News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Voting vs Spending

Started by Xerographica, February 11, 2016, 07:55:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Xerographica

The bottom line is that voting is ALWAYS inferior to spending.

For the longest time gay people couldn’t get married. Why? Tyranny of the majority… aka “democracy”. But what if the outcome had been determined by spending rather than voting?

Perhaps we can imagine that, not too long ago, the anti-gay side would have outspent the pro-gay side. So the anti-gay side would have won anyways. But… what would have happened to the money that each side spent?

Clearly the pro-gay side would have had their money returned to them. Not only that… but they would also have been given all the money that the anti-gay side spent. The money would have been distributed according to how much each person on the pro-gay side had been willing to spend.

Does this make sense? Whichever side spends the most wins… but the losing side gets a refund as well as all the money that the winning side spent.

I refer to this as Democracy vs Clarity. That links you to a more fleshed out argument.

Mr.Obvious

Sorry, maybe it's my English, but the article seemed to hectic for me to understand.

However, regarding the notion of letting money decide which law is passed or which politician is elected or whatever...
Abhorrent. Absolutely abhorrent. In a world in which a miniscule minority of people own the vast majority of finances, this would not work. It states in the article that it shows how much you want to get something done, by spending. But that doesn't really work that way if Social Worker Sam has an income of 1.600 euro's a month, Out of Job Ollie lives on the government's teat surviving by 830 euro's a month and Sales Manager Sandra has about 2.500 euro's a month. Unless you could turn it into 'relative spending', it wouldn't even have a chance at being fair.
And it still sounds pretty fishy and horrible if you do that, to be honest.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

doorknob

what's the difference between that and now? we already have politicians living out of the pockets of the rich.

And even if we didn't what mr obvious is saying is correct. might does not make right. or in this case money.

Xerographica

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 11, 2016, 08:52:43 AMAbhorrent. Absolutely abhorrent. In a world in which a miniscule minority of people own the vast majority of finances, this would not work. It states in the article that it shows how much you want to get something done, by spending. But that doesn't really work that way if Social Worker Sam has an income of 1.600 euro's a month, Out of Job Ollie lives on the government's teat surviving by 830 euro's a month and Sales Manager Sandra has about 2.500 euro's a month. Unless you could turn it into 'relative spending', it wouldn't even have a chance at being fair.
Let's say we're trying to decide whether it should be illegal to pick your nose in public. From your perspective, it should be legal. In fact, you're willing to pay $100 dollars in order try and ensure that it stays legal.

Essentially you're saying... "Ok, I really would like to be able to pick my nose in public... but I'm willing to forego doing so if I am paid $100 dollars."

Does this make sense? You're essentially telling us how much benefit you derive from your freedom to pick your nose in public. You're clarifying your demand.

From my perspective... picking your nose in public should be illegal. I'm willing to pay $101 dollars in order to try and make it illegal. So I essentially pay you $101 dollars not to pick your nose in public... and we're both better off.

It was a mutually beneficial exchange. It was a straightforward trade.

The alternative... voting... would have resulted in one of us being totally screwed.  Either I would have been forced to endure $101 dollars worth of harm... or you would have been forced to give up  $100 dollars worth of benefit. 

doorknob

No buying laws is unethical. You can not put a price on right and wrong.

Mr.Obvious

#5
Quote from: Xerographica on February 11, 2016, 09:35:58 AM
Let's say we're trying to decide whether it should be illegal to pick your nose in public. From your perspective, it should be legal. In fact, you're willing to pay $100 dollars in order try and ensure that it stays legal.

Essentially you're saying... "Ok, I really would like to be able to pick my nose in public... but I'm willing to forego doing so if I am paid $100 dollars."

Does this make sense? You're essentially telling us how much benefit you derive from your freedom to pick your nose in public. You're clarifying your demand.

From my perspective... picking your nose in public should be illegal. I'm willing to pay $101 dollars in order to try and make it illegal. So I essentially pay you $101 dollars not to pick your nose in public... and we're both better off.

It was a mutually beneficial exchange. It was a straightforward trade.

The alternative... voting... would have resulted in one of us being totally screwed.  Either I would have been forced to endure $101 dollars worth of harm... or you would have been forced to give up  $100 dollars worth of benefit.

Let's say Bill Gates wants The right to hunt  and shoot poor people as game in a private resort. Let us say he is willing to pay three billion for being allowed to shoot 100 americans hobo's plucked off The street at random. Who is going to counter that offer?
(Oh no! Bill Gates is screwed over no matter what if we simply do this by voting. He Should be compensated  for not being able to fullfill his bloodlust!)

Let's say slave ownership could've kept buying The right to own slaves? Who would've countered that?

Let us say The 10% richest people want to get 10 out of jail cards every year? Do i want them to? No. Am i gonna be happy with a thousand bucks in my account and them having that advantage? No.

Lets say The catholic church Buys The law keeping lgbt from getting married. The, let's say 60%  who want them to have The same rights as us but who can't match The churches' vast wealth going to be soothed with 100 bucks when they know they are The majority? No
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Xerographica

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 11, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Let's say Bill Gates wants The right to hunt  and shoot poor people as game in a private resort. Let us say he is willing to pay three billion for being allowed to shoot 100 americans hobo's plucked off The street at random. Who is going to counter that offer?
Uh what?  We're not going to spend in order to decide whether murder should be legal.  We're replacing voting with spending.  If we're not going to vote on whether murder should be legal... then we're not going to spend on whether murder should be legal. 

Mr.Obvious

Aren't we?
I admit, it's an example chosen for it's extremity, but I tend to do that to see if I can support an idea at it's core. Still, what you suggest does not make this inconceivable at all. Why do we vote on whether or not something should be legal or not? Because a large enough portion of the populace sees something labeled problematic as not-problematic or vice versa. Then it becomes something to be debated.  But this idea of spending instead of voting actively replaces the unit of mind with the unit of cash, alligning itself with the (in my vision bad) idea that how much someone wants something is worth more than how many people want it and giving it a faulty measuring-mechanism (i.e. the amount of money one is willing and able to spend).  And if that's the case, then the vision of the few becomes worth more than the vision of the many who can't weigh up financially. Now, true I don't actually think Bill Gates is going to be requesting to shoot hobos in his free time. But if a minority can breach a subject or a law and vote for it, just because they can pay for it, then it doesn't matter how much smaller the minority gets as long as their wealth stays plenty.

But whatever; let's forget the extreme example of legalized manhunt. Let's turn to the benign example of nosepicking you suggested. In your example, it's one on one. Meaning either way someone get's 'let down'. However, if both doorknob and I want to pick our noses in public, why would we even need to vote about that. It's not harming anyone, and stopping us would be infringing upon our rights to excavate our own nasal cavaties. (If we're not going to vote on whether nosepicking should be illegal... then we're not going to spend on whether nosepicking should be illegal). But hey, you have enough money to make it a deal. You say a 101 bucks. Both of us, being poorer than you, can only sum up 100 bucks. Yay, we both get half the money and we're fricking unhappy because the boogers keep building up inside our noses; just itching to get out. We don't care about the fifty bucks. We want that sweet, sweet experience of burrowing one of our fingers up our nose and scraping it clean. Fuck the fifty dollars, now you have two people bereft of their rights and unhappy with one person happy and opressing the others with his financially backed tyranny. And say we get to summon 102 dollars. Fuck, now we have to pay 51 dollars each for the right we already had? And you get to go home more than twice as rich? No. It's a bad system.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Xerographica

During prohibition... alcohol was illegal.  I'm arguing that people who opposed alcohol should have been free to trade with people who supported alcohol.  For some reason you want to bring wealth inequality into the equation.  As if... the people who opposed alcohol were rich?  Or were they poor? 

Is it a problem when a rich person buys alcohol from a poor person?  Or is it a problem when a poor person buys alcohol from a rich person?  If it's not a problem for rich people to trade with poor people for alcohol... then why is it a problem for rich people to trade with poor people for the right to drink alcohol? 

Baruch

#9
Step back and look at the bigger issues ...

Utilitarianism ... greatest good for the greatest number

How can we measure the greatest good ... we know how to count people

Enter consumerism ... good is measured by how much goodies and services you can get

And the more money you have ... the more consumerism you can manifest

So the greatest good for the greatest number is ... middle class America ... where a fairly large number of folks have fairly good access to feeding their needs and wants

The problem is ... on the other hand you may end up with one person with a billion dollars, living on an island with 1000 other people, who each have one dollar.  On average, each of them is a millionaire ... such is the iron law of averages

The government is created to maximize utilitarianism ... but with the iron law of averages ... lots of billionaires surrounded by a much larger number of penniless waifs

You are wanting then to equalize this better?

I agree, that voting could be a total waste of time.  Better to go get my billion, and convince the waifs to do what I want them to do.

Your proposal resembles a tort law court ... where anyone can sue, but if they lose, they pay their fees and the fees of the winning party.  So for you is society just one big tort court, where the ambulance chasing attorneys take theirs off the top?  You are also assuming that in some mysterious karma/justice system, the most deserving party wins the tort.  Or is that just a kind of cake? ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mr.Obvious

#10
Quote from: Xerographica on February 11, 2016, 03:34:10 PM
For some reason you want to bring wealth inequality into the equation. 

Yes. I do. Because this kind of ruling would fuck over poor people. Plain and simple. Or don't you think there are rules voted on, currently, that affect the rich and poor differently?

Regarding your prohibition-example, I must admitt, the point aludes me. If you care to explain it a bit deeper, or more clear, I'll try and respond to it. So far, it just doesn't make sense to me. That might not be your fault though, as I just might be missing a point your trying to make.

However, seeing as you claim that in all instances 'betting' will be better than 'voting', I hope you'll take the time to counter some of my objections. In the previous posts I get the idea that you seem to keep trying to explain the way it works. But I think I understand how it works now. I just find it wrong and immoral and see a lot of problems you're not adressing. Hell, you don't seem to admitt them, just ignore them for all I can tell. If you can't adress these problems or explain to me why they aren't problems, how am I supposed to follow your line of reasoning that this spending-system is always superior.

So my objections, so far, are these.

1) It's not a fair way to measure how much something is wanted.
2) It gives more  credence to 'how much' something is wanted, rather than the amount of people who want something.
3) It gives rich people more power than poor people in deciding how to shape their society, effectively making some people 'more equal than others'. As a social worker my will and vision do not matter more than that of my cliënts who live in poverty and my will and vision do not matter less (or should not at least) than that of our multi-milionair king. (Belgium's officially a kingdom, so...)
4) It gives minorities the possibility to hold back something that's for the greater good and that should be legal, as long as they dish out just enough cash to tip the balance. For instance; I'm not gay, as like most people. The LGBT community in and by itself is not all that big. But I do support they should have the right to be married. However, how many people like me are going to be spending enough money to make it so. It's not something we may want to spend hard earned cash on, if we don't have benefit for it ourselves. On the other hand, those against gay marriage, a lot of whom are religiously indoctrinated to be so, will feel strongly about this and listen to their tv-evangelesists and dish out the cash to make it so, denying something the most people really want or are in favor for in general, in exchange for potentially petty cash.
5) Even if the 'right' side wins in such spending-wars, what you'll be doing is paying the other side for their ignorance. Say the LGBT community convinces me and most of my countrymen to join them in their struggle, you may have 70% of  the country or so paying the rest of the 30% for disagreeing with them and effectively awarding them for being ignorant little assholes. Any cent I give to them for being ignorant is a cent too many.
6) As doorknob said: You can not put a price on what is right and wrong. Buying laws is unethical. I agree with that, to the core.

That's about what I went for in the previous posts. But the more I think about it, the more problems come to mind.
7) Would there not be people who would (try to) abuse this system for personal gain? You'd get people who spend on who they expect to be the losing side, just to get some extra cash. This may not be the most problematic part of this system, but it's something worth mentioning.
8) Would this, for certain matters, not just cause a tug-of-war? If you have two groups who have a strong opposite feeling about one matter, and every time you win the argument you have to give your own money to the other side, aren't you arming them to reverse the vote and send the money back to you? Creating a neverending spiral?

There are probably more problems that would arise, giving this strange notion more thought.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Xerographica

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2016, 01:16:44 PM
1) It's not a fair way to measure how much something is wanted.
If we assume that this is true... then why would we assume that it's only true for gay marriage?  Wouldn't this also be true for food?  Yeah?  You're going to argue that we shouldn't clarify the demand for food?  This has already been tried (command economies)... and for some reason it really didn't work out too well for the poor. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2016, 01:16:44 PM2) It gives more  credence to 'how much' something is wanted, rather than the amount of people who want something.
If 100 people really want gay marriage... and 1 person really doesn't want gay marriage... then clearly the majority is going to win.  The majority is going to outspend the minority.  The only time the minority is going to outspend the majority is when the majority doesn't really want something. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2016, 01:16:44 PM3) It gives rich people more power than poor people in deciding how to shape their society, effectively making some people 'more equal than others'. As a social worker my will and vision do not matter more than that of my cliënts who live in poverty and my will and vision do not matter less (or should not at least) than that of our multi-milionair king. (Belgium's officially a kingdom, so...)
"It" gives rich people more power?  Nooooooooo.  It simply allows rich people to use the power that they've already been given.  Right now I'm drinking a boba.  I really like bobas.  In fact, I'm willing to trade my money for bobas.  In other words... I'm willing to trade my power for bobas.  What are you willing to trade your power for?  Are you willing to trade your power for bobas?  I really don't know.  But I do know that it's up to you to decide what you trade your power for.  This is known as consumer sovereignty.  So it hurts everybody when we prevent rich people from using the power that they were freely given.  It's a stupid idea to bite... or break... or shackle... the hand that feeds you. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2016, 01:16:44 PM4) It gives minorities the possibility to hold back something that's for the greater good and that should be legal, as long as they dish out just enough cash to tip the balance. For instance; I'm not gay, as like most people. The LGBT community in and by itself is not all that big. But I do support they should have the right to be married. However, how many people like me are going to be spending enough money to make it so. It's not something we may want to spend hard earned cash on, if we don't have benefit for it ourselves. On the other hand, those against gay marriage, a lot of whom are religiously indoctrinated to be so, will feel strongly about this and listen to their tv-evangelesists and dish out the cash to make it so, denying something the most people really want or are in favor for in general, in exchange for potentially petty cash.
You're being incredibly myopic.  You're completely ignoring the fact that gay people have been tyrannized by the majority even before America gained its independence.  Yet... here you are worried about the minority exerting undo influence.  Why?  Because you dislike the homophobes.  You dislike this group of minorities.  Therefore... let's tyrannize the heck out of them.  Because it's impossible for the majority to ever be wrong.  Seriously?  I suppose that you think that free speech is only desirable when it protects speech that you agree with.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2016, 01:16:44 PM5) Even if the 'right' side wins in such spending-wars, what you'll be doing is paying the other side for their ignorance. Say the LGBT community convinces me and most of my countrymen to join them in their struggle, you may have 70% of  the country or so paying the rest of the 30% for disagreeing with them and effectively awarding them for being ignorant little assholes. Any cent I give to them for being ignorant is a cent too many.
Again with the myopia.  You're completely ignoring the fact that for nearly all of modern history... the "ignorant little assholes"... were the homosexuals.  Life is such that there's always going to be ignorant little assholes.  Atheists have certainly been considered to be ignorant little assholes for most of recorded history.  Is it so difficult for you to see the merit of giving the ignorant little assholes a chance to accurately communicate the intensity of their preferences?  Is it so difficult for you to see the merit in giving atheists a chance to accurately communicate how much they are harmed by Christians? 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2016, 01:16:44 PM6) As doorknob said: You can not put a price on what is right and wrong. Buying laws is unethical. I agree with that, to the core.
You really think that we're going to maximize beneficial behavior when people don't know the true value of beneficial behavior?  If so, then you must be assuming that people are mind readers.  Except... that sure is a stupid assumption to make.  As if I can somehow magically know just how much, or how little, you benefit from this thread.  When you are willing to pay for food... then, and only then...do people have some evidence that supplying food is beneficial behavior. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2016, 01:16:44 PM7) Would there not be people who would (try to) abuse this system for personal gain? You'd get people who spend on who they expect to be the losing side, just to get some extra cash. This may not be the most problematic part of this system, but it's something worth mentioning.
In the stock market... it's beneficial when you buy a stock and then everybody else jumps on the same bandwagon.  But with clarity (spending rather than voting)... you'll be screwed if too many people jump on your bandwagon.   And since it will be impossible to know beforehand how many people will jump on the bandwagon... you'll have better luck buying lottery tickets, going to Vegas or buying stocks.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 16, 2016, 01:16:44 PM8) Would this, for certain matters, not just cause a tug-of-war? If you have two groups who have a strong opposite feeling about one matter, and every time you win the argument you have to give your own money to the other side, aren't you arming them to reverse the vote and send the money back to you? Creating a neverending spiral?
Let's say that the most you're willing to spend for gay marriage is $100 dollars.  Does this mean that you only have $100 dollars in the bank?  Probably not.  It most likely means that you have more important things to spend the rest of your money on.  So if the opponents of gay marriage are willing to spend a lot more money... and you end up getting $400 dollars... are you going to spend $500 dollars the next time around?  Chances are pretty good that you'll still have more important things to spend most of your money on.  Or maybe not. 

In order to truly appreciate the value of replacing voting with spending.... you have to understand the value of knowing what things are worth to other people.  Imagine that I'm smoking next to you.  Am I harming you?  Yeah?  No?  Maybe?  Again.... I'm not a mind reader.  Nobody's a mind reader.  Of course you can tell me that you mind the fact that I'm smoking next to you.  And it's great that you can use your words to communicate your thoughts.  Society is better off because we can use our words to communicate with each other.  Here we are!  Using lots and lots of words to share our thoughts. 

Even though it's good that you can use your words to tell me that you mind the fact that I'm smoking next to you... it's not good enough.  It's not good enough because your words can't accurately communicate how much you mind the fact that I'm smoking next to you.  Just like my words can't accurately communicate how much I mind being able to smoke where I am.  And of course it really matters how much we mind things.

So... at the count of three we each say a number that we are willing to pay to have our way...  1... 2... 3....

You: $4 dollars
Me: $10 dollars

You keep your $4 dollars.... I give you my $10 dollars... and we're both better off. 

Society's better off as a result of people being able to use their words to communicate with each other.  But society's infinitely better off when people are able to use their cash to communicate with each other. 

Right now you value the current system... while I value a clarity system.  And here we are debating back and forth without being able to see each other's respective valuations of our preferred systems.  Does it make a difference that we can't see each other's valuations?  Of course it makes a difference.  We don't have access to relevant and important information.  Imagine if you could clearly see that my valuation of a clarity system was only one penny.  Wouldn't this change your behavior?  Of course it would.  You would modify your behavior to reflect the fact that you can clearly see that I don't really value a clarity system.  You would modify your behavior to reflect the fact that you can clearly see that I'm bullshitting you. 

But what if you could clearly see that my valuation of a clarity system was $50,000 dollars?  Again, you'd modify your behavior accordingly.  You would clearly see that I really wasn't bullshitting you.  Unless you wanted to assume that I was a gazillionaire.  I'm pretty sure though that you would be thinking a little bit harder about a clarity system if you knew for a fact that I was Bill Gates. 

If we had clarified the demand for gay marriage 50 years ago... and proponents of gay marriage had only spent a penny each... then everybody would have thoroughly understood that gay marriage was a bullshit issue that didn't merit any debate.  So the more money that gay marriage proponents had been willing to spend... the more credibility their cause would have been given.  Society would clearly have been able to see just how much harm was caused by preventing gay people from getting married.  The greater the harm... the more attention that would have been drawn to the issue. 

Right now, with the current system, we can't clearly see just how much harm is being caused by allowing gay people to get married.  And it's always a huge problem when we can't clearly see just how harmful or beneficial a policy is.     

Baruch

So now we see the real issue ... gay marriage.  Well I believe in crime, not the law.  Fairness is bullshit.  So any system where money is exchanged, you need to pay the Don ... pay or no play, capiche?  And the biggest Mafia is the government ... pay them first ... if they let you live.  Maybe in the US, our next Don will be "The Don"?  Funny stuff.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.