Obama Presidential Center

[Xerographica]

Well I think Obama is an important symbolic point in American history and..

...



..wait a minute..

Lemme guess, just finished the last half of the OP?

Just caught on to the bait and switch?

Just got seriously disappointed?

As far as I can tell, the OP is supposed to share their own perspective on the topic. That's all I did. So there was absolutely nothing duplicitous about the OP. Of course you're certainly welcome to disagree with my perspective. But don't accuse me of shenanigans.

[Bombadil]

Lemme guess, just finished the last half of the OP?

Just caught on to the bait and switch?

Just got seriously disappointed?

As far as I can tell, the OP is supposed to share their own perspective on the topic. That's all I did. So there was absolutely nothing duplicitous about the OP. Of course you're certainly welcome to disagree with my perspective. But don't accuse me of shenanigans.

It is duplicitous given this thread has nothing to do with the Obama Presidential Centre and everything to do with your pet theory. You could replace the Centre with literally any form of public spending and your point would be the same.

Why not just write a thread called Xero's Pet Theory and be done with it.

[Cedoria]

1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share. That's not even close to being anti rain forest. That's just a different city with different spending priorities. Meh. But I do hate the fact that ANY government (federal, state, local) builds and maintains ANY monuments at all (confederate one, Lincoln memorial, etc) I just don't get it:
Republicans could use the money spent on these monuments to buy military equipment or JUSTIFY lowering taxes.
Democrats could use that money spent on these monuments to thicken the safety net.

I'm against all three of those, but they're better options than mother fucking rocks.

2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.

i'd have to disagree. Monuments can be great sources of local, state, or national pride. Or be used to commemorate an important historical event or person.

Got bad news for you, dead historical figures don't care if they're commemorated or not.

And national pride can be a bad thing, depending on the form it takes. I'd say romanticising the deeds of historical figures who often were pretty nasty is not manifestation of it.

[Xerographica]

Ideally, the government would focus on commemorating people/events/things that are recognized by the vast majority of Americans as positive. Perhaps something for the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Or putting a man on the moon. Or Mr. Rogers.

How big a majority? And why can't we just put it on the tax forms, "If you support the Obama monument, please check here to donate [absurdly small %or$] to its maintenance." And if not enough people support it, than shabam. It's obviously not worth forcing everyone to spend money on.
(Take note Xerographica, that was a reasonable application of micro-payments.)

The 20 acres of public park and the Obama presidential center are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other. The question is... which use of the 20 acres is more beneficial?

[The Black Forrest]

How big a majority? And why can't we just put it on the tax forms, "If you support the Obama monument, please check here to donate [absurdly small %or$] to its maintenance." And if not enough people support it, than shabam. It's obviously not worth forcing everyone to spend money on.
(Take note Xerographica, that was a reasonable application of micro-payments.)

The 20 acres of public park and the Obama presidential center are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other. The question is... which use of the 20 acres is more beneficial?

Again. The question of your views of the national park reductions......

[Xerographica]

As far as I can tell, the OP is supposed to share their own perspective on the topic. That's all I did. So there was absolutely nothing duplicitous about the OP. Of course you're certainly welcome to disagree with my perspective. But don't accuse me of shenanigans.

It is duplicitous given this thread has nothing to do with the Obama Presidential Centre and everything to do with your pet theory. You could replace the Centre with literally any form of public spending and your point would be the same.

Why not just write a thread called Xero's Pet Theory and be done with it.

Several people in this thread have ignored my perspective on the topic. That's perfectly fine. Other people have preferred to discuss/debate my perspective on the topic. That's also perfectly fine.

[Colorado-Kansas]

I'm an Arkansan, i have been to the Clinton library once or twice. If i'm not mistaken, the Clinton's owned the land it was built on already. So we should first consider Obama owned land, other than a public park.

[Xerographica]

The 20 acres of public park and the Obama presidential center are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other. The question is... which use of the 20 acres is more beneficial?

Again. The question of your views of the national park reductions......

I oppose any and all park reductions.

[Feux]

Right now Chicago is planning to destroy 20 acres of public park in order to erect the Obama Presidential Center. Does Chicago really need more buildings and less trees? Personally, I don't think that it does.

There are 20 acres everywhere being "destroyed" for development. When the zoo in my city expands, it dumps into public parks. I don't see that as a real reason to stop any of this.

[The Black Forrest]

Again. The question of your views of the national park reductions......

I oppose any and all park reductions.

Ok. That was a lead question that would see if it was because it was Obama. No worries then.....

[VoVoDoCo]

If 1."foreigners" 2.are wiling to spend their money on one of the options, 3.then this proves that it's their business.


4.Markets are psychotic? I disagree.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa
1. Why the quotes around foreigners?
2. But people AREN'T willing to spend money on voting for an option. Thus, the huge amount of dissent you've face on NS the numerous times you've tried to apply your micro payments plan thingy. Have you seen that app Zip? SUPER popular, free voting, more accurate representation of how the populace feels.
3. No it doesn't. Simply a few individuals donating to a political cause in a different state or even another country doesn't prove it's actually their business. And it sure as hell doesn't prove that "foreigners" should care.
4. I'm pro market. You're applying market logic to areas of life that the markets don't apply.

bump

[Xerographica]

Right now Chicago is planning to destroy 20 acres of public park in order to erect the Obama Presidential Center. Does Chicago really need more buildings and less trees? Personally, I don't think that it does.

There are 20 acres everywhere being "destroyed" for development. When the zoo in my city expands, it dumps into public parks. I don't see that as a real reason to stop any of this.

Many, or even most, zoos have enough plants and trees to count as a public park. I can't speak for other people, but I personally would prefer for each and every city to have more, rather than less, nature.

[VoVoDoCo]

Again. The question of your views of the national park reductions......

I oppose any and all park reductions.

Unless park reductions make more money in the polls?

[Xerographica]

1. Why the quotes around foreigners?

I put quotes around foreigners because I couldn't think of the correct term. Also, I don't think that the money survey should be limited to Americans. Conversely, if Singapore was deciding to replace some of its public park with a building then I'd want the opportunity to provide my monetary input.

2. But people AREN'T willing to spend money on voting for an option.

Last year the libertarian party used spending to choose its convention theme...

$6,327.00 — I’m That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 — Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 — Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 — Empowering the Individual
$395.00 — The Power of Principle
$150.00 — Future of Freedom
$135.00 — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 — Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 — Free Lives Matter
$42.00 — Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 — Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 — Taxation is Theft
$15.00 — Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 — All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 — Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 — Liberty Here and Now

2. Have you seen that app Zip? SUPER popular, free voting, more accurate representation of how the populace feels.

Never heard of it. But it's a fact that spending is better than voting.

3. No it doesn't. Simply a few individuals donating to a political cause in a different state or even another country doesn't prove it's actually their business.

If being willing to make a sacrifice for something doesn't prove that it's your business... then what does? Voting?

4. I'm pro market. You're applying market logic to areas of life that the markets don't apply.

The market is just a means of communication. All areas of life can benefit from better communication.

[Xerographica]

I oppose any and all park reductions.

Unless park reductions make more money in the polls?

The market is not about me getting exactly what I want. It's about accurately reflecting what people truly want.

[Xerographica]

I oppose any and all park reductions.

Ok. That was a lead question that would see if it was because it was Obama. No worries then.....

Well, it certainly doesn't help. Let's say that it was the Adam Smith center. In this case I'd still spend against it, but I'd be willing to spend less money.

[Longweather]

As an eco-warrior, I approve of the demolition of a park.

[The East Marches II]

It wouldn't be an issue if the design wasn't do god damn fugly. This is gonna be like that Soldier Field renovation or that stupid cloud gate. We seem to like trash modern architecture that doesn't age well.

[The Grene Knyght]

From my perspective I'd say that they are being stupid. But it's also none of my concern.

Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?

As for the pay to play survey you suggest that's even stupider. It's literally setting up a paywall to voting AND making everyone vote count only as much as he can spend at once!

People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

Why should people of unequal economic circumstances have an unequal vote?

[The Grim Reaper]

It's hard to say though exactly how much money that I'd be willing to spend. Definitely a dollar. Probably $5 dollars. Maybe $10 dollars. Not sure about $20 dollars.

My God, even you know how stupid your system is.

[Xerographica]

Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?


People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

Why should people of unequal economic circumstances have an unequal vote?

It's because people don't equally improve your economic circumstances.

[Community Values]

Why would a money survey make people choose the most useful option?

The more money that you're willing to spend on something, the more useful it is to you.

This isn't true. I could be spending based on use for others.

[Xerographica]

It's hard to say though exactly how much money that I'd be willing to spend. Definitely a dollar. Probably $5 dollars. Maybe $10 dollars. Not sure about $20 dollars.

My God, even you know how stupid your system is.

Individuals do not act so as to maximize utilities described in independently existing functions. They confront genuine choices, and the sequence of decisions taken may be conceptualized, ex post (after the choices), in terms of "as if" functions that are maximized. But these "as if" functions are, themselves, generated in the choosing process, not separately from such process. If viewed in this perspective, there is no means by which even the most idealized omniscient designer could duplicate the results of voluntary interchange. The potential participants do not know until they enter the process what their own choices will be. From this it follows that it is logically impossible for an omniscient designer to know, unless, of course, we are to preclude individual freedom of will. - James M. Buchanan, Order Defined in the Process of its Emergence

[The Grene Knyght]

Why should people of unequal economic circumstances have an unequal vote?

It's because people don't equally improve your economic circumstances.

Could be my sleep-deprived brain, but this sentence isn't making sense to me. Care to humour me for a moment, and rephrase it?

[Xerographica]

The more money that you're willing to spend on something, the more useful it is to you.

This isn't true. I could be spending based on use for others.

If you donate a lot of money to a soup kitchen then you must perceive that it's very useful to you if other people aren't starving to death.