Omniscience

[Catsfern]

one credit I'll give the op is being able to place omniscience on a comparative scale. It is in interesting perspective that does save some merit. Nothing may be able to actually reach omniscience, but a more knowledgeable groups and people bound to have better odds of success.

That being said using this belief as an argument against democracy is questionable.

[Punished UMN]

This is quite a roundabout way of getting to your silly donations idea, isn't it - doesn't really follow at all logically. But no, omniscience is not a quality with varying degrees, one either is or is not. One can have varying degrees of knowledge, but a person with more knowledge won't necessarily always have more money to donate, neither are they assured to donate it in wiser ways - two people with exactly equal knowledge (itself a silly hypothetical) may have vastly different interpretations of it and make vastly different decisions as a result.

Two people bet on reality. Who wins? The person with the better grasp of reality.

Sometimes. Reality is not deterministic. Sometimes the guy putting everything on 32 black wins.

[Zul-ar]

Are you suggesting we should have a plutocracy?

Given that a market group is more omniscient than the alternatives, I'm suggesting that all group decisions should be made by donations.

Worst take of the century. That only means that a handful of people who can afford to bid exceptionally high will have control of everything. That is literally a plutocracy.

Whether or not they know the correct answer is irrelevant, because they aren't going to implement the best solutions for everybody, they'll implement the best solutions for them and their business.

[Kowani]

oh not this again

[Stellar Colonies]

oh not this again

What will be was

What was will be

[Xerographica]

In the OP I gave the example of democracy versus market in terms of reading my mind. Which is more efficient, incorrectly or correctly reading someone's mind? In my mind, it isn't very efficient for a government to incorrectly guess the people's true preferences.

...which is what the principle of Democracy is, being a system where the people decide what the government does, is it not?

The question is whether democracy is better than the market at revealing people's true preferences/priorities. On Youtube how many videos have you given a thumbs up to? Do you value them all equally? Would you equally divide $100 dollar donation among them?

[Punished UMN]

oh not this again

You were optimistic to think that Xero wouldn't bring his blistering hot take based on a number of faulty premises linked together by various non-sequiturs into the new year.

[The New California Republic]

oh not this again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqYSL9ukexg

[Punished UMN]

...which is what the principle of Democracy is, being a system where the people decide what the government does, is it not?

The question is whether democracy is better than the market at revealing people's true preferences/priorities. On Youtube how many videos have you given a thumbs up to? Do you value them all equally? Would you equally divide $100 dollar donation among them?

A literal shitpost on a shitty meme website just bankrupted a number of investment firms and you're still arguing that market forces are rational.

[Kragholm Free States]

This is quite a roundabout way of getting to your silly donations idea, isn't it - doesn't really follow at all logically. But no, omniscience is not a quality with varying degrees, one either is or is not. One can have varying degrees of knowledge, but a person with more knowledge won't necessarily always have more money to donate, neither are they assured to donate it in wiser ways - two people with exactly equal knowledge (itself a silly hypothetical) may have vastly different interpretations of it and make vastly different decisions as a result.

Two people bet on reality. Who wins? The person with the better grasp of reality.

Sure, if you want to bet on matters of objective, measurable fact like "is the earth round" or "do we breathe air", but that doesn't exactly help to make decisions, does it? Betting on government policy is a completely different beast; we don't generally know what its effects will be, we don't even know the full extent of its impact after it's been implemented, every decision will create winners and losers - and how are we to know which is the "right" option or the one reflective of "reality"? Someone can have a far better grasp of reality than another and still make mistakes or interpret their knowledge in different ways.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Are you suggesting we should have a plutocracy?

Xero has for several years had this absolutley silly idea that literally all functions of society should be dictated solely via monetary donations and everyone else in the world except him has seen how nonsensical this is.

So basically we could vote to raise the age of consent but then Jeff Epstein (if he was still alive) could just donate money to lower it to like age 5.

[Xerographica]

The question is whether democracy is better than the market at revealing people's true preferences/priorities. On Youtube how many videos have you given a thumbs up to? Do you value them all equally? Would you equally divide $100 dollar donation among them?

A literal shitpost on a shitty meme website just bankrupted a number of investment firms and you're still arguing that market forces are rational.

I'm arguing that market forces have a better grasp on reality than the alternatives... democracies and dictatorships. You seriously think that Gamestop's usefulness would be more correctly ascertained by a dictator or voters?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

We almost have that in the modern world. And lo and behold, that's why the apocalypse has begun.

[Xerographica]

Two people bet on reality. Who wins? The person with the better grasp of reality.

Sure, if you want to bet on matters of objective, measurable fact like "is the earth round" or "do we breathe air", but that doesn't exactly help to make decisions, does it? Betting on government policy is a completely different beast; we don't generally know what its effects will be, we don't even know the full extent of its impact after it's been implemented, every decision will create winners and losers - and how are we to know which is the "right" option or the one reflective of "reality"? Someone can have a far better grasp of reality than another and still make mistakes or interpret their knowledge in different ways.

Two farmers bet on which crop to plant. Who decides which farmer has a better grasp on reality? Consumers. Therefore, nothing would benefit consumers more than allowing donors to make all group decisions.

[Kowani]

oh not this again

What will be was

What was will be

my brain hurts

oh not this again

You were optimistic to think that Xero wouldn't bring his blistering hot take based on a number of faulty premises linked together by various non-sequiturs into the new year.

this is what i get for being optimistic
doom and gloom it is

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

Typically an entity either is, or isn't, omniscient. But I think it's helpful if we think of omniscience more as a continuum. An adult is more omniscient than a baby. A human is more omniscient than an ant. Every species can be placed on this continuum. Here on our planet, we humans are the most omniscient species. The least omniscient species is probably some unicellular organism.

If there are two competing groups, all else being equal, the more omniscient group will win. Right? Therefore the evolutionary trend is towards greater omniscience. So am I correct that, all else being equal, a democratic group is less omniscient than a market group?

i think the word you're looking for is "intelligent"

[Punished UMN]

A literal shitpost on a shitty meme website just bankrupted a number of investment firms and you're still arguing that market forces are rational.

I'm arguing that market forces have a better grasp on reality than the alternatives... democracies and dictatorships. You seriously think that Gamestop's usefulness would be more correctly ascertained by a dictator or voters?

It doesn't matter, anon, the market forces lost their bet. Setting policy relies on gambling, ultimately, and yes, there are objectively smarter ways to gamble, that doesn't mean the smart way to gamble will always win and that the stupid way to gamble will always lose. Like I said earlier anon, sometimes the guy who just put his kids' college tuition on 32 black walks away a millionaire and the guy conservatively and intelligently betting winds up with less than he started with. Having a better grasp on reality does not in fact mean being able to predict reality, because the world is not deterministic. You can do everything perfectly right and still lose. You're thinking of running a country as if it's solving a math problem where there's one possible way to do it and being knowledgeable at math will always work better than being less knowledgeable. Instead think about it like driving a car: a good driver makes fewer mistakes and is less likely to get in an accident, but some good drivers get killed by drunk drivers, and some people who are horrible drivers go their whole lives without getting into an accident.

[Punished UMN]

Sure, if you want to bet on matters of objective, measurable fact like "is the earth round" or "do we breathe air", but that doesn't exactly help to make decisions, does it? Betting on government policy is a completely different beast; we don't generally know what its effects will be, we don't even know the full extent of its impact after it's been implemented, every decision will create winners and losers - and how are we to know which is the "right" option or the one reflective of "reality"? Someone can have a far better grasp of reality than another and still make mistakes or interpret their knowledge in different ways.

Two farmers bet on which crop to plant. Who decides which farmer has a better grasp on reality? Consumers. Therefore, nothing would benefit consumers more than allowing donors to make all group decisions.

I'm confused on how you have arrived at any of these conclusion from your question. You're stating your conclusion, but you have shown no coherent process by which you have gotten from the question to the conclusion, and from the conclusion, to its implications.

[Imperial Hresvelg]

Sure, if you want to bet on matters of objective, measurable fact like "is the earth round" or "do we breathe air", but that doesn't exactly help to make decisions, does it? Betting on government policy is a completely different beast; we don't generally know what its effects will be, we don't even know the full extent of its impact after it's been implemented, every decision will create winners and losers - and how are we to know which is the "right" option or the one reflective of "reality"? Someone can have a far better grasp of reality than another and still make mistakes or interpret their knowledge in different ways.

Two farmers bet on which crop to plant. Who decides which farmer has a better grasp on reality? Consumers. Therefore, nothing would benefit consumers more than allowing donors to make all group decisions.

Ehh, if two farmer's bet on crops, the person who decides which one is smarter/has a better grasp on reality, is God (If you are a Christian, which I am) or the Market. So technically your kinda right, but I think your "Therefore" is flawed.

[Xerographica]

I'm arguing that market forces have a better grasp on reality than the alternatives... democracies and dictatorships. You seriously think that Gamestop's usefulness would be more correctly ascertained by a dictator or voters?

It doesn't matter, anon, the market forces lost their bet. Setting policy relies on gambling, ultimately, and yes, there are objectively smarter ways to gamble, that doesn't mean the smart way to gamble will always win and that the stupid way to gamble will always lose. Like I said earlier anon, sometimes the guy who just put his kids' college tuition on 32 black walks away a millionaire and the guy conservatively and intelligently betting winds up with less than he started with. Having a better grasp on reality does not in fact mean being able to predict reality, because the world is not deterministic. You can do everything perfectly right and still lose. You're thinking of running a country as if it's solving a math problem where there's one possible way to do it and being knowledgeable at math will always work better than being less knowledgeable. Instead think about it like driving a car: a good driver makes fewer mistakes and is less likely to get in an accident, but some good drivers get killed by drunk drivers, and some people who are horrible drivers go their whole lives without getting into an accident.

If you truly think that democracies, dictatorships and markets are all equally good at steering, then why would you argue against replacing democracies and dictatorships with markets?

[Punished UMN]

It doesn't matter, anon, the market forces lost their bet. Setting policy relies on gambling, ultimately, and yes, there are objectively smarter ways to gamble, that doesn't mean the smart way to gamble will always win and that the stupid way to gamble will always lose. Like I said earlier anon, sometimes the guy who just put his kids' college tuition on 32 black walks away a millionaire and the guy conservatively and intelligently betting winds up with less than he started with. Having a better grasp on reality does not in fact mean being able to predict reality, because the world is not deterministic. You can do everything perfectly right and still lose. You're thinking of running a country as if it's solving a math problem where there's one possible way to do it and being knowledgeable at math will always work better than being less knowledgeable. Instead think about it like driving a car: a good driver makes fewer mistakes and is less likely to get in an accident, but some good drivers get killed by drunk drivers, and some people who are horrible drivers go their whole lives without getting into an accident.

If you truly think that democracies, dictatorships and markets are all equally good at steering, then why would you argue against replacing democracies and dictatorships with markets?

I don't actually think they're all equally as good, I think they all have different flaws and strengths, and that trying to look at knowledge as a single continuum is a foolish endeavor. The way in which these different systems gather information is fundamentally different. In deciding which you think is best, you've focused so hard on which is the most economically efficient that you've forgotten to ask whether it's fair (and I don't mean that in some wishy-washy liberal sense, I mean it in the sense of whether it takes into account utility for everyone as opposed to just total utility).

[Xerographica]

Two farmers bet on which crop to plant. Who decides which farmer has a better grasp on reality? Consumers. Therefore, nothing would benefit consumers more than allowing donors to make all group decisions.

I'm confused on how you have arrived at any of these conclusion from your question. You're stating your conclusion, but you have shown no coherent process by which you have gotten from the question to the conclusion, and from the conclusion, to its implications.

One farmer plants corn. The other farmer plants poison oak. Consumers give their money to the corn farmer. Therefore, the corn farmer will have more money to donate than the poison oak farmer. In a democracy, on the other hand, the corn farmer and the poison oak farmer would have equal influence on group decisions.

Everybody is different. This means that everybody does not have an equally good grasp on reality. Therefore it behooves us to give the more omniscient people greater influence on group decisions, which is exactly why all group decisions should be made by donations.

[Punished UMN]

I'm confused on how you have arrived at any of these conclusion from your question. You're stating your conclusion, but you have shown no coherent process by which you have gotten from the question to the conclusion, and from the conclusion, to its implications.

One farmer plants corn. The other farmer plants poison oak. Consumers give their money to the corn farmer. Therefore, the corn farmer will have more money to donate than the poison oak farmer. In a democracy, on the other hand, the corn farmer and the poison oak farmer would have equal influence on group decisions.

Everybody is different. This means that everybody does not have an equally good grasp on reality. Therefore it behooves us to give the more omniscient people greater influence on group decisions, which is exactly why all group decisions should be made by donations.

Has it occurred to you that consumers don't always make sound decisions? Why would consumers (who are the general public) necessarily be any smarter than the general public?

[Kragholm Free States]

Sure, if you want to bet on matters of objective, measurable fact like "is the earth round" or "do we breathe air", but that doesn't exactly help to make decisions, does it? Betting on government policy is a completely different beast; we don't generally know what its effects will be, we don't even know the full extent of its impact after it's been implemented, every decision will create winners and losers - and how are we to know which is the "right" option or the one reflective of "reality"? Someone can have a far better grasp of reality than another and still make mistakes or interpret their knowledge in different ways.

Two farmers bet on which crop to plant. Who decides which farmer has a better grasp on reality? Consumers. Therefore, nothing would benefit consumers more than allowing donors to make all group decisions.

Well that's fucking stupid. Consumers will pay more for a pomegranate than a loaf of bread - should the farmers all clear out their wheat fields and plant fucking pomegranate trees instead?

[Zul-ar]

...which is what the principle of Democracy is, being a system where the people decide what the government does, is it not?

The question is whether democracy is better than the market at revealing people's true preferences/priorities. On Youtube how many videos have you given a thumbs up to? Do you value them all equally? Would you equally divide $100 dollar donation among them?

Lets say there's five videos: A, B, C, D, and E. Whichever gets the most money wins the competition for Best Video Ever.

I watch, then rank the videos, one being the highest and five the lowest. I then divide the money. The results are as follows:
1.C - $40
2.D - $30
3.A - $25
4.E - $5
5.B - $0
I now have no more money to put into this particular venture, and I call it a day to wait on the results.

Other people also participate in this. The world-wide leaderboard is as follows:

1.A - 3,024,536
2.D - 2,541,329
3.C - 2,244,678
4.E- 1,551,322
5.B - 307,432

There are many people voting on this, people from all different backgrounds, people who are experts in video and media production, people who are experts in comedy, people who are experts in sound, and tons of people who're just picking what they like. Clearly, with all this variety of input, it is possible for the world to determine the true best video, right?

Now, let's say Jeff Bezos is participating as well. He likes video C. But, he realizes video B's creator is also into politics. Video B's creator thinks capitalism is great. If video B wins, video B's creator will definitely use their larger platform to promote capitalism. Jeff Bezos wants this to happen. Jeff Bezos puts 8,000,000 dollars on video B.

The day is over and the competition has ended. Video B wins in a landslide, despite the vast majority of people thinking it was inferior. Everyone else's vote is worthless against the vote of Jeff Bezos. This is the joke of a system you're advocating my dude.