politics, we've chosen to have people with very limited to no knowlege at the very top, running a massive bureaucracy filled with actual experts. It's not necessarily the best way to run things but its what we do have now

There is a valid complaint here - that many politicians are conspicuously under-qualified for the job they've gotten elected for (I can think of one in particular that jumps out at me).

We probably should, as a society, be electing people who are experts in various fields to fill congress - economists, philosophers, accountants, tax professionals, teachers, physicists, biologists, doctors, lawyers, etc. Only, they're almost all lawyers. Nearly every one of em. It's crazy the number of lawyers in congress.

That's not cause to upend the whole system, but it would be good cause to get people to vote in a varied group of qualified experts across various fields.

Why Socrates hated Democracy..

[Infected Mushroom]

they are both involved in the application of computer science to real life problems... in the same sense that politicians are involved in the application of economics to real life problems... what we expect each participant in either system to know to be able to do their jobs depends on the system we've set up

its possible to have a system where router operators are required to know how to engineer and build one as well... I expect such a system would be more efficient because the operators consistently work with a broader picture/understanding in mind. It is also possible to have a system where the knowledge is compartmentalised between two groups (one group focuses on building/designing and the other group on its actual on the ground operations). Both have pros and cons.

Similarly with politics, we've chosen to have people with very limited to no knowlege at the very top, running a massive bureaucracy filled with actual experts. It's not necessarily the best way to run things but its what we do have now

Yes, but that wasn't your argument.

Your argument was "well why wouldn't economics be the same as political science since it is dealing with allocation of resources?" which is a completely daft notion.

I find the notion that router operations would be more efficient if router engineers were working on them but for different reasons, namely a router engineer would know the ins and out, but he wouldn't know how to efficiently deal with a problem. Just because you build something doesn't mean you know how to troubleshoot it.

It's why troubleshooting is highly paid.

I find that your analogy doesn't really touch on my point at all

[Alvecia]

If I pay exactly £1 more than the next most popular choice, then I get to influence the outcome and save money.
If I paid exactly how much I valued it straight up, then I'd only influence the outcome.
Faking my preference is more beneficial than telling the truth.

Edit: Hell, if other people pay into the choice I want to win, then I get to pay even less and still win.

This is too nebulous. Apply it to the experiment in this thread. I'm guessing that you don't prefer pragmatarianism or rule by goat.

Same rules still apply. I don't need to pay more than $23 to win, even if I valued it more.
I can lie and benefit more than telling the truth.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, but that wasn't your argument.

Your argument was "well why wouldn't economics be the same as political science since it is dealing with allocation of resources?" which is a completely daft notion.

I find the notion that router operations would be more efficient if router engineers were working on them but for different reasons, namely a router engineer would know the ins and out, but he wouldn't know how to efficiently deal with a problem. Just because you build something doesn't mean you know how to troubleshoot it.

It's why troubleshooting is highly paid.

I find that your analogy doesn't really touch on my point at all

It does actually.

A political science major doesn't know anything about economics because a polsci major's job is to analyze politics and how people vote and why they vote that way.

Economics is the materialist study of resources, how they move and whatnot.

These are not two reconcilable fields of study. Trust me, I give shit to polsci majors, but I realize that no other humanities field can actually deal with what they deal with.

[Xerographica]

This is too nebulous. Apply it to the experiment in this thread. I'm guessing that you don't prefer pragmatarianism or rule by goat.

Same rules still apply. I don't need to pay more than $23 to win, even if I valued it more.
I can lie and benefit more than telling the truth.

Be specific. Which is your true preferred system and which would be your false preferred system?