Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Coasianism

  1. #1

    Coasianism

    The outcome of voting is never mutually beneficial. But if we replaced voting with spending (coasianism), then the outcome would be mutually beneficial.

    In this story on Medium... here's how I inappropriately summed up coasianism...

    If I was stranded on a deserted island with some animal liberation chick… and she was like, “I’ll have sex with you if you stop eating rats and fish”… then it’s entirely possible that I might consider it to be a good deal.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Government Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Government Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich.
    Poorer people shouldn't be allowed to trade with richer people? In other words, let's end all employment?
    Last edited by Xerographica; 08-28-2016 at 03:53 PM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    “I’ll have sex with you if you stop eating rats and fish”.
    My response would be, "Then keep them out of your pussy."
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Poorer people shouldn't be allowed to trade with richer people? In other words, let's end all employment?
    If the idea was to replace voting with spending (money), the wealthy have the money to do all of the spending meaning they basically have all of the votes.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If the idea was to replace voting with spending (money), the wealthy have the money to do all of the spending meaning they basically have all of the votes.
    How is that any different than now?

    The real problem is people thinking things would be different. They wouldn't. The poor love war.

  8. #7
    The poor love war?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If the idea was to replace voting with spending (money), the wealthy have the money to do all of the spending meaning they basically have all of the votes.
    Oh gosh, at this rate... this is going to be just like pulling teeth.

    Prostitution is mostly illegal. How much does this law help or hurt you? Does it matter? If you don't think it matters then this is not the forum category that you're looking for. If you do think it matters... then this is the category that you're looking for. Because economics is all about individual valuation.

    So which is it? Does your valuation of this law matter? If it doesn't... then please move along to the philosophy category or some other category. Don't waste my time. I'm interested in discussing economics. If you're not interested in discussing economics then you shouldn't be here.

    If you think your valuation of this law matters... then you should be here. Please tell me what your valuation of this law actually is. Is it $1000 dollars? Or -$500 dollars? What is it?

    Personally, I'm guessing that my valuation of this law is around -$300 dollars. Of course my valuation might be different if I was in a real life coasianism situation.

    I probably wouldn't solicit prostitutes if it was legal.... but I really dislike the thought of people not having the freedom to do what they want with their own bodies.

    So with coasianism... I'd spend $300 for prostitution to be legal for one year. If my side wins... I'd have to pay $300 dollars to the Christians or liberals or whoever opposed prostitution. But for the next year prostitution would be legal. What if my side lost? Then I'd get paid at least $300 dollars for prostitution to be illegal for the next year.

    Aside from wealth inequality issue.... do you see a problem with this system? And to be clear... if you're remaining in this forum category it's because you agree that our valuation of this law matters. If you don't agree that our valuation of this law matters... then you really shouldn't be in this category.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Aside from wealth inequality issue.... do you see a problem with this system?
    Yeah- the wealth inequality issue. Also it is extremely complicated- requiring individuals to basically place a "bet" on every question. I may have several issues I support but no money to spend trying to support them. I may want police AND fire protection but only enough cash to buy lunch.

    It works mutually only if everybody has the same amount of money to start with. Otherwise you get the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

    I see you have another discussion on the topic going. http://www.debatepolitics.com/econom...oasianism.html

    Votes are the currency of politics. Everybody starts out with the same amounts.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-29-2016 at 02:23 PM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Yeah- the wealth inequality issue.
    Look, I asked you a really simple and straightforward question. Does your valuation of the law against prostitution matter? If you don't think it does matter... then you're not interested in discussing economics. So you're in the wrong forum category.

  13. #11
    Most people would find it difficult to put a dollar value on any law. You are trying to use economics to determine politics and it isn't working very well. Something may be worth $1 million to me but if I don't have $1 million for the law it doesn't matter what I value it at.
    If I oppose prostitution and have $100 in my pocket and somebody else favors it and has $1000 in their pocket, do I get a voice on the matter? Do both sides benefit?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-29-2016 at 02:59 PM.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Most people would find it difficult to put a dollar value on any law. You are trying to use economics to determine politics and it isn't working very well. Something may be worth $1 million to me but if I don't have $1 million for the law it doesn't matter what I value it at.
    If I oppose prostitution and have $100 in my pocket and somebody else favors it and has $1000 in their pocket, do I get a voice on the matter? Do both sides benefit?
    I didn't ask you whether it's easy or difficult to valuate the law. I asked you whether your valuation of the law matters. If you believe that your valuation of the law does not matter... then it's really pointless to debate whether it's easy or difficult to valuate the law.

    So again. Does your valuation of the law matter?

  15. #13
    It is impossible to put a dollar valuation on a law so no- it does not matter.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-29-2016 at 03:39 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It is impossible to put a dollar valuation on a law so no- it does not matter.
    What do you mean it's impossible? Did you miss the part where I did it? I said that my valuation of the law against prostitution is -$300 dollars. Either I accomplished the impossible... or it isn't impossible to valuate laws.

  17. #15
    How, aside from making it up, did you arrive at that figure? Did you look at all your extra money left after expenses (food, rent, clothing, etc) and then see how much money you had left to spend on laws and rank all possible laws you may support- giving a weighting to each one and allocating those dollars to each issue? Let's see. I have $1000 left. I'll put $300 on prostitutes, $200 on not smoking, $50 on abortion..... (nobody is going to do all that). Or would you save the money/ spend it on something else?

    Personally, I'm guessing that my valuation of this law is around -$300 dollars. Of course my valuation might be different if I was in a real life coasianism situation.
    How much is that stop sign at the busy intersection where that kid was killed at worth to have a law to put one in? To the kid's parents, it would have been worth a lot- but they spent it all on medical bills. So they don't get a vote on it. I may not want a sign because I like to race through it as fast as I can and have $500 to spend on it so I win. Does that equally benefit everybody?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-29-2016 at 04:31 PM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How, aside from making it up, did you arrive at that figure? Did you look at all your extra money left after expenses (food, rent, clothing, etc) and then see how much money you had left to spend on laws and rank all possible laws you may support- giving a weighting to each one and allocating those dollars to each issue? Let's see. I have $1000 left. I'll put $300 on prostitutes, $200 on not smoking, $50 on abortion..... (nobody is going to do all that). Or would you save the money/ spend it on something else?
    Seriously? Look... these are all different arguments...

    A. it's impossible to valuate laws
    B. it's impossible to correctly valuate laws
    C. people aren't going to valuate laws

    These arguments are all mutually exclusive. If A is true... then B and C are irrelevant. If B is true.... then A and C are untrue. If C is true... then A and B are irrelevant.

    So which argument is your argument? Let me give you a hand...

    A. False. My valuation of the law against prostitution is -$300 dollar
    B. False. Values are entirely subjective... so they can't be correct or incorrect.
    C. False. People would valuate laws if given the opportunity.

    Would people valuate every law? Probably not. Just like you don't valuate every product.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How much is that stop sign at the busy intersection where that kid was killed at worth to have a law to put one in? To the kid's parents, it would have been worth a lot- but they spent it all on medical bills. So they don't get a vote on it. I may not want a sign because I like to race through it as fast as I can and have $500 to spend on it so I win. Does that equally benefit everybody?
    The correct decision is the one that will provide the maximum benefit. Since it's a busy intersection... if we're going to make the correct decision... then you're going to need to tell us everybody else's valuations of the potential stop sign. If the positive valuations are greater than the negative valuations... then the correct decision will be to put in the stop sign.

    But again, pick an argument and stick to it...

    A. it's impossible to valuate laws
    B. it's impossible to correctly valuate laws
    C. people aren't going to valuate laws



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    The correct decision is the one that will provide the maximum benefit.
    That may be the desired result, but the system as described does not get us there. The maximum benefit in my example is probably saving lives but I have the money so the law goes in my favor so lives are not saved. My vote has the most power because I am willing and able to spend the most money on it.

    Trying to use money to determine societal preferences in laws and regulations is distorted by the uneven allocation of money in society. It gives more weight to those with more resources. If you have ten times the resources, your vote is ten times more powerful than mine is- even if my emotional weight on a given issue is greater than yours. One person one vote gives a truer picture of what every member of that society wants.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-29-2016 at 06:04 PM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    That may be the desired result, but the system as described does not get us there. The maximum benefit in my example is probably saving lives but I have the money so the law goes in my favor so lives are not saved. My vote has the most power because I am willing and able to spend the most money on it.
    How does the current system get us there? How can you guarantee that the money can't be used to save more lives elsewhere? It's a $#@!ing guarantee that you could spend the money in Africa to save a lot more lives.

    But if your argument is that we can't valuate laws... then how are you going to argue that we can valuate lives? Then again, you don't seem too concerned with consistency or coherence.

    I think that my valuations matter. I think that your valuations matter. I think that everybody's valuations matter.

    And I don't mean in some sort of metaphysical sense. I mean in the very concrete sense where it's beneficial to know everybody's valuations. When you spot a problem you automatically valuate it. You notice a little kid is heading straight for a busy street. You automatically have a very negative valuation of the situation. And if you're close enough... you immediately solve the problem yourself. But what if you're not close enough? What if you're on a two story balcony? Well... do you whisper "yoohoo... folks... we have a problem... "? Of course you don't whisper... you shout and point, "Stop that kid!!!" People hear you shout and they automatically look to figure out what's going on. Your shout gets their attention. Whoever is closest to the kid will hopefully understand you loud and clear and will solve the problem. Your eyes, valuation and communication were combined with their eyes, valuation and action to solve the problem. Neither of you alone would have been able to solve the problem. Separately you were defective... together you were effective.

    You deciding between whispering and shouting is based on the premise that your valuation matters. But if it's important for you to be able to decide how loud you raise your voice.... then why isn't just as important for you to be able to decide how much money you spend? It's the same exact premise.

    You can argue that some people have more money than other people. Therefore... nobody's valuations matters? It's the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's like saying that everybody should poke their eyes out because some people are blind. Even if poor people can only spend a little amount of money to communicate their valuations... their valuations still matter. If there's a problem that concerns all poor people... then they can all pool their money to bring the problem to the attention of the entire country. Their eyes, valuations and communication will then be combined with our eyes, valuations and actions to solve the problem. Separately we are defective... together we would be effective.

    Right now poor people can vote. But is a vote a whisper... or a shout? We can't tell. And if we can't tell whether somebody is whispering or shouting... then how can we tell whether they are dealing with a large problem or a small problem? How can we correctly determine how to allocate our limited time and attention? We can't. Politicians and planners can't either. And so society's limited resources are diverted away from bigger problems and wasted on smaller problems. We arrest people for having sex with prostitutes while little kids wander into traffic.

    If we replaced voting with spending... then we'd see everybody's valuations and we'd allocate our time, attention and actions accordingly. We'd evolve from a somewhat defective organism into a super effective organism.

    I'm sure that you've heard of the blind men and the elephant. What went wrong? The problem was that they weren't fully networked together. Because they weren't fully networked together... they couldn't compile their input. And because they couldn't compile their input... they were unable to come to the correct conclusion.

    Language allows us to be partially networked. In the absence of language... we'd be a super defective organism. Language partially networks us which improves the effectiveness of the organism. But language can't effectively transmit valuations. And valuations are extremely important information. Valuations can only be effectively transmitted by spending/sacrifice/trading. Right now we can spend our money on lots of things... and this improves our network which improves the organism. The problem is all the places and spaces where we aren't able to communicate our valuations. This forum for example. We can't easily allocate our money to our posts or to other people's posts. Another example is voting. Probably the single biggest example is the government. We can't choose where our taxes go (pragmatarianism). All in all... there are far more places and spaces where we can't communicate our valuations than where we can communicate our valuations. So we are far from being fully networked. Which means that we are far from being a super effective organism.

    No super effective organism will block massive amounts of input. Just like nobody in their right mind would choose to poke their eyes out.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •