Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Dogmeat]

No, that last one is just mocking you. The other one is - accurately, it turns out - accusing you of lying.

I'm not denying that I lied. Sometimes I lie. Do you ever lie? Does the amount of money that you donated for capracracy accurately reflect your true valuation of it?

There's a bit of a difference between voting for a joke option, and inventing a correspondence between yourself and an expert with the intention of backing yourself up.

I'm not going to let you worm out of this one. That was a scummy thing to do, and any credibility you had is gone.

[Galloism]

It's not per se a problem. It however causes a problem in the context of public goods (namely, that they become undersupplied as a result).

You agree that it's a problem when public goods are undersupplied. You agree that X < Y results in public goods being undersupplied. But you disagree that X < Y is a problem?

The aerodynamic force known as "lift" makes fast cars want to lift up off the ground and go flying through the air.

Is lift itself a problem that needs to be solved?

No. Rather, lift causes a problem in fast cars. The cars tumbling through the air is the problem.

In airplanes, lift is the solution.

So is it a problem the amount of money people voluntarily pay for a good is less than what they value it? No. Does it cause problems in certain contexts? Yes.

[Xerographica]

I'm not denying that I lied. Sometimes I lie. Do you ever lie? Does the amount of money that you donated for capracracy accurately reflect your true valuation of it?

There's a bit of a difference between voting for a joke option, and inventing a correspondence between yourself and an expert with the intention of backing yourself up.

I'm not going to let you worm out of this one. That was a scummy thing to do, and any credibility you had is gone.

Your lie makes it seem like capracracy is more important than it truly is to our community. In other words, your lie makes our community look like a joke. My lie, on the other hand, does not reflect poorly on our community. If anything it reflects poorly on me.

I admitted that I lied. Are you admitting that you lied? If so, then I will be happy to change your answer to whichever political system is truly most important to you.

[The Holy Therns]

No, that last one is just mocking you. The other one is - accurately, it turns out - accusing you of lying.

I'm not denying that I lied. Sometimes I lie. Do you ever lie? Does the amount of money that you donated for capracracy accurately reflect your true valuation of it?

Why did you lie, Xero?

[Xerographica]

You agree that it's a problem when public goods are undersupplied. You agree that X < Y results in public goods being undersupplied. But you disagree that X < Y is a problem?

The aerodynamic force known as "lift" makes fast cars want to lift up off the ground and go flying through the air.

Is lift itself a problem that needs to be solved?

No. Rather, lift causes a problem in fast cars. The cars tumbling through the air is the problem.

In airplanes, lift is the solution.

So is it a problem the amount of money people voluntarily pay for a good is less than what they value it? No. Does it cause problems in certain contexts? Yes.

X < Y is referring to a specific context... public goods. You either agree, or disagree, that it's a problem when X < Y. Which is it?

[Dogmeat]

There's a bit of a difference between voting for a joke option, and inventing a correspondence between yourself and an expert with the intention of backing yourself up.

I'm not going to let you worm out of this one. That was a scummy thing to do, and any credibility you had is gone.

Your lie makes it seem like capracracy is more important than it truly is to our community. In other words, your lie makes our community look like a joke. My lie, on the other hand, does not reflect poorly on our community. If anything it reflects poorly on me.

I admitted that I lied. Are you admitting that you lied? If so, then I will be happy to change your answer to whichever political system is truly most important to you.

Voting for the joke option does not reflect poorly on the community. It shows that we're fun, while also highlighting a problem with you system.

What you did is just despicable. On many levels.

[Galloism]

The aerodynamic force known as "lift" makes fast cars want to lift up off the ground and go flying through the air.

Is lift itself a problem that needs to be solved?

No. Rather, lift causes a problem in fast cars. The cars tumbling through the air is the problem.

In airplanes, lift is the solution.

So is it a problem the amount of money people voluntarily pay for a good is less than what they value it? No. Does it cause problems in certain contexts? Yes.

X < Y is referring to a specific context... public goods. You either agree, or disagree, that it's a problem when X < Y. Which is it?

It could be. Even within public goods there's gradations of where it is or isn't a problem.

Imagine the FDA invented a machine that could inspect every piece of food of every type, and every single pill, and it costs ten million dollars per year to maintain the system. People love the FDA for this. They "truly value" it at 1 billion dollars a year because now all consumables are inspected and safe. However they only fund at $10 million a year because that's what it costs to run the system. People are funding it at less than what they value it, but the good is not undersupplied because of the efficiency built into the system and anything over $10 million a year is wasted because it's not needed to maintain the system.

Is X < Y a problem in this scenario?

[Xerographica]

I'm not denying that I lied. Sometimes I lie. Do you ever lie? Does the amount of money that you donated for capracracy accurately reflect your true valuation of it?

Why did you lie, Xero?

Here's what I wrote on June 29...

My very first interaction with an anarcho-capitalist did not go so well. I super detested the idea. But I knew that I couldn't truly defeat it without first understanding it. Naturally I started reading Murray Rothbard's work. Lots of it was bogus "rights" based arguments. But eventually I found some of his economic arguments against the government... and I completely agreed with them. The government can't "divine" the demand for defense any more than it can "divine" the demand for food. Except I wasn't a fan of Rothbard's solution... abolishing the government. I believed that free-riding is a real and serious problem. Therefore, pragmatarianism.

Here's what I wrote on July 5...

Have you gotten any relevant experts to actually make a solid agreement with your position?

Yeah, I e-mailed Murray Rothbard and he replied...

One of the most absurd procedures based on a constancy assumption has been the attempt to arrive at a consumer’s preference scale . . . Through quizzing him by questionnaires. In vacuo, a few consumers are questioned at length on which abstract bundle of hypothetical commodities they would prefer to another abstract bundle, etc. Not only does this suffer from the constancy error, no assurance can be attached to the mere questioning of people. Not only will a person’s valuations differ when talking about them than when he is actually choosing, but there is also no guarantee that he is telling the truth.

Given that I had stated in the same thread that 2010 is the very first year that I had even heard of anarcho-capitalism, I thought it would be obvious that I was joking around about corresponding with Murray Rothbard.

[Xerographica]

Your lie makes it seem like capracracy is more important than it truly is to our community. In other words, your lie makes our community look like a joke. My lie, on the other hand, does not reflect poorly on our community. If anything it reflects poorly on me.

I admitted that I lied. Are you admitting that you lied? If so, then I will be happy to change your answer to whichever political system is truly most important to you.

Voting for the joke option does not reflect poorly on the community. It shows that we're fun, while also highlighting a problem with you system.

I really don't think that it shows that our community is fun. Anyways, are you admitting that you lied?

What you did is just despicable. On many levels.

Who was harmed?

[Xerographica]

X < Y is referring to a specific context... public goods. You either agree, or disagree, that it's a problem when X < Y. Which is it?

It could be. Even within public goods there's gradations of where it is or isn't a problem.

Imagine the FDA invented a machine that could inspect every piece of food of every type, and every single pill, and it costs ten million dollars per year to maintain the system. People love the FDA for this. They "truly value" it at 1 billion dollars a year because now all consumables are inspected and safe. However they only fund at $10 million a year because that's what it costs to run the system. People are funding it at less than what they value it, but the good is not undersupplied because of the efficiency built into the system and anything over $10 million a year is wasted because it's not needed to maintain the system.

Is X < Y a problem in this scenario?

No machine is perfect. Just like no operating system is perfect. If people paid their true valuation for Linux, which is considerably more money than they currently pay for it, then two things would happen...

1. Linux would be able to compete more/better programmers away from other organizations. Naturally this would greatly improve Linux.
2. Other entrepreneurs would see the very bright value signal and respond to it by supplying other freely available operating systems. This would give consumers more operating systems to choose from. A greater diversity of operating systems would greatly facilitate their evolution/improvement.

There's always room for improvement. People's spending decisions either should, or shouldn't, accurately reflect where they truly want the most improvements to be made.

[Dogmeat]

Voting for the joke option does not reflect poorly on the community. It shows that we're fun, while also highlighting a problem with you system.

I really don't think that it shows that our community is fun. Anyways, are you admitting that you lied?

I voted for exactly the option that I wanted to win. The fact that it doesn't represent my true valuation is a problem with Pragmatarianism. Which is to say, your problem. Now stop trying to change the subject to me. You do this every time you're cornered, and it's always exactly as pathetic.

What you did is just despicable. On many levels.

Who was harmed?

By your malicious attempt to deceive everyone in the thread? Everyone in the thread.

[Galloism]

It could be. Even within public goods there's gradations of where it is or isn't a problem.

Imagine the FDA invented a machine that could inspect every piece of food of every type, and every single pill, and it costs ten million dollars per year to maintain the system. People love the FDA for this. They "truly value" it at 1 billion dollars a year because now all consumables are inspected and safe. However they only fund at $10 million a year because that's what it costs to run the system. People are funding it at less than what they value it, but the good is not undersupplied because of the efficiency built into the system and anything over $10 million a year is wasted because it's not needed to maintain the system.

Is X < Y a problem in this scenario?

No machine is perfect. Just like no operating system is perfect. If people paid their true valuation for Linux, which is considerably more money than they currently pay for it, then two things would happen...

1. Linux would be able to compete more/better programmers away from other organizations. Naturally this would greatly improve Linux.
2. Other entrepreneurs would see the very bright value signal and respond to it by supplying other freely available operating systems. This would give consumers more operating systems to choose from. A greater diversity of operating systems would greatly facilitate their evolution/improvement.

There's always room for improvement. People's spending decisions either should, or shouldn't, accurately reflect where they truly want the most improvements to be made.

This doesn't seem to answer the question. So let me do it for you.

If it's getting funded sufficiently to fill its operational goals, is X < Y a problem?

The answer is no, because X < Y is only problematic to the extent it causes underfunding of the good. If the good is sufficiently funded, and X < Y is still true, is this a problem? No.

Look at the car example. Does lift operate on a family sedan going down the highway at 55mph? Yes. Is it a problem? No. The weight of the vehicle is sufficient to render the lift not a problem.

Does lift operate on a family sedan accelerated to 200mph? Yes. Is it a problem? It caused a problem - namely the car is now literally flying and has no adjustable airfoils to control its motion.

[Xerographica]

I really don't think that it shows that our community is fun. Anyways, are you admitting that you lied?

I voted for exactly the option that I wanted to win. The fact that it doesn't represent my true valuation is a problem with Pragmatarianism. Which is to say, your problem. Now stop trying to change the subject to me. You do this every time you're cornered, and it's always exactly as pathetic.

Are you going to admit that capracracy isn't your preferred political system?

Who was harmed?

By your malicious attempt to deceive everyone in the thread? Everyone in the thread.

It's fine if you pretend that capracracy is your preferred political system, but it's not fine that I pretended to have corresponded with a long-dead economist. I already acknowledged and admitted that I lied. Are you going to acknowledge and admit that you're lying?

[The Holy Therns]

Given that I had stated in the same thread that 2010 is the very first year that I had even heard of anarcho-capitalism, I thought it would be obvious that I was joking around about corresponding with Murray Rothbard.

Do you assume everyone's intimately familiar with the life and death of Murray Rothbard? Because for me it was one of those names that just occasionally popped up in discussions I read. When you wrote that post I had no idea this was a person who was dead. Finding out that was the case didn't make me read your post as a joke. Jokes have humor. This felt like deception.

[Xerographica]

No machine is perfect. Just like no operating system is perfect. If people paid their true valuation for Linux, which is considerably more money than they currently pay for it, then two things would happen...

1. Linux would be able to compete more/better programmers away from other organizations. Naturally this would greatly improve Linux.
2. Other entrepreneurs would see the very bright value signal and respond to it by supplying other freely available operating systems. This would give consumers more operating systems to choose from. A greater diversity of operating systems would greatly facilitate their evolution/improvement.

There's always room for improvement. People's spending decisions either should, or shouldn't, accurately reflect where they truly want the most improvements to be made.

This doesn't seem to answer the question. So let me do it for you.

If it's getting funded sufficiently to fill its operational goals, is X < Y a problem?

The answer is no, because X < Y is only problematic to the extent it causes underfunding of the good. If the good is sufficiently funded, and X < Y is still true, is this a problem? No.

Look at the car example. Does lift operate on a family sedan going down the highway at 55mph? Yes. Is it a problem? No. The weight of the vehicle is sufficient to render the lift not a problem.

Does lift operate on a family sedan accelerated to 200mph? Yes. Is it a problem? It caused a problem - namely the car is now literally flying and has no adjustable airfoils to control its motion.

Are you arguing that people are going to fund something that they truly believe is overfunded? Right now, in this thread, $23 dollars has been allocated to pragmatarianism.

Pragmatarianism in this thread is...

A. adequately funded
B. overfunded
C. underfunded

If you think that the correct answer is "B"... are you going to make a donation for pragmatarianism?

[Galloism]

This doesn't seem to answer the question. So let me do it for you.

If it's getting funded sufficiently to fill its operational goals, is X < Y a problem?

The answer is no, because X < Y is only problematic to the extent it causes underfunding of the good. If the good is sufficiently funded, and X < Y is still true, is this a problem? No.

Look at the car example. Does lift operate on a family sedan going down the highway at 55mph? Yes. Is it a problem? No. The weight of the vehicle is sufficient to render the lift not a problem.

Does lift operate on a family sedan accelerated to 200mph? Yes. Is it a problem? It caused a problem - namely the car is now literally flying and has no adjustable airfoils to control its motion.

Are you arguing that people are going to fund something that they truly believe is overfunded? Right now, in this thread, $23 dollars has been allocated to pragmatarianism.

Pragmatarianism in this thread is...

A. adequately funded
B. overfunded
C. underfunded

If you think that the correct answer is "B"... are you going to make a donation for pragmatarianism?

It absolutely is overfunded. So is Capacracy. In fact, this entire thread is overfunded by infinity percent.

And I already made a donation for Capacracy, despite knowing it was already overfunded.

Besides, you can't necessarily allocate your "true valuation" and "not overfund something you think is adequately funded" at the same time, because often the former will be higher than the latter.

[Dogmeat]

I voted for exactly the option that I wanted to win. The fact that it doesn't represent my true valuation is a problem with Pragmatarianism. Which is to say, your problem. Now stop trying to change the subject to me. You do this every time you're cornered, and it's always exactly as pathetic.

Are you going to admit that capracracy isn't your preferred political system?

I already have multiple times, but what does it matter? You told The Two Jerseys to DV against his true valuation, so clearly you don't have a problem with it.

By your malicious attempt to deceive everyone in the thread? Everyone in the thread.

It's fine if you pretend that capracracy is your preferred political system, but it's not fine that I pretended to have corresponded with a long-dead economist. I already acknowledged and admitted that I lied. Are you going to acknowledge and admit that you're lying?

I already dealt with this:

The fact that it doesn't represent my true valuation is a problem with Pragmatarianism. Which is to say, your problem. Now stop trying to change the subject to me. You do this every time you're cornered, and it's always exactly as pathetic.

It's alarming to me that instead of showing any shame for your massive intellectual dishonesty, or apologizing, or taking any steps to show contrition, you instead just project your flaws on to others.

[Xerographica]

Given that I had stated in the same thread that 2010 is the very first year that I had even heard of anarcho-capitalism, I thought it would be obvious that I was joking around about corresponding with Murray Rothbard.

Do you assume everyone's intimately familiar with the life and death of Murray Rothbard? Because for me it was one of those names that just occasionally popped up in discussions I read. When you wrote that post I had no idea this was a person who was dead. Finding out that was the case didn't make me read your post as a joke. Jokes have humor. This felt like deception.

I guessed that somebody would point out that he was long dead. I guessed correctly. Only 6 minutes after my post, SSC pointed out that Rothbard had died in 1995...

Yeah, I e-mailed Murray Rothbard and he replied...

Wait, which Murray Rothbard?

Because Murray Rothbard the economist died in 1995, so unless you can speak to the dead I sincerely doubt that's the Murray Rothbard you're talking about.

Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. I thought that SSC's post would clear prove to everyone that I was joking around.

[The Holy Therns]

Do you assume everyone's intimately familiar with the life and death of Murray Rothbard? Because for me it was one of those names that just occasionally popped up in discussions I read. When you wrote that post I had no idea this was a person who was dead. Finding out that was the case didn't make me read your post as a joke. Jokes have humor. This felt like deception.

I guessed that somebody would point out that he was long dead. I guessed correctly. Only 6 minutes after my post, SSC pointed out that Rothbard had died in 1995...

Wait, which Murray Rothbard?

Because Murray Rothbard the economist died in 1995, so unless you can speak to the dead I sincerely doubt that's the Murray Rothbard you're talking about.

Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. I thought that SSC's post would clear prove to everyone that I was joking around.

What the fuck is the joke?

[Dogmeat]

Do you assume everyone's intimately familiar with the life and death of Murray Rothbard? Because for me it was one of those names that just occasionally popped up in discussions I read. When you wrote that post I had no idea this was a person who was dead. Finding out that was the case didn't make me read your post as a joke. Jokes have humor. This felt like deception.

I guessed that somebody would point out that he was long dead. I guessed correctly. Only 6 minutes after my post, SSC pointed out that Rothbard had died in 1995...

Wait, which Murray Rothbard?

Because Murray Rothbard the economist died in 1995, so unless you can speak to the dead I sincerely doubt that's the Murray Rothbard you're talking about.

Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. I thought that SSC's post would clear prove to everyone that I was joking around.

There's no joke there.

[Xerographica]

Are you arguing that people are going to fund something that they truly believe is overfunded? Right now, in this thread, $23 dollars has been allocated to pragmatarianism.

Pragmatarianism in this thread is...

A. adequately funded
B. overfunded
C. underfunded

If you think that the correct answer is "B"... are you going to make a donation for pragmatarianism?

It absolutely is overfunded. So is Capacracy. In fact, this entire thread is overfunded by infinity percent.

And I already made a donation for Capacracy, despite knowing it was already overfunded.

How do I know that you truly believed that capracracy is overfunded? Right now I know that you do truly believe that pragmatarianism is overfunded. So if you make a donation for pragmatarianism, then this will prove your point that at least some people will help fund things that they truly believe to be overfunded.

[Galloism]

It absolutely is overfunded. So is Capacracy. In fact, this entire thread is overfunded by infinity percent.

And I already made a donation for Capacracy, despite knowing it was already overfunded.

How do I know that you truly believed that capracracy is overfunded? Right now I know that you do truly believe that pragmatarianism is overfunded. So if you make a donation for pragmatarianism, then this will prove your point that at least some people will help fund things that they truly believe to be overfunded.

Not biting Xero. The fact that you're out of money is your problem.

[Xerographica]

Are you going to admit that capracracy isn't your preferred political system?

I already have multiple times, but what does it matter? You told The Two Jerseys to DV against his true valuation, so clearly you don't have a problem with it.

The Two Jerseys hasn't DV'd for any political system. You are a different story. You DV'd for capracracy and now you are admitting that this isn't your preferred political system. So then what is your preferred political system? Do you have any obligation to tell us the truth? You sure seem to believe that I have an obligation to be truthful with everyone.

[Xerographica]

I guessed that somebody would point out that he was long dead. I guessed correctly. Only 6 minutes after my post, SSC pointed out that Rothbard had died in 1995...


Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. I thought that SSC's post would clear prove to everyone that I was joking around.

What the fuck is the joke?

The joke is that I pretended to correspond with a long-dead economist. Just like it's a joke that SSC is pretending to correspond with a real economist...

How much motivation does it take to e-mail an expert and ask them what they think about something?

I mean, I already emailed Charlie the Legit Economist :^)

We have already established he is a real expert on economics, so I am sure that's acceptable.

[Lord Dominator]

No, that last one is just mocking you. The other one is - accurately, it turns out - accusing you of lying.

I'm not denying that I lied. Sometimes I lie. Do you ever lie? Does the amount of money that you donated for capracracy accurately reflect your true valuation of it?

I will eternally note that I would be preferred to be ruled by Overgoat Kyrusia than whatever the heck rules in yours. And considering that I needed PG for more than just this thread, it does accurately reflect my true valuation.