Improving Each Other's Treasure Maps

Some discussion in: Netflix And Virtue Signalling

***********************

UnAnon: Don't confuse poor Xero with the concept of nuance.
Xero: Fuck Nuance
UnAnon: Going by how I've responded to your threads in the past, dear, do you think I'm interested enough to read thirteen pages?
...
UnAnon: I think the most offending bit about Xero's dozens upon dozens of threads is that he seems to honestly believe his forum posts are genuinely worth my money.
Xero: My threads are pretty worthless if this is your conclusion.

What I actually honestly believe is that our behavior improves when we actually know what things are worth. In this video a street vendor is selling original art by Banksy. Except, the vendor doesn't inform people that it's original art by Banksy. And the price of the artwork is far less than the market value.

Most people have no clue what the artwork is really worth. Their behavior reflects this. If most people did know what the artwork is truly worth, all the artwork would be quickly sold.

It's the closest thing you'll see to people walking past $100 dollars bills just sitting in the middle of the sidewalk.

Imagine the equivalent scenario with some hunters and gatherers. Of course they are hungry... yet they simply walk past plants that are loaded with perfectly ripe squash. They don't know the value of the squash so their behavior is detrimental. Ignorance in this case is not bliss. Their ignorance decreases their chances of survival. Each member of the tribe has a treasure map... .. but squash is not on any of them.

Fortunately for humanity, some individual did discover that squash is nutritious and delicious. How did others learn of the value of squash? How was everyone's detrimental ignorance eliminated? How did squash end up on everyone's treasure map? Everyone's treasure map was improved because squash was something that people were willing to trade for. If you see me trading my tool for some squash... then if you know the value of my tool... then you'll figure out that I believe that the squash is even more valuable than my tool...

tool < squash

Right now we don't know how much a thread is actually worth. As a result, we all consistently overlook valuable threads. We all regularly walk past $1 dollar bills and $5 dollar bills and $20 dollars bills and even $100 dollars bills that are just sitting in the middle of the sidewalk. Our treasure maps are very incomplete so we all fail to regularly obtain and gain and utilize valuable information and knowledge that's just sitting there. Our behavior is detrimental because we don't know what a thread is worth. Our detrimental ignorance isn't eliminated. This is simply because we fail to use our money to inform each other how beneficial a thread is. We fail to put valuable threads on each other's treasure maps.

We buy squash but we don't buy threads. Because... threads are abundant and free. Why spend money on something that you can have for free? You should do so... if it will improve the behavior of the members of your tribe. If a thread has some knowledge and information that you think the members of your tribe should have and use, then it's in your best interest to use your money to bring it to their attention.

I am a member of your tribe. Every member of this forum is a member of your tribe. Our tribe is called NationStates. Our tribe will truly and thoroughly thrive when each and every member behaves as beneficially as possible. Behaving as beneficially as possible depends on having and utilizing the most important knowledge. In order for each and every member to have and use the most important knowledge, we have to use our money to bring the most important knowledge to each other's attention. We have to use our money to improve each other's treasure maps.

In the upper left hand corner of my screen it says, "NationStates by Max Barry author of LEXICON". Have you read Lexicon? I sure haven't. The founder of our tribe wrote a book that I haven't read. I wonder how many members of our tribe have read it.

Obviously Barry successfully brought his book to my attention. And for sure I can figure out what it costs to buy his book. But even if it was free it doesn't necessarily mean that I'd take the time to read it. This is simply because I don't know what the book is truly worth. Cost and worth really aren't the same thing.

But let's say that you did take the time to read Barry's book and you did really enjoy it. If you created a thread that explained why members of our tribe should read our founder's book, and lots of members used their donations to bring your thread to my attention... then the more valuable your thread, the greater my motivation to would read Lexicon.

How many books are there anyways? How many articles are on the internet? How many videos are on Youtube? We really don't have the time to read and watch everything. It's a very important fact that our tribe, as a group, can read and watch far more than any single member of the tribe can. Our tribe, as a group, has far more eyeballs than any single member of the tribe. Our tribe, as a group, has far more ears than any single member of the tribe. Most importantly... our tribe, as a group, has far more brains than any single member of the tribe. In order to fully utilize our collective brain... we need to use our money to improve each other's treasure maps. When each and every member of our tribe has and uses the tribe's most valuable knowledge and information... then we'll be the smartest and most powerful and most influential tribe on the internet. We will win the internet. At least until other tribes figure out the "secret" to our success.

But if it's beneficial for each and every member of the NS tribe to use our money to improve each other's treasure maps... then imagine how beneficial it will be when each and every member of the human race uses their money to improve each other's treasure maps. Then we'll be the smartest and most powerful and most influential species in the universe. We will win the universe.

Eject vs Exit

It was the first day of class and I was the first person there.  The second person there was some gangster looking Chinese guy...who decided to sit right next to me.  Who does that?  It's not as bad as violating the one urinal rule...but it's pretty darn close.

That was a long time ago.  Andy and I have been good friends ever since.  He's not at all a gangster...but he's at least one standard deviation from the norm.

Another friend that I met at school was Ming.  He's also Chinese and also at least one standard deviation from the norm.  He's an Asian redneck with a degree in physics.  Andy and I give him a hard time because  Dick Cheney shot him twice.  Dick Cheney is an old, half blind Chinese guy that Ming goes hunting with.  Who does that? 

Not too long ago the three of us were hanging out.  Ming and Andy were sitting together on a loveseat sofa.  Andy was on his laptop while Ming was reading some gun magazine.   I was going to ask Ming a question when I noticed that Andy was about to sneeze.  Here's where it gets good.  Rather than turning his head away from Ming, Andy sneezed directly on Ming, quickly glanced at me and then went right back to his laptop without saying a single thing.  What's even stranger is that Ming didn't say a thing either.

Woah!  It was remarkable!  I couldn't even remember the last time that I had observed some new human behavior.  So I asked Ming if he was going to tell Andy something.  Ming's quick response was, "It's ok it's ok."   Then I gave Andy a hard time...especially the part where he glanced up at me to see if I had witnessed his transgression.  Andy was not at all remorseful.  

It didn't bother me one bit that Andy sneezed directly on Ming...I thought it was hilarious.  But wouldn't it have been strange if I had made Andy sit somewhere else?  It would have been strange because Ming was perfectly capable of "exit".  Nothing was stopping him from sitting elsewhere.  So if he wasn't bothered enough by Andy's behavior to move...then why would I "eject" Andy from the couch?

A few days ago I was "ejected" from the EconLog Blog because of my comment on Bryan Caplan's blog entry...Is Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism Evil?  Here was the comment that I submitted...

***********************

You know who else wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water? My Mommmm!! That was a Muscle Man reference. Errr...he's a character on the Regular Show.

Actually, Murray Rothbard also wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water. The "minor" detail he missed was...well...the baby. Neither the government...nor the BHL project...is all bath water. The government does a few things pretty well...and so does the BHL project. You know what the BHL project does well? Heterogeneous activity. It hedges its bets. It doesn't put all its eggs in one basket.

There's Peter Boettke...From Capitalism and Freedom to Free to Choose...and Andrew Cohen...States Must Do Bad...and Gary Chartier...Violence, Wars, and States...and Jessica Flanigan offers some interesting food for thought... Can you sell your future self into slavery?

You know which part of the BHL project consists of bath water? The part where Zwolinski banned me from commenting on his website. My comments are pretty much priceless...so not sure why Zwolinski would want to ban me. Well...unless value is subjective. Which would be a pretty good argument for allowing taxpayers to use their taxes to indicate which part of the government is the baby and which part is the bath water.

Yeah, pragmatarianism is on the rise.

***********************

You can compare my comment to the EconLog's comment policy.  Or...you can just take my word for it that my comment did not even come close to violating their comment policy.   According to the e-mail I received, the problem was that it was the 4th time that I had linked to the Wikipedia entry on Tax Choice.

Clearly they were willing to tolerate the first three times that I sneezed on them.  But the fourth time was when they decided to put an end to my nonsense.  Everybody has a breaking point.

Is the problem with me or them?  Well...given that I've also been ejected from the Crooked Timber blog and the BHL blog...it would seem pretty straightforward that I'm the one with the behavioral problems.

It's not all that straightforward though because readers are perfectly capable of picking and choosing what they read.  If people decide it's not worth it to read my comments...then nobody is forcing them to read my comments.  They can easily "exit" from  my comments simply by skipping over them.  I have no problem skipping over comments.  Who has a problem skipping over comments?  Anybody who has difficulty skipping over comments will sacrifice a lot of their time to the Gods of the Internet.

The trick is understanding that...just because I might not find value in your comments does not mean that nobody will find value in your comments.  The subjectivity of values forms the basis of tolerance.  But moral arguments are not sufficient for tolerance.  Just because somebody understands the moral arguments for tolerance does not mean that they will understand why taxpayers should be free to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.  People just don't understand why we should be tolerant enough to allow people to directly allocate their taxes.

Therefore, economics trumps philosophy.  Well...maybe not...but that will be the subject of my next post.  Unless my priorities change.