Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Bombadil]

I'm not commenting on economy.. why is that field de facto? I'm commenting on why there's enough evidence to prove you wrong:

Real life examples
NSG experiment
No expert you've asked is bothered to answer
Human behaviour

On the last I know that people can recognise the right thing to do but act contrary to that when put to the test.

So do you, I'll vote Citizen Kane but fuck it, I'm watching The Flintstones II - Viva Rock Vegas, I know Wealth of Nations is a better book but.. is there really bondage in 50 Shades of Grey?

So I don't need an economist here.

This thread, like most of my threads, is about economics. So yeah, if you want to check and see if your perspective on the topic is correct, then it would behoove you to consult an economist.

You already have.. to no response.. do you need to put your hand on a hot plate when someone had already been burned?

Hence it's one of four criteria I use to dismiss your idea.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's talking about federal expenditures vs local expenditures.

It's not focusing on foot voting. And it most definitely isn't trying to prove foot voting is better than whatever other voting system there is.

It's merely trying to prove or disprove whether or not local expenditures need to follow the Musgrave-Samuelson analysis in the same way federal expenditures do nd it offers rationale for their arguments.

This has nothing to do with foot voting, in fact it doesn't even mention it at all in the PDF. I know, I did a word search on the document for any term that means "foot".

So the Tiebout model has absolutely nothing to do with foot voting? What, exactly, do you think foot voting is?

The Tiebout model is one thing.

Your paper is but a microcosm of his theory.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

By the way, I just got an email from Charlie the Legit Economist:

I am sorry it took me a while to get back to you. I was thinking of scenarios where we used donations to disparately "rank" things based on the amount of the donation, and could only come up with unusual corner events. As an aside, "donation voting" is a funny turn of phrase for this. I guess it's ok, but it doesn't really capture what's going on here.

Typically, we only use such "donation voting" systems in small things that don't matter overmuch, and even then, it's used mostly either for the amusement of the donator or a "value added" function for donating to a non-profit. I can think of a couple examples:

1) There was a libertarian party platform that involved donating for what their slogan was going to be
2) Many fair events where you donate to a cause and someone (usually a political official) gets dunked with water, splattered with paint, etc

You’ll notice neither one involves ranking anything really important. There was no “donation voting” to figure out what the libertarian party stance was going to be, or what policies they were going to adopt. There was no such “donation voting” for who their candidate was going to be. Also, it attracted very few supporters overall – only a few thousands across 300 million people in the country.

The second one shows something that’s often extremely true in economics – we want something back personally when we spend money. It’s more common for people to participate in the second one, because they get something back – laughter. It’s a form of viciousness that they want to see someone they dislike, a politician, to suffer, and they will pay for that.

Taking that into account, when it comes to “donation voting” of books, especially towards a for profit entity, I foresee a couple possible outcomes.

1) Basically no one participates, at least relative to the number of users.
2) There is participation, but that participation will have nothing to do with books.

The first one is self-explanatory. By adding a paywall and not getting anything in return, the participation rate will drop tremendously. Most anyone attempting to give “feedback” will hit a paywall to give it and just leave. This blocks most information from the system. This would make logical sense to you personally – why would you pay for something that gives you no personal return? Even if there is a widespread social return, you’re unlikely to trade personal money for it. You, like most people, will wait for someone else to do it.

For the second one, we can imagine some kind of personal return based on participation. I could see two groups of people – those trying to prove the system works by donating for something legitimate, and those trying to completely undermine it to prove the system is illegitimate. Game theory would suggest that both groups fixate on one book, as if they spread their donations it’s easier for the other side to win.

Depending on the relative popularity/unpopularity of the system, I would expect the top two spots would contain one legitimate book and one stupid book, no matter what. However, this is actually a conflagration – no one cares about the book overmuch, they care about the system (either for or against), and so any “data” you would get from such would have no relation to what the data is actually derived from.
To give you an example, imagine if a gang shot up a convenience store, killing a rival gang member that was inside. The fact that the convenience store was shot up is terrible, and you could try to conclude that that gang hated that convenience store. However, it was really about the person inside – the rival gangmember. Deciding it was about the store is an erroneous conclusion.

I suspect that a “donation voting” system, especially to a for profit enterprise, would be mostly marked by a complete lack of caring or outright maliciousness. It’s just human nature. The most unlikely scenario is for anything of value actually being uncovered – unless you consider confirming/impugning the system itself to be something of value.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Charlie

[Xerographica]

This thread, like most of my threads, is about economics. So yeah, if you want to check and see if your perspective on the topic is correct, then it would behoove you to consult an economist.

You already have.. to no response.. do you need to put your hand on a hot plate when someone had already been burned?

Hence it's one of four criteria I use to dismiss your idea.

Why do you keep saying that no expert has responded to me? Did you not read the OP?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You already have.. to no response.. do you need to put your hand on a hot plate when someone had already been burned?

Hence it's one of four criteria I use to dismiss your idea.

Why do you keep saying that no expert has responded to me? Did you not read the OP?

All the expert told you is that he doesn't object to your observation about testing democracy through scientific means.

He never told you your system was correct.

Stop lying.

[Xerographica]

Why do you keep saying that no expert has responded to me? Did you not read the OP?

All the expert told you is that he doesn't object to your observation about testing democracy through scientific means.

He never told you your system was correct.

Stop lying.

He, unlike yourself, never said that "my" system is incorrect. Find an expert (other than Charlie The Legit Economist) who will corroborate your conclusion that "my" system is incorrect.

[Alvecia]

NSG Meetup: Antarctica.
I won't be attending, but I'll definitely put money towards that.

How much?

Depends how much everyone else contributes.

[Galloism]

All the expert told you is that he doesn't object to your observation about testing democracy through scientific means.

He never told you your system was correct.

Stop lying.

He, unlike yourself, never said that "my" system is incorrect. Find an expert (other than Charlie The Legit Economist) who will corroborate your conclusion that "my" system is incorrect.

What's wrong with Charlie?

[Washington Resistance Army]

He, unlike yourself, never said that "my" system is incorrect. Find an expert (other than Charlie The Legit Economist) who will corroborate your conclusion that "my" system is incorrect.

What's wrong with Charlie?

He doesn't agree with Xero therefore he's wrong.

[Xerographica]

How much?

Depends how much everyone else contributes.

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

[Alvecia]

Depends how much everyone else contributes.

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

Because it might cost me less

[Galloism]

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

Because it might cost me less

Also, it would be funny, and humor is value.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So I just checked you "expert" CV from the OP.

This is fucking hilarious Xero. More hypocrisy, why am I not surprised?

SAMUEL C. RICKLESS

Philosophy Department, 0119 University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0119

Employment
2009- Present : Professor, Philosophy, University of California, San Diego
2003-2009: Associate Professor, Philosophy, University of California, San Diego
2001-2003: Assistant Professor, Philosophy, University of California, San Diego
1996-2001: Assistant Professor, Philosophy, Florida State University
1995-1996: Visiting Lecturer, Philosophy, Florida State University

Affiliations
2003- Present : University of San Diego Institute for Law and Philosophy
2013- Present: University of San Diego Institute for Law and Religion
2016- Present: Affiliate Professor, University of San Diego School of Law
2014, 2015: Adjunct Professor, International Summer Campus, Korea University

Education

Ph.D., Philosophy, University of California, Los Angeles, 1996
Dissertation: “Sinn Without Guilt: A Theory of Content for Singular Terms”
Committee: David Kaplan (chair), Kit Fine, Tim Stowell

B.Phil., Philosophy, Oxford University, 1988

B.A., Philosophy, Harvard University, 1986

Areas of Research

History of Modern Philosophy, Ethics, Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Language, History of Ancient Philosophy

Your "expert" isn't even an economics expert like you want us to find. It's a fucking philosophy professor.

The hypocrisy is hilariously sad in this one.

[Xerographica]

What's wrong with Charlie?

He doesn't agree with Xero therefore he's wrong.

When you make a donation to a non-profit you are communicating that it is important to you. Because it's not like you're going to make a donation to a non-profit that isn't important to you. For example, you wouldn't make a donation to PETA. Am I right?

[Washington Resistance Army]

He doesn't agree with Xero therefore he's wrong.

When you make a donation to a non-profit you are communicating that it is important to you. Because it's not like you're going to make a donation to a non-profit that isn't important to you. For example, you wouldn't make a donation to PETA. Am I right?

I wouldn't donate to PETA solely because they're meme tier crazy and get mad about fictional characters in video games wearing fur.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

All the expert told you is that he doesn't object to your observation about testing democracy through scientific means.

He never told you your system was correct.

Stop lying.

He, unlike yourself, never said that "my" system is incorrect. Find an expert (other than Charlie The Legit Economist) who will corroborate your conclusion that "my" system is incorrect.

I think the wannabe economist doth protest too much.

First you said an expert, now you said an expert other than Charlie.

Pls concede the point, or admit I was right about your "expert" challenge.

[Galloism]

He doesn't agree with Xero therefore he's wrong.

When you make a donation to a non-profit you are communicating that it is important to you. Because it's not like you're going to make a donation to a non-profit that isn't important to you. For example, you wouldn't make a donation to PETA. Am I right?

I've made a donation to a non profit that isn't important to me in order to grease a few palms for business reasons.

[Infected Mushroom]

Economics is more then how "money" moves. Money is a medium of exchange. Economics is about the broader science regarding the problem of scarcity and the allocation of limited resources.

Politics is about how people make decisions... ABOUT LIMITED ECONOMIC RESOURCES. Everything fundamentally has an economic dimension to it. Even something like equality rights has an economic calculation attached to it.

Why did it take so long to get rid of slavery? Economics.

Yes, but your argument essentially is like saying that because routers make decisions about routing packets, that people who work in networking should also know how to design and engineer a router.

That's just daft.

in an ideal world everyone would know everything

but in the world we live in, politicians frequently don't know fundamental things traditionally subscribed to "political science" (for instance, if I asked a politician to tell me what the difference is between Realism and Liberalism in political philosophy, very basic Politics 101 stuff... they might actually have "get back to me later on it")... so it wouldn't shock me if they were woefully ignorant about economics too; they're allowed to be ignorant under the current system so long as they control the public image and get re-elected

[Bombadil]

Why do you keep saying that no expert has responded to me? Did you not read the OP?

All the expert told you is that he doesn't object to your observation about testing democracy through scientific means.

He never told you your system was correct.

Stop lying.

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!

[Xerographica]

Your "expert" isn't even an economics expert like you want us to find. It's a fucking philosophy professor.

The hypocrisy is hilariously sad in this one.

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.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

in an ideal world everyone would know everything

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

[Alvecia]

When you make a donation to a non-profit you are communicating that it is important to you. Because it's not like you're going to make a donation to a non-profit that isn't important to you. For example, you wouldn't make a donation to PETA. Am I right?

I wouldn't donate to PETA solely because they're meme tier crazy and get mad about fictional characters in video games wearing fur.

On the other hand, more "I'd rather go naked" campaign shoots.

[Galloism]

All the expert told you is that he doesn't object to your observation about testing democracy through scientific means.

He never told you your system was correct.

Stop lying.

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?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your "expert" isn't even an economics expert like you want us to find. It's a fucking philosophy professor.

The hypocrisy is hilariously sad in this one.

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.

[Infected Mushroom]

in an ideal world everyone would know everything

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?)