Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Dogmeat]

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.

I have no obligation to spend my money in any way other than the way I choose to. And that is what I did. Also, I'm not "now admitting" it, I've pointed out before - in this thread - that no one really likes rule by goats. You can't use this against me, Xero. There's no deceit on my part.

You, on the other hand, tried to put words in the mouth of a dead man.

As for Two Jerseys, he's been trying for a long time to get you to clarify your comments about how he should lie about his preferences for DV. You don't get to claim ignorance on that.

[Lord Dominator]

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...

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.

And SSC is very clearly making a joke. Your's wasn't clear at all

[Xerographica]

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.

Then I don't have any evidence that, if people could choose where their taxes go, that they are going to help fund things that they perceive to be overfunded. My guess is that people are going to fund things that they perceive to be underfunded.

[Lord Dominator]

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

Then I don't have any evidence that, if people could choose where their taxes go, that they are going to help fund things that they perceive to be overfunded. My guess is that people are going to fund things that they perceive to be underfunded.

I think they're more likely to vote (fund in your system) for things that give them personally more money. My submitted evidence is that poor people tend to vote Democratic; who give them money via welfare, and richer people tend Republican; who cut their taxes and let them keep more money (least in the US).

[Xerographica]

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.

I have no obligation to spend my money in any way other than the way I choose to. And that is what I did. Also, I'm not "now admitting" it, I've pointed out before - in this thread - that no one really likes rule by goats. You can't use this against me, Xero. There's no deceit on my part. As for Two Jerseys, he's been trying for a long time to get you to clarify your comments about how he should lie about his DV. You don't get to claim ignorance on that.

You, on the other hand, tried to put words in the mouth of a dead man.

You lied to all of us that capracracy is your preferred political system. This is your deceit. Here's the question... are you going to continue being dishonest or are you going to man up and tell us the truth?

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes, I lied, but in my defense I thought that it was obvious that I was lying. It seemed like at least a couple other people realized that I was joking around...

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

Can confirm, that is mockery.

[Xerographica]

Then I don't have any evidence that, if people could choose where their taxes go, that they are going to help fund things that they perceive to be overfunded. My guess is that people are going to fund things that they perceive to be underfunded.

I think they're more likely to vote (fund in your system) for things that give them personally more money. My submitted evidence is that poor people tend to vote Democratic; who give them money via welfare, and richer people tend Republican; who cut their taxes and let them keep more money (least in the US).

Given that Dominoes Pizza voluntarily helped pay to repair roads, we can reasonably guess that they would also spend their taxes on road repairs. But I don't see this as a problem.

[The Two Jerseys]

I have no obligation to spend my money in any way other than the way I choose to. And that is what I did. Also, I'm not "now admitting" it, I've pointed out before - in this thread - that no one really likes rule by goats. You can't use this against me, Xero. There's no deceit on my part. As for Two Jerseys, he's been trying for a long time to get you to clarify your comments about how he should lie about his DV. You don't get to claim ignorance on that.

You, on the other hand, tried to put words in the mouth of a dead man.

You lied to all of us that capracracy is your preferred political system. This is your deceit. Here's the question... are you going to continue being dishonest or are you going to man up and tell us the truth?

You lied to us that pragmatarianism is about revealing true preferences.

I want answers. Now.

[Galloism]

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

Then I don't have any evidence that, if people could choose where their taxes go, that they are going to help fund things that they perceive to be overfunded. My guess is that people are going to fund things that they perceive to be underfunded.

Here's a question. This has been brought up before, but you've never answered it.

What do you do when you "truly value" a service a government agency provides, and consider it important and worth funding, but you also perceive it to be overfunded.

Let's suppose my value of food inspection for the system is $2000 per year. That's my true value for the purposes of the scenario. But they are already getting $20 million a year, twice what they asked for or need to do the thing I value? Am I supposed to give them how much I truly value them at ($2,000) or how much I perceive they still need in funding ($0)?

Because if I'm communicating both things (how much I value it and how much how I perceive they still need), then funding them $2,000 is saying I don't think they're funded enough, and funding them $0 is telling them I don't value them at all. So which way is it?

[Dogmeat]

I have no obligation to spend my money in any way other than the way I choose to. And that is what I did. Also, I'm not "now admitting" it, I've pointed out before - in this thread - that no one really likes rule by goats. You can't use this against me, Xero. There's no deceit on my part. As for Two Jerseys, he's been trying for a long time to get you to clarify your comments about how he should lie about his DV. You don't get to claim ignorance on that.

You, on the other hand, tried to put words in the mouth of a dead man.

You lied to all of us that capracracy is your preferred political system. This is your deceit. Here's the question... are you going to continue being dishonest or are you going to man up and tell us the truth?

The fuck are you talking about Xero? I've pointed out that it isn't my preference multiple times in the last few pages, and also at least once before then. Including the post you're responding to.

You can't make this about me Xero. Nothing I've done comes close to your blatant intellectual dishonesty or disrespect for the dead.

[Lord Dominator]

I think they're more likely to vote (fund in your system) for things that give them personally more money. My submitted evidence is that poor people tend to vote Democratic; who give them money via welfare, and richer people tend Republican; who cut their taxes and let them keep more money (least in the US).

Given that Dominoes Pizza voluntarily helped pay to repair roads, we can reasonably guess that they would also spend their taxes on road repairs. But I don't see this as a problem.

Two things to undermine your example:
1) Last I heard, they're also putting their logo on the fixed road. That's advertising, which is in their self-interest to do (especially in such a permanent fashion).
2) They deliver pizza. Better roads are in their self-interest.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You lied to all of us that capracracy is your preferred political system. This is your deceit. Here's the question... are you going to continue being dishonest or are you going to man up and tell us the truth?

The fuck are you talking about Xero? I've pointed out that it isn't my preference multiple times in the last few pages, and also at least once before then. Including the post you're responding to.

You can't make this about me Xero. Nothing I've done comes close to your blatant intellectual dishonesty or disrespect for the dead.

Man up, Dogmeat, man up. Oh won't you please man up! Don't you know this is srs bzznizz? This is a fight between good and evil, or whatever crackpot shit Xero is talking about these days. OH PLEASE, MAN UP!

Capacracy FTW, btw.

[Galloism]

I have no obligation to spend my money in any way other than the way I choose to. And that is what I did. Also, I'm not "now admitting" it, I've pointed out before - in this thread - that no one really likes rule by goats. You can't use this against me, Xero. There's no deceit on my part. As for Two Jerseys, he's been trying for a long time to get you to clarify your comments about how he should lie about his DV. You don't get to claim ignorance on that.

You, on the other hand, tried to put words in the mouth of a dead man.

You lied to all of us that capracracy is your preferred political system. This is your deceit. Here's the question... are you going to continue being dishonest or are you going to man up and tell us the truth?

Just to state the obvious, what Xero is trying to do is try to split up everyone who bid into different sections so that pragmatarianism can "win", because he knows he's spent more than any single person, so if he can split everyone up into different ones, then he can win.

As Soldati pointed out, he's a gambler at heart and wants to "win".

In essence, he's trying to encourage everyone to do the opposite of what he recommended here:

But I truly value my life the most.

Are you asking me to not express my true valuation?

Expressing your true valuation doesn't mean literally burning your money. In this case, DV'ing for yourself would be a complete waste of your money. There's no chance that you're going to get one of those seats. But you can DV to make sure that Obama, rather than Trump, gets a seat. Do you do so?

See, based on Xero's previous suggestion, choosing anything besides Capacracy is burning money as far as this thread goes. It would be a complete waste.

So what is a person to do Xero, go for a preference that's not your first, and make use of your money, or go for your true preference and waste money?

Can't have it both ways.

Except, in this game, you think YOU deserve the seat, so you're trying to encourage everyone to waste their money. Not biting.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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?

Why do you give a fuck?

Stop needling him, Mr. "I emailed a dead economist".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I have no obligation to spend my money in any way other than the way I choose to. And that is what I did. Also, I'm not "now admitting" it, I've pointed out before - in this thread - that no one really likes rule by goats. You can't use this against me, Xero. There's no deceit on my part. As for Two Jerseys, he's been trying for a long time to get you to clarify your comments about how he should lie about his DV. You don't get to claim ignorance on that.

You, on the other hand, tried to put words in the mouth of a dead man.

You lied to all of us that capracracy is your preferred political system. This is your deceit. Here's the question... are you going to continue being dishonest or are you going to man up and tell us the truth?

And you lied to all of us that you are a real expert at economics, or that, in fact, you have emailed economics experts.

Now stop being so fucking salty about your own failure.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

Then I don't have any evidence that, if people could choose where their taxes go, that they are going to help fund things that they perceive to be overfunded. My guess is that people are going to fund things that they perceive to be underfunded.

Why the fuck would we give any answers to someone like you?

You brought this on yourself, now face the music like a man and stop bitching about people being liars, considering you are the sort of person who posts manipulative lies to prove a point, I don't believe you have any room to talk about anyone else.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then I don't have any evidence that, if people could choose where their taxes go, that they are going to help fund things that they perceive to be overfunded.

And that is, quite frankly, not our fucking problem.

That's your personal failure at pretending slapping shit polls in threads and calling them an "experiment" is how you do science. Or trying to pretend you don't have any personal stake in this when, in fact, you do.

[Xerographica]

Then I don't have any evidence that, if people could choose where their taxes go, that they are going to help fund things that they perceive to be overfunded. My guess is that people are going to fund things that they perceive to be underfunded.

Here's a question. This has been brought up before, but you've never answered it.

What do you do when you "truly value" a service a government agency provides, and consider it important and worth funding, but you also perceive it to be overfunded.

Let's suppose my value of food inspection for the system is $2000 per year. That's my true value for the purposes of the scenario. But they are already getting $20 million a year, twice what they asked for or need to do the thing I value? Am I supposed to give them how much I truly value them at ($2,000) or how much I perceive they still need in funding ($0)?

Because if I'm communicating both things (how much I value it and how much how I perceive they still need), then funding them $2,000 is saying I don't think they're funded enough, and funding them $0 is telling them I don't value them at all. So which way is it?

Me: Do you value air?
You: Yes
Me: Do you value food?
You: Yes.
Me: Do you value not being robbed?
You: Yes.
Me: Do you value not being eaten by sharks?
You: Yes
Me: Do you value not being destroyed by an asteroid?
You: Yes

This isn't economics. Here's economics...

Me: How would you divide your tax dollars between food safety and asteroid defense?
You: I'd allocate $4,000 to food safety and $500 to asteroid defense

In this case, your valuation of food safety is $4,000 and your valuation of asteroid defense is $500. This is what I'm referring to when I say "valuation". Your valuations are useful and beneficial for the community to know. Your valuations indicate where you perceive there's room for improvement. Your valuations indicate which links you perceive to be the weakest.

It's not very useful or beneficial for the community to know that you value air. Of course, if we're all on a spaceship, then it would be useful and beneficial to know your valuation of air.

The economic question is how to divide society's limited resources. Your valuation is your monetary estimation of how society's limited resources should be divided.

[Xerographica]

You lied to all of us that capracracy is your preferred political system. This is your deceit. Here's the question... are you going to continue being dishonest or are you going to man up and tell us the truth?

The fuck are you talking about Xero? I've pointed out that it isn't my preference multiple times in the last few pages, and also at least once before then. Including the post you're responding to.

You can't make this about me Xero. Nothing I've done comes close to your blatant intellectual dishonesty or disrespect for the dead.

I'm not making up the fact that you haven't told us the truth about your preferred political system. You either tell us the truth or admit that you have a double standard when it comes to the truth.

[Galloism]

Here's a question. This has been brought up before, but you've never answered it.

What do you do when you "truly value" a service a government agency provides, and consider it important and worth funding, but you also perceive it to be overfunded.

Let's suppose my value of food inspection for the system is $2000 per year. That's my true value for the purposes of the scenario. But they are already getting $20 million a year, twice what they asked for or need to do the thing I value? Am I supposed to give them how much I truly value them at ($2,000) or how much I perceive they still need in funding ($0)?

Because if I'm communicating both things (how much I value it and how much how I perceive they still need), then funding them $2,000 is saying I don't think they're funded enough, and funding them $0 is telling them I don't value them at all. So which way is it?

Me: Do you value air?
You: Yes
Me: Do you value food?
You: Yes.
Me: Do you value not being robbed?
You: Yes.
Me: Do you value not being eaten by sharks?
You: Yes
Me: Do you value not being destroyed by an asteroid?
You: Yes

This isn't economics. Here's economics...

Me: How would you divide your tax dollars between food safety and asteroid defense?
You: I'd allocate $4,000 to food safety and $500 to asteroid defense

In this case, your valuation of food safety is $4,000 and your valuation of asteroid defense is $500. This is what I'm referring to when I say "valuation". Your valuations are useful and beneficial for the community to know. Your valuations indicate where you perceive there's room for improvement. Your valuations indicate which links you perceive to be the weakest.

It's not very useful or beneficial for the community to know that you value air. Of course, if we're all on a spaceship, then it would be useful and beneficial to know your valuation of air.

The economic question is how to divide society's limited resources. Your valuation is your monetary estimation of how society's limited resources should be divided.

So just to be clear, if a person gives $0 to food safety, that should NOT be interpreted that they have $0 of value for food safety, but merely that they think the current funding is sufficient?

[Xerographica]

Given that Dominoes Pizza voluntarily helped pay to repair roads, we can reasonably guess that they would also spend their taxes on road repairs. But I don't see this as a problem.

Two things to undermine your example:
1) Last I heard, they're also putting their logo on the fixed road. That's advertising, which is in their self-interest to do (especially in such a permanent fashion).
2) They deliver pizza. Better roads are in their self-interest.

I'm not sure how these two things undermine my example. Yes, Dominoes uses advertising to make it worthwhile to voluntarily help pay for a public goods. But with pragmatarianism they'd simply allocate their taxes to help repair roads. No need for advertising since taxation is compulsory. In other words, there's a difference between voluntary and compulsory contributions to public goods.

And yes, better roads are in Dominoes' self-interest. But better roads are also in the self-interest of Dominoes' customers. Just like better ovens are also in the self-interest of Dominoes' customers.

Think about NationStates. As members of NS, can you list all the goods that are in our self-interest? When I made a donation to NS I didn't say, "Hey Max Barry buddy, be a pal and only spend this money on things that are in both of our self-interest... like a more powerful server. Please don't spend this money on hookers and booze." If Max Barry could choose where his taxes go, I'm sure that he'd spend his "public" dollars just as wisely as he spends his "private" dollars.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The fuck are you talking about Xero? I've pointed out that it isn't my preference multiple times in the last few pages, and also at least once before then. Including the post you're responding to.

You can't make this about me Xero. Nothing I've done comes close to your blatant intellectual dishonesty or disrespect for the dead.

I'm not making up the fact that you haven't told us the truth about your preferred political system. You either tell us the truth or admit that you have a double standard when it comes to the truth.

This coming from Mr. "I totes not have double standards about what kind of experts you should email guys".

You are the last one to talk about double standards here, considering the only "experts" paying attention to you are philosopher types.

[Xerographica]

Me: Do you value air?
You: Yes
Me: Do you value food?
You: Yes.
Me: Do you value not being robbed?
You: Yes.
Me: Do you value not being eaten by sharks?
You: Yes
Me: Do you value not being destroyed by an asteroid?
You: Yes

This isn't economics. Here's economics...

Me: How would you divide your tax dollars between food safety and asteroid defense?
You: I'd allocate $4,000 to food safety and $500 to asteroid defense

In this case, your valuation of food safety is $4,000 and your valuation of asteroid defense is $500. This is what I'm referring to when I say "valuation". Your valuations are useful and beneficial for the community to know. Your valuations indicate where you perceive there's room for improvement. Your valuations indicate which links you perceive to be the weakest.

It's not very useful or beneficial for the community to know that you value air. Of course, if we're all on a spaceship, then it would be useful and beneficial to know your valuation of air.

The economic question is how to divide society's limited resources. Your valuation is your monetary estimation of how society's limited resources should be divided.

So just to be clear, if a person gives $0 to food safety, that should NOT be interpreted that they have $0 of value for food safety, but merely that they think the current funding is sufficient?

If a person gives $0 to food safety, then I'd simply guess that they have bigger fish to fry.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What's comical about you needling dogmeat is this:

You haven't needled me nearly as much about it. Why Xero? Is it because you know I will tell you to fuck off?

[Galloism]

If a person gives $0 to food safety, then I'd simply guess that they have bigger fish to fry.

Ok, so let's have an example. Some random nobody, let's say Warren Buffet, examines the FDA food safety system and realizes it will make a number of the companies he invests in food safety systems redundant, saving tons of money. He's so very thankful to the FDA, they ask for $10 million, and he gives them $12 million, just to show how good of a job they're doing.

He then announces "Relax America, I got this!" and no one else funds the FDA.

This shouldn't be taken to mean Warren Buffet is the only person interested in food safety, yes? That other people are interested, but since he's funding it single handedly from his taxes, they can relax. Correct?