Bodily autonomy? You and I don't have the same body. We have different bodies. You know how I can tell? It's because we have different DNA. You know who else has different DNA? Your mom. My mom. Every mom. Mothers and children have different DNA. Otherwise everybody would be clones. Are you happy that we're not all clones? I sure am.
Imagine if I invite you over to see my really nice garden... it's brimming with nature. Of course I'd first have to give you my address. This is my property's unique ID. When you find, and walk onto, my property, what happens to your bodily autonomy? Do you lose any of your bodily autonomy? Of course not. That would be absurd. In no case does any of my property, to include my own body, negate or diminish your bodily autonomy.
By this same token, if you get pregnant, in no case does your bodily autonomy negate or diminish the bodily autonomy of the unique individual that is inside you.
Let's say that, for whatever reason, I decide I no longer want you on my property. Should I be free to eject you? Sure, as long as doing so doesn't harm you. If my property happens to be a boat that is surrounded by sharks, then I shouldn't be free to eject you.
In a perfect world, ejecting unborn individuals at any time wouldn't at all be harmful. Like, your fetus could be instantly and safely teleported across the galaxy into the womb of some other lady. It wouldn't be like Adam and Eve getting ejected from the Garden of Eden into a harsh environment. It would be like God moving them to another wonderful garden.
Why would this be ideal? Here's why...
We’ve spent the last few hundred years throwing out every Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk or Tim Berners-Lee who didn’t happen to be white, and didn’t happen to be a man. That’s a terrible thing to have done to those brilliant and now lost people. It’s a much worse thing to have done to the rest of humanity, including our white selves. When I think, “why don’t I have a jet car and live in Alpha Centuri by now?” I think this is because the people that would have invented sky cars and interstellar travel were born black in Detroit, or in rural India or in the medina in Algiers in the 1950s, and spent too much time figuring out how to eat and not get killed to invent my damned skycar. - Quinn Norton, How White People Got Made
All progress depends on difference, which is why it's wonderful that we're not all clones. Every unique individual contributes to humanity's diversity... and more diversity means more progress.
Difference inherently means inequality. The only way we could all be equal is if we were clones. You naturally rank a woman and her unborn child very differently, and so do I. You also rank authors very differently, and so do I. I'm sure we also rank economists very differently. Personally, I rank economists much higher than feminists. Since difference matters, it matters how we rank each other. The question is whether voting (cheap signal) or spending (costly signal) is the best way to rank each other. The answer to this question is clearly revealed by the top-ranked videos on Youtube. Once we replace all cheap signals with costly signals, then it will be heaven on earth.
Check out this article by Adam Gurri... A Critical Defense of Commerce. As usual it starts with a relevant renaissance painting. Why the renaissance? Out of curiosity I searched Google images for "renaissance painting market". I like the paintings... but maybe because I love markets.
I like Gurri's defense of commerce... because I love markets?
If we think of his article as a market, then it has quite a few products that I'd like to buy. Unfortunately, his market is missing the one product that I'm most interested in purchasing... commerce as communication.
Not too long ago I had an epiphany. I realized that spending is nonverbal communication. When we spend our money, we inform others about the intensity of our preferences. The transmission of information is the definition of communication. So spending is certainly communication... and it's certainly not verbal communication... which leaves... nonverbal communication.
All my life I've known about spending money... and for pretty much the same amount of time I've also known about nonverbal communication. So why in the world did I only just recently realize that spending money is nonverbal communication?
Talk about overlooking the obvious.
Ok, so Gurri's defense of commerce is entirely missing commerce as communication. This raises a few really interesting questions...
Is commerce as communication an important aspect of commerce?
If it is, should it be used in defense of commerce?
If it should, what's the best way to do so?
Before I try my best to answer these questions, I'd like to say something useful and self-aware about my dynamic with Gurri. From my perspective, usually it's reasonably constructive. But then it seems like he invariably takes advantage of his freedom to bravely run away... aka "exit". So perhaps there's something a bit dysfunctional about our relationship. Which is unfortunate because I think he's a really intelligent guy who genuinely cares about liberty and writes about it far better than I could ever hope to.
Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different outcome. Here are most of my previous interactions with Gurri...
Am I insane for trying again? Well, from my perspective, each attempt was somewhat different. Plus, as Heraclitus observed... no man steps in the same river twice. Gurri and I really aren't the same guys that we were in 2016! Heh.
In any case, it's not like this is a private e-mail to Gurri. This is a public blog entry. So if you are not Gurri... then it's entirely possible that you'll appreciate the value of this information and put it to good use... even if he does not. My eggs aren't all in one basket.
Let's get this intellectual party started...
Is commerce as communication an important aspect of commerce?
Well yeah. Spending money is a sacrifice. It genuinely matters just how much we're truly willing to sacrifice for things. As I already pointed out to Gurri, willingness to sacrifice is a central theme in the Bible.
In the beginning of the Bible there’s the story of Cain and Abel. Cain sacrificed some fruit, veggies and grains to God. Abel, on the other hand, sacrificed a lamb to God. Abel was willing to make a bigger sacrifice. From this God divined that Abel felt much deeper gratitude for God’s blessings than Cain did.
A little later on in the Bible, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son Isaac to God. Abraham was willing to make a huge sacrifice. His willingness to pay (WTP) such a steep price effectively transmitted information about the incredible intensity of his preference for God.
In the new testament we see the culmination of the idea of sacrifice as communication when God sacrifices his only son in order to save the world. His WTP effectively transmitted information about the incredible intensity of preference... aka "Love"... for the world.
Imagine if we replaced the economic definition of "Love" (sacrifice) with the democratic definition of "Love" (voting)... "For God so loved the world that he voted for it..." This would transmit barely any information about the intensity of God's preference for the world. We'd be largely ignorant about God's true love for the world.
For anybody who is interested in a coherent Biblical story... things are a bit tricky. For sure, we really aren’t mind-readers. However, King Solomon believed that God was a mind-reader… “for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men.” Clearly this would make sacrifice an entirely unnecessary way for humans to communicate with God.
The Judeo-Christian religion doesn't have a monopoly on sacrifice as communication between God and man. Here's a passage from John Holbo's book Reason and Persuasion...
*****************************
Socrates: You could have been much more concise, Euthyphro, if you wanted to, by answering the main part of my question. You're not exactly dying to teach me - that much is clear. You were just on the point of doing so, but you turned aside. If you had given the answer, I would already be well versed in holiness, thanks to you. But as it is, the lover of inquiry must chase after his beloved, wherever he may lead him. Once more then: what do you say that the holy is, or holiness? Don't you say it's a kind of science of sacrifice and prayer?
Euthyphro: I do.
Socrates: To sacrifice is to give a gift to the gods; to pray is to ask them for something?
Euthyphro: Definitely, Socrates.
Socrates: Then holiness must be a science of begging from the gods and giving to them, on this account.
Euthyphro: You have grasped my meaning perfectly, Socrates.
Socrates: That is because I want so badly to take in your wisdom that I concentrate my whole intellect upon it, lest a word of yours fall to the ground. But tell me, what is this service to the gods? You say it is to beg from them and give to them?
Euthyphro: I do
Socrates: And to ask correctly would be to ask them to give us the things we need?
Euthyphro: What else?
Socrates: And to give correctly is to give them in return what they need from us? For it would hardly represent skill in giving to offer a gift that is not needed in the least.
Euthyphro: True, Socrates
Socrates: Holiness will then be a sort of art for bartering between gods and men?
Euthyphro: Bartering, yes - if you prefer to call it that.
*****************************
We know what we need. But it's essential that others also know what we need.
It is these needs which are essentially deficits in the organism, empty holes, so to speak, which must be filled up for health’s sake, and furthermore must be filled from without by human beings other than the subject, that I shall call deficits or deficiency needs for purposes of this exposition and to set them in contrast to another and very different kind of motivation. — Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being
'Let our herds be so numerous that they cannot be housed; let children so abound that the care of them shall overcome their parents - as shall be seen by their burned hands; let our heads ever strike against brass pots innumerable hanging from our roofs; let the rats form their nests of shreds of scarlet cloth and silk; let all the kites in the country be seen in the trees of our village, from beasts being killed there every day.' - Edward Burnett Tylor, Primitive culture
Words can clearly be used to transmit information about our needs. However, the problem with words is that they are cheap. If we want others to truly believe that our needs are genuinely worth taking care of then it's necessary that we substantiate our words with sacrifice. Sacrifice is solid evidence... it proves that our desire has depth...
"Old-women's Grandson," ran the words of a Crow Indian's prayer to the Morning Star, "I give you this joint [of my finger], give me something good in exchange...I am poor, give me a good horse. I want to strike one of the enemy and I want to marry a good-natured woman. I want a tent of my own to live." "During the period of my visits to the Crow (1907-1916)," wrote Professor Lowie, to whom we owe the recording of this pitiful prayer, "I saw few old men with left hands intact." - Joseph Campbell, Primitive Mythology
In all cases, if you're going to make a sacrifice to a God, it's entirely reasonable to expect a blessing of greater value in return. A sacrifice with a less valuable return is a bad deal. A sacrifice without any return is a total waste.
Let's switch from considering trade between humans and Gods to considering trade between humans.
It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
In a nutshell, the IH is the decentralized process by which people use their own money to identify, quantify and encourage beneficial behavior. Because again, nobody is a mind-reader. Society's limited resources can't be efficiently allocated if we don't know the true intensity of people's specific preferences.
Fast forward to 1944...
The management of a socialist community would be in a position like that of a ship captain who had to cross the ocean with the stars shrouded by a fog and without the aid of a compass or other equipment of nautical orientation. - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
We must look at the price system as such a mechanism for communicating information if we want to understand its real function—a function which, of course, it fulfils less perfectly as prices grow more rigid. (Even when quoted prices have become quite rigid, however, the forces which would operate through changes in price still operate to a considerable extent through changes in the other terms of the contract.) The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action. In abbreviated form, by a kind of symbol, only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned. It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement.
But, and this is the point sensed by Wicksell but perhaps not fully appreciated by Lindahl, now it is in the selfish interest of each person to give false signals, to pretend to have less interest in a given collective consumption activity than he really has, etc.
Accurate signals are just as important for public goods as they are for private goods. But because of the very nature of public goods, it's possible to benefit from them without paying for them. The standard solution to the free-rider problem is compulsory taxation. However, simply forcing people to pay taxes does not create accurate signals for public goods.
In 1963 James Buchanan had the incredible epiphany that people could use their taxes to honestly communicate the true intensity of their preferences for public goods...
Under most real-world taxing institutions, the tax price per unit at which collective goods are made available to the individual will depend, at least to some degree, on his own behavior. This element is not, however, important under the major tax institutions such as the personal income tax, the general sales tax, or the real property tax. With such structures, the individual may, by changing his private behavior, modify the tax base (and thus the tax price per unit of collective goods he utilizes), but he need not have any incentive to conceal his "true" preferences for public goods. - James M. Buchanan, The Economics of Earmarked Taxes
If you subscribe to Netflix anyways, then you might as well use your fees to accurately communicate the true intensity of your preference for nature documentaries. Except, Netflix subscribers obviously don't have the freedom to use their fees to communicate the intensity of their preferences for specific content. The same is true of people who "subscribe" to the government... aka "taxpayers". Why don't subscribers have this freedom?
The charity serves the purposes of the donors, and these purposes are in turn to help the poor. But it is the donors who are consuming, the donors who are demonstrating their preference for sacrificing a lesser benefit (the use of their money elsewhere) for a greater (giving money to the charity to help the poor). It is the donors whose production decisions guide the actions of the charity.
Donors use their donations to inform the decisions of non-profits.
Rothbard failed to appreciate that taxpayers could use their taxes to inform the decisions of government. Evidently he overlooked Buchanan's 1963 paper. If Buchanan's insight had been applied to academic papers, then subscribers would have used their fees to communicate the importance of specific papers, and logically they would have been willing to sacrifice a considerable amount of fees to Buchanan's paper. Then it would have been very unlikely that Rothbard and others would have overlooked Buchanan's valuable paper.
Humans (and their Gods) really aren't the only ones who use sacrifice to communicate the intensity of their preferences...
Today’s Mandeville is the renowned biologist Thomas D. Seeley, who was part of a team which discovered that colonies of honey bees look for new pollen sources to harvest by sending out scouts who search for the most attractive places. When the scouts return to the hive, they perform complicated dances in front of their comrades. The duration and intensity of these dances vary: bees who have found more attractive sources of pollen dance longer and more excitedly to signal the value of their location. The other bees will fly to the locations that are signified as most attractive and then return and do their own dances if they concur. Eventually a consensus is reached, and the colony concentrates on the new food source. — Rory Sutherland and Glen Weyl, Humans are doing democracy wrong. Bees are doing it right
Obviously bees can’t spend money… but they can spend something that’s precious to them… their calories. So WTP is just as relevant for bees as it is for humans.
What about ants?
In Experiment 1 colonies distributed a greater proportion of their foragers towards the higher quality resource. This behaviour supports work by Sumpter and Beekman (2003) on M. pharaonis and is typical of this mass-recruiting species (Jackson et al. 2004; Jackson and Châline 2007; Evison et al. 2012b). The stronger allocation of workers to higher quality feeders is most likely due to a greater pheromone trail laying intensity by ants coming from these feeders (Jackson and Châline 2007) leading to faster exploitation of the higher quality food source via positive feedback influencing the decision by nestmates to lay pheromone trail (Sumpter and Beekman 2003; von Thienen et al. 2014). A greater disparity in quality should create greater disparity in foraging effort between two food sources, a simple behaviour that is integral to colony survival (Stroeymeyt et al. 2010), and this is indeed what we found (Fig. 2). — R. I’Anson Price, C. Grüter, W. O. H Hughes, S. E. F. Evison, Symmetry breaking in mass-recruiting ants: extent of foraging biases depends on resource quality
It takes precious calories to produce pheromones… so an ant’s willingness to spend their pheromones is the equivalent of a human’s willingness to spend their money.
Is it a coincidence that WTP is integral to ants, bees, humans and Gods?
With numerous widely dispersed and incredibly diverse individuals in complex and changing environments… commerce as communication is necessary to help minimize the chances that valuable things will be overlooked.
From ants to bees to Gods to Socrates to Abraham to Smith to Mises to Hayek to Samuelson to Buchanan to Rothbard... it should be abundantly clear that commerce as communication is an incredibly important aspect of commerce.
Should commerce as communication be used in defense of commerce?
Well yeah. I don't think it's truly possible for people to fully understand and appreciate the incredible necessity and benefit of commerce if they don't clearly see it as communication.
What's the best way to use commerce as communication in defense of commerce?
The best way to use commerce as communication in defense of commerce is to use commerce to bring commerce as communication to everybody's attention.
It will be pretty easy to bring this blog entry to Gurri's attention. I'll simply go on Twitter, create a tweet with a link to this entry and mention Gurri in the tweet. Voila! He'll receive a notification and see my tweet. Maybe he'll say to himself, "Oh no, not this guy again!" and ignore the link. But if he does click on the link then he'll see this blog entry.
Perhaps he'll appreciate that I sacrificed a decent amount of time to create this entry. However, this really won't adequately inform him of the true intensity of my preference for commerce as communication.
And yeah, I could definitely paypal Gurri $100 dollars. Sacrificing $100 dollars would better inform him of my love for commerce as communication. But would it better inform others? Well...I could publicly announce my sacrifice to Gurri. However, there is a better way.
Gurri has a brand new website... LiberalCurrents (LC). It's so shiny and pretty. Most importantly, it has that new website smell. I know for a fact that Gurri loves the smell of new websites because creating new websites is his favorite thing.
On the LC homepage you'll see renaissance paintings and links to articles on the website. But you know what I'd really love to see on the LC homepage? I'd love to see a link to this blog entry! I'd also love to see a link to Smith's Wealth of Nations and a link to Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society and a link to Buchanan's Economics of Earmarked Taxes and and and... it's actually a pretty long list.
I created a Google sheet with a preliminary list and wrote some code to embed it on this page. Gurri could easily embed the code for this list into LC's homepage or into some other prominent page.
The most important question is... how should the list be ordered??? The list of links should be ordered by their value. In order to determine their value we can make donations to LC and use our donations to communicate the intensity of our preferences for specific links. We'd be using commerce as communication in order to bring commerce as communication to everybody's attention.
Also, we'd be helping to minimize the chances that people interested in liberty will overlook valuable information. So it will be just like our very own Twitter... if the founder of Twitter hadn't overlooked Smith's Wealth Of Nations and Buchanan's Economics Of Earmarked Taxes.
We'll prioritize how we spend our limited money in order to help each other prioritize how we spend our limited time.
It might seem like information overload is a relatively new phenomenon. But there's always been far more information than time to process it all. It's only natural that our attention is drawn to the sacrifices that other people are willing to make. In this regard, it definitely makes sense that the Bible managed to capture so many people's attention.
If we want to direct people's attention to commerce as communication... then we gotta make some sacrifices. We can make donations to the LC and use our donations to determine the order of liberty links.
There are certainly a few logistical issues... such as... how does Gurri valuate links? Clearly he can't simply take money out of his pocket and put it right back in! So he'd have to figure out who to donate money to in order to communicate the intensity of his preferences for specific links.
As far as precedent is concerned... it shouldn't come as a surprise that it's pretty meager.
Based on my suggestion, a few months back my friend gave her 4th grade students the opportunity to use their donations to reveal the intensity of their preferences for their favorite books.
More recently, donors to the Libertarian Party were given the opportunity to use their donations to reveal the intensity of their preferences for their favorite potential themes.
In both cases the lists were ordered by the IH. However, in the first case the IH was a lot smaller.
In the private sector, the IH determines the order of countless things... from frivolous things (ie gummy bears) to serious things (ie computers). So it really shouldn't be necessary to make the case for using the IH to order a list of liberty links. Then again, as far as I know, there are only two lists in the world that are ordered by the IH! Therefore, commerce is certainly in need of a really strong defense.
It would be an incredibly powerful defense of commerce if Gurri used the LiberalCurrents website to allow the IH to order a list of liberty links. Plus, the name of the website is certainly appropriate! We'd all guide, and be guided by, the constantly changing currents of liberalism.
Yes, change is the basic law of nature. But the changes wrought by the passage of time affects individuals and institutions in different ways. According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Applying this theoretical concept to us as individuals, we can state that the civilization that is able to survive is the one that is able to adapt to the changing physical, social, political, moral, and spiritual environment in which it finds itself. — Leon C. Megginson
Correctly and rapidly adjusting/adapting to constantly changing circumstances/conditions depends on accurate and efficient communication. This is why commerce as communication is so incredibly important.
To be honest, this was the last thing I read before I fell asleep last night and I'm not exactly sure whether or not I unearthed your point.
From my perspective, there's nothing inherently wrong with traditions. The only issue is how easy it is to exit from nonsensical traditions. Easy exit facilitates evolution. Hard exit fosters stagnation.
Adam Smith provides the best example that I can think of...
But if politics had never called in the aid of religion, had the conquering party never adopted the tenets of one sect more than those of another, when it had gained the victory, it would probably have dealt equally and impartially with all the different sects, and have allowed every man to chuse his own priest and his own religion as he thought proper. There would in this case, no doubt, have been a great multitude of religious sects. Almost every different congregation might probably have made a little sect by itself, or have entertained some peculiar tenets of its own. Each teacher would no doubt have felt himself under the necessity of making the utmost exertion, and of using every art both to preserve and to increase the number of his disciples. But as every other teacher would have felt himself under the same necessity, the success of no one teacher, or sect of teachers, could have been very great. The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is, either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or perhaps into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which is so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects, whose tenets, being supported by the civil magistrate, are held in veneration by almost all the inhabitants of extensive kingdoms and empires, and who therefore see nothing round them but followers, disciples, and humble admirers. The teachers of each little sect, finding themselves almost alone, would be obliged to respect those of almost every other sect, and the concessions which they would mutually find it both convenient and agreeable to make to one another, might in time probably reduce the doctrine of the greater part of them to that pure and rational religion, free from every mixture of absurdity, imposture, and fanaticism, such as wise men have in all ages of the world wished to see established; but such as positive law has perhaps never yet established, and probably never will establish in any country: because, with regard to religion, positive law always has been, and probably always will be, more or less influenced by popular superstition and enthusiasm.
Right now it's "our" tradition to allow representatives to spend our taxes for us. But I think this tradition is entirely absurd and extremely harmful. Unfortunately, it's not easy for me, or anyone else, to exit from this absurd tradition.
And maybe I'm not correctly understanding or seeing the true importance of this tradition. Yes, for sure, this is entirely possible. But who's going to argue that fallibilism is a one way street? If we gave people the option to exit from this tradition then we'd see how many other people are in the same boat as me. If there are only a few other people in the same boat then this theoretically important tradition isn't going to be harmed. If there are lots of other people in the same boat then the nation would have a vigorous debate about whether this tradition's importance is real or imagined. Immense amounts of information would be exchanged and, as a result, our citizens would be that much more informed about the importance, or lack thereof, of this prominent tradition.
The fact of the matter is that we don't have impersonal shoppers in the private sector. Nobody in their right mind is going to voluntarily give their hard-earned money to somebody in exchange for goods or services that really don't match their preferences. So I'm pretty sure that the only reason that this absurd and detrimental tradition continues to exist in the public sector is because exiting from it isn't easy.
I'm happy that your website is back. Free-riders are a always a problem because producers are never mind-readers. True or false?
I don't spend very much time worrying about the immigration debate. Maybe I'm undervaluing it though.
One time you told me this... "The point is that thinking about alternatives is not all, or even most, of what love is about."
I didn't reply... but I can't remember why. I'm an atheist but I grew up reading the bible... a lot. When I was a little kid I didn't understand why God rejected Cain's sacrifice. Now I understand that Cain's willingness to pay (WTP) was inadequate. Abel was willing to make a much larger sacrifice.
Later on in the Old Testament we saw the same theme when Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son Isaac. And also in the New Testament... "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." As opposed to... "For God so loved the world, that he voted for it." I don't think that Christianity would have spread so far so fast with the democratic definition of "love".
We're definitely not mind-readers so it sure makes sense that God used his WTP to clearly communicate his love for us. But...... God also required us to use our WTP to clearly communicate our love for him. As if God isn't a mind-reader? Solomon seemed to believe otherwise, "for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men."
You seemed to argue that this... "Should anyone who wants be allowed into your home?"... is not a valid argument because of democracy. Does this mean that it would suddenly become a valid argument if we did happen to replace voting with spending?
Recently I made a fun argument on a forum full of liberals. I argued that, because of the free-rider problem, everybody should be forced to spend X% of their income on digital goods. But... we would be able to choose which digital goods we spent our "daxes" on. How cool would it be to have a "digital sector"? For sure I would spend some of my daxes on your website! Yet, as the poll demonstrates, the idea was really unpopular. It was a fun argument though because every argument that the liberals made against a digital sector was equally applicable to the public sector. It was magical. Voila! All of a sudden a bunch of liberals were deeply concerned with the forced-rider problem. But I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't spend my daxes on digital goods that I didn't value... would you?
... includes any acknowledgement of "Tabarrok's Rule": actions speak louder than words. Your solution to bullshit in economic textbooks was.... ironically... a cheap-talk survey.
In this entry you're considering Buchanan and Wagner... which is wonderful. But you're not quite acknowledging or appreciating "Buchanan's Rule": using a resource one way means sacrificing the other ways that it could also be used.
Because of Buchanan's Rule... we need Tabarrok's rule in order to ensure that we don't massively violate "Quiggin's Rule": society's limited resources should be put to more, rather than less, valuable uses.
The logical, but extremely detrimental, consequence of massively violating Quiggin's Rule is the major misallocation of society's limited resources. Keynesianism tries to solve recessions/depressions by violating Quiggin's Rule even more.
Surveys are very useful tools. They make it really quick and easy to clarify just how popular, or unpopular, something is. So I thought it would be helpful if we could clarify the popularity of three economic rules. Which rule is the most popular? Which rule is the least popular? Let's find out!
To try and avoid some potential confusion... I should mention that I took the liberty of naming these rules. It makes it easier to talk about them when they have names. I'm not very clever though so I simply named them after some of my favorite economists. James Buchanan was a Nobel Prize libertarian economist, John Quiggin is a liberal economist and Alex Tabarrok is a libertarian economist.
So here are their rules...
Buchanan's Rule: Using a resource one way means sacrificing the other ways that it could also be used
A nation cannot survive with political institutions that do not face up squarely to the essential fact of scarcity: It is simply impossible to promise more to one person without reducing that which is promised to others. And it is not possible to increase consumption today, at least without an increase in saving, without having less consumption tomorrow. Scarcity is indeed a fact of life, and political institutions that do not confront this fact threaten the existence of a prosperous and free society. - James Buchanan, Richard Wagner, Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes
Eisenhower probably put it best...
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron...Is there no other way the world may live? - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Quiggin's Rule: Society's limited resources should be put to more, rather than less, valuable uses
Even at the cost of lining up with [Tom] Friedman, I’d be pleased if the idea that war is a mostly futile waste of lives and money became conventional wisdom. Switching to utopian mode, wouldn’t it be amazing if the urge to “do something” could be channeled into, say, ending hunger in the world or universal literacy (both cheaper than even one Iraq-sized war)? - John Quiggin, War and waste
Tabarrok's Rule: Actions speak louder than words
Overall, I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge. - Alex Tabarrok, A Bet is a Tax on Bullshit
In my opinion, these rules are all good rules. I think it's beneficial when we abide by them and harmful when we don't.
What do you think? Are these rules worthwhile or worthless? Do you know of any other economic rules that are more worthwhile?
I disagree that you have at all demonstrated that rule 3 will have less clear consequences than voting. - Alvecia
People vote for Batman to rescue a cat from a tree...
X = Batman rescuing a cat from a tree
Is there a Y? Of course there's a Y. According to Buchanan's Rule (Rule #1)... there's always a Y.
So what is Y?
Y = Batman sitting at home twiddling his thumbs
In this case...
X > Y
Thanks to voting... society's limited resource, in this case Batman, was put to a more, rather than a less, valuable use. Therefore... Quiggin's Rule (Rule #2)... was not violated.
But what if Y is different?
Y = Batman rescuing Gotham from imminent destruction
In this case...
X < Y
As a result of voting... society's limited resource, again Batman, was put to a less, rather than a more, valuable use. Therefore... Quiggin's Rule was violated.
Let's get a little weird now...
X = Batman fighting alcohol traffickers
Y = Batman fighting Hitler
The time periods don't perfectly align... then again... we're talking about Batman here.
Most of us would agree that....
Y > X
Therefore... Quiggin's Rule was violated when people voted for X. Batman would have fought alcohol traffickers instead of Hitler.
Let's get a little less weird and replace Batman, a fictional character, with Eliot Ness, a nonfictional character. If people had not voted for prohibition... then Ness would have done something else instead. What would that something else have been? What was Y? Would Y have been more or less valuable than the enforcement of prohibition?
Let's get a little more weird and imagine that Germans had voted for prohibition. What was Y? What if it had been the Holocaust? In this case... given that Y was the least valuable use of society's limited resources... then voting for prohibition would not have been a violation of Quiggin's Rule. It would have been extremely valuable if the Eliot Nesses had stopped enforcing the Holocaust and started enforcing prohibition.
With voting... you are never the one who gets to decide what Y is. Therefore, voters never know what Y is. Not knowing what Y is guarantees that Quiggin's Rule will be thoroughly and regularly violated. When you spend your money though... you always know what Y is. This is simply because you're the one who decides what Y is. Again, Tabarrok's Rule is the only way that we can ensure that Quiggin's Rule is not violated.
That is to say, that other than your own obviously bias opinion, there is no reason to conclude that rule 3 is better than voting. - Alvecia
Sure I'd like to take credit for "my" argument. But I really can't. As I thought I made it clear in the OP... these aren't my rules. I am not James Buchanan or John Quiggin or Alex Tabarrok. Neither am I Nietzsche...
But have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much "God" sacrificed every time? If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law – let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! – Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality
Am I misunderstanding and slandering your reality? Am I sanctifying lies? Am I disturbing your conscience? Am I sacrificing your "God"? If a temple is to be erected... then a temple must be destroyed. This is the law. But it's really not my law! I'm just the guy pointing it out to you and endeavoring to explain its relevance/importance.
You're really not happy with my attempt to build up my temple (aka tear down your temple). But are you really sure that your temple is worth defending? If you're going to defend something... then wouldn't it be a good idea to first establish whether it's truly worth defending?
"Xero's a moron who doesn't understand just how effective contingent valuation techniques truly are."
Quiggin did not tweet that. He could have made that argument. But he did not. Instead, you are making this argument. Except... not once have you used the term "contingent valuation" before. Which means that you've never even heard the term before. Do you think that Quiggin has heard the term before? Do you think he's familiar with the concept? I'm actually pretty sure that he is quite familiar with the concept... which begs the question of why he didn't even mention it in his tweet.
In case you missed it... Quiggin is your champion. Watch...
That is, the neoliberal ideology itself has little to say about these questions. Neoliberals may regard democracy and ordinary notions of political liberalism with outright hostility (Lee Kuan Yew, the Mises Institute). Or, they may like Hayek, regard democracy and free speech as second-order goals, desirable only if they don’t get in the way of free markets. - John Quiggin, The ideology that dare not speak its name
There's Quiggin defending his temple (Democracy) against those who would tear it down.
Obviously it's not hard for Quiggin to defend Democracy. So why didn't he take the opportunity to do so when I clearly challenged Democracy?
I'm here because your champion didn't even show up to the fight. Or... he showed up to the fight... saluted me... and went on his merry way.
24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken. 25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. 29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.
Right now you're trying to fight a battle that you're clearly not qualified to fight. But you really don't need to fight this battle yourself! Seriously! You have plenty of champions to choose from! Like Paul Krugman. Send him an e-mail and let us know what he says. If he doesn't reply because he's too busy lecturing or traveling or sleeping then send an e-mail to Quiggin. If he doesn't reply then here's a page that lists UCLA's econ professors. As you can see... their e-mail addresses are right there. It's ridiculously easy to send them a link to this thread.
You're right that I'm biased. I'm biased because I'm really confident that your champions are not going to tell you what you want to hear. But please, by all means, feel free to prove me wrong. Let me be crystal clear though... if you fail to prove me wrong... then this will provide even more justification for the erection of my temple (aka the destruction of your temple).
But how much would you spend for gay marriage to be legal? You don't know because you'd have to think long and hard about just how important gay marriage is to you. This is why spending is infinitely more valuable than voting. It requires infinitely more thought and consideration. - Xero
You know, I don't think that's true at all. Because I was able to vote on gay marriage(marriage equality, actually) for the total cost of a short detour on my walk home from work, I was able to consider the matter purely on its own merits. Do I care more about marriage equality more than I care about the burger and chips I bought after voting? Irrelevant. My decision was better, more valuable, because it didn't cost me anything to make. Voting was infinitely superior to spending. - Ifreann
Batman has one of two options...
1. Rescue a cat from a tree
2. Save Gotham from imminent destruction
Both options are valuable... but they aren't equally valuable. It should be intuitive that the second option is infinitely more valuable. Therefore... it should also be intuitive that it truly does matter how much you value something. If we disregard... or ignore... the "how much"... then society's limited resources will be used for less valuable uses. Batman rescues the cat rather than Gotham.
The biggest reason that taxes are compulsory rather than voluntary is that people would have an incentive to lie. Imagine if taxes were entirely voluntary and I asked you [i]how much[/i] you value your public park. If your stated valuation was $50 dollars... then this is how much you would have to pay. Clearly your incentive here is to pretend that you value the park [i]less[/i] than you actually do. But if too many people did this then we can guess that the park would be underfunded.
So we make taxes compulsory. However, you are not asked how much you value your public park. Instead... you are simply asked whether you want a public park or not. Or you are given the option to vote for somebody who promises a bigger better public park. The smaller your tax obligation is... the larger your incentive is to pretend that you value the park more than you actually do. But if too many people did this then we can guess that the park would be overfunded.
Basically, if you accept the basic premise of compulsory taxation... then you must acknowledge that people's honest and accurate valuations truly matter. It actually does matter how much you value gay marriage. Your honest and accurate valuation of gay marriage truly matters. If it doesn't matter... then your honest and accurate valuation of public parks do not matter either... and taxation should be entirely voluntary.
Just in case you're under the assumption that my basic premise is free-market propaganda... it really isn't. It's from the most widely paper on the topic.... which was written by a Nobel Prize liberal economist...
Libertarians largely want to reduce taxation... so they are loathe to acknowledge that the free-rider problem is actually a real problem. However... liberals are loathe to acknowledge that, because the tax burden is so unevenly distributed, the free-rider problem is actually a real problem when it comes to democracy.
To put it as accessible as possible... nobody benefits when people are given the chance to cheat. The fact that you got something you wanted, legalized gay marriage, without having to pay for it... is a perfect example of cheating. It might sound like a really good deal for you... but that's only because you can't imagine how awesome it would be to live in a society where nobody was allowed to cheat. If nobody was allowed to cheat... then society's limited resources would be put to their most valuable uses. There would be no more war... or global warming... or cancer... or poverty.... or traffic congestion. Instead there would be peace, prosperity and progress. Everybody would have a ridiculous amount of incredibly valuable opportunities. Nobody would be underemployed. Nobody's talent would be kept on the sidelines.
Let's think about this differently. Have you ever seen a cat smile? I haven't. I've smiled at cats before... but they never smile back. I've smiled at people before... and sometimes they smile back. I'm pretty sure that our society works better as the result of our ability to use our facial expressions to communicate with each other. Right? Can you imagine if our faces were as expressionless as cat faces? Far less information would be conveyed. Right now you can't see my expression and I can't see your expression... and, as a result, far less information is conveyed. It's the same thing with cash. When spending is removed from the equation... far less information is conveyed. And society doesn't function as well. Society functions better with more, rather than less, communication. Voting is a form of communication... but it doesn't convey nearly as much information as spending does. Spending, for all intents and purposes, is sacrifice. And it's extremely important to know what people are willing to sacrifice for the things that they say they want. I'm an atheist but I really appreciate the bible because sacrifice is a strong and recurring theme.
When I was a little kid I didn't understand why God rejected Cain's sacrifice. It was only years later when I started appreciating that spending/sacrifice was communication that I understood that Abel's sacrifice spoke a lot louder than Cain's sacrifice. What Abel was willing to give up, a lamb, was far more valuable than what Cain was willing to give up...fruit. Abel was willing to pay a lot more than Cain. Can you imagine if Cain had simply voted for God? "Here God, I've given it a lot of thought and I've decided that I want you to have my vote! It costs absolutely nothing but I hope you appreciate it!" How would God have responded? Probably not too well.
Later in the old testament... God tests Abraham by telling him to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Abraham was willing to do so and at the last minute God intervened and said, "for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."
In the new testament... God communicated how much he loved the world by his willingness to sacrifice his only son to save it. Imagine if he had simply voted to save the world. For God so loved the world... that he voted to save it. How far and wide do you think Christianity would have spread? Do you think the official motto of the United States would be "In God We Trust"? Of course not. It would probably be "In Gods We Trust". Christianity was only able to spread so far and fast because it was a powerful and universally meaningful story.
Let's say that I made a video. "Ok world. I really love you. I love you so much that I'm willing to sacrifice myself to save you." And then I killed myself. I'm guessing that if somebody uploaded the video then it would probably go viral. And everybody would be wondering why, exactly, I sacrificed myself. Of course people would quickly figure out that I was a pragmatarian... and then they would learn what pragmatarianism was and debate its merits and the rationality, or lack thereof, of my self-sacrifice. Is my life worth putting pragmatarianism in the national spotlight? Clearly there wouldn't be a more powerful way to demonstrate my preference for pragmatarianism.
Imagine the outrage if I sacrificed my cat instead. "Ok world. I really love you. I love you so much that I'm willing to sacrifice my cat to save you." And then I sacrificed my cat and uploaded the video. Would it help or hurt if I cooked and ate the cat afterwards? To be clear... the cat wouldn't technically be my cat. It would be my gf's cat. And she probably wouldn't be too happy with me if I sacrificed it. Still though... I do like the cat... even if it never smiles at me.
In any case, it really does matter how much we are willing to sacrifice for the things that we want. We really shouldn't give things to people if they aren't willing to pay the price for them. This is true whether we're talking about green lights... gay marriage...legalized abortion... or even pragmatarianism.
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 2: 16-17
My version...
And the Government commanded the taxpayer, saying, Of every place in the world thou mayest freely shop:
But in the public sector thou shalt not shop: for in the day that thou shoppeth therein thou shalt surely die.
I guess that would make me the serpent?
Now Xero was more subtil than any human which the Government had encountered.
And he said unto the taxpayer, Yea, hath the Government said, Ye shall not shop in the public sector?
And the taxpayer said unto Xero, We may shop anywhere in the world:
But in the public sector, the Government hath said, Ye shall not shop in it, or consider doing so, lest ye die.
And Xero said unto the taxpayer, Ye shall not surely die:
For the Government doth know that in the day ye shop therein, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as the Government, knowing necessary and unnecessary.
And when the taxpayer saw that the public sector was good for shopping, and that there was much to buy, and a place to be desired to make one wise, he told everyone to shop with him in the public sector.
And the eyes of everyone were opened, and they knew that they weren't adequately covered; and they shopped to better protect themselves.
But here's exactly what you say to your farmer... "Hey farmer Frank! Please grow some more of these awesome artichokes.... but please don't shop for yourself in the public sector!"
It's like the public sector is the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. You give farmer Frank the freedom to shop for himself anywhere in the world... except for the public sector. You give Frank the farmer the freedom to buy tractors from Germany, fertilizer from Brazil and artichoke seeds from Israel. You give Frank the farmer the freedom to shop in Home Depot, Walmart, Best Buy and Target. You trust farmer Frank to correctly gauge the necessity of every single good in the world... except for the goods in the public sector. You trust farmer Frank to correctly gauge that silkworms, horses, clowns, hot-air balloons, jet skis and hula hoops aren't necessary for growing artichokes... but you're concerned that he'll incorrectly gauge whether roads, bridges, healthcare, education and defense are necessary for growing artichokes.
The fact of the matter is that you don't need to worry about Frank the farmer incorrectly gauging the necessity of any goods because he's the one who has the most to lose if he does so. If Frank the farmer incorrectly gauges the necessity of roads... then consumers will buy less of his artichokes and more of Bob the farmer's artichokes. Bob lives in a different county or state or country... and he correctly gauged the necessity of roads. This results in big profits for Bob and huge losses for Frank. Therefore, Frank has the most to lose by incorrectly gauging the necessity of things just like Bob has the most to gain by correctly gauging the necessity of things.
Incentives really matter if you want the necessity of things to be correctly gauged. Compared to congresspeople... taxpayers have far more incentive and ability to correctly gauge the necessity of things. Therefore, we should give taxpayers the option to shop for themselves in the public sector.
You're system is far worse than the current because at least a poor person's vote is equal to a rich person's and thus there's at least constant pressure to meet the demands of the majority of people who need the most protection and help for the common good. - Lynx_Fox
You seem to think that people only spend their money in ways that will give them the maximum benefit for it, when if anything the vast majority of the population has shown time and time again that they will gladly blow money on stupid shit that has no potential benefit for their lives. - Falconer360
In a representative democracy, we elect governmental representatives to make good decisions for the welfare of all citizens - not popular decisions, or decisions that best profit GM or Monsanto. - billvon
That's right. And those other things will often be mythology, superstitions, not-in-my-backyard syndrome, short-sightedness, incredulity, unsupported gullible "factoids" or other things rather than empirically-based scientific views with a whole view to the common good that should decide allocation by representatives. - Lynx_Fox
Let's try and use all of this to construct an individual for us to consider and study...
Chris gladly blows his money on stupid shit. He inherited $50,000 dollars from his rich uncle. Rather than spend it on college... he spent it on a corvette. When his grandfather died... he inherited $20,000. Rather than using this money to start a business... he donated all of it to Joel Osteen. Chris loves Christ almost as much as he loves cars. Except he never reads the Bible... or perhaps he missed the story about the prodigal (wasteful) son. Just like he missed the story about the talents. Just like he missed the story about the protestant work ethic.
It stands to reason that Chris's value judgements are extremely impaired. There's one very important exception to this rule... democracy! Even though Chris consistently spends his money on the wrong things... he consistently spends his votes on the right representatives. He doesn't choose representatives that are just as wasteful as he is. Neither does he choose representatives who promise to take money from the rich and give it to him. Instead, he chooses representatives who will steer the country in the most valuable directions.
Chris is the modern day equivalent of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In the private sector... he's Mr. Hyde. He makes horrible decisions. But in the public sector... he's Dr. Jekyll... his value judgements are impeccable!
This story is so far from credible that it's kinda funny. It would make for an entertainingly absurd movie.
Markets work because stupid decisions (aka mistakes) decrease your influence (over how society's limited resources are used). Because a decision can't be that stupid if it increases your influence/power/control (in the long run).
Is the decision to rob a bank a stupid decision? Most reasonable people would argue that it is. Chances are good that you'll be caught or killed. Ending up in jail or dead really decreases your influence. But what if somebody robs a bank and gets away with it? Then clearly their decision wasn't that stupid.
Is the decision to drop out of school a stupid decision? Most reasonable people would argue that it is. Dropping out of school will decrease your chances of getting a good job. There's plenty of evidence that education level and income are positively correlated. But what if somebody drops out of school and starts an extremely successful business? Then clearly their decision to drop out of school wasn't that stupid.
If the intelligence of decisions is not strongly correlated with income/influence... then why bother endeavoring to make intelligent decisions? Why not randomly decide whether you go to, or stay in, school? Why not randomly decide whether you use condoms? Why not randomly decide whether you use drugs? Why bother seriously considering and contemplating the consequences of your actions?
You guys really need to get your stories straight. If markets don't truly reward alertness, effort, productivity, responsibility, competence, diligence, research, resourcefulness, ingenuity, hindsight, insight and foresight.... then yeah, there's no point in giving taxpayers the freedom to choose where their taxes go. But if markets truly fail to put society's limited resources into the best hands... then there's really no point in giving anybody the freedom to choose anything. If this is how you truly perceive reality... then prove it by starting a thread where you share your version of reality with others.
Yesterday I'm over at Medium reading this article... ‘They Want To Kick You Out And Make You Leave Your Home State. That’s Not Right.’ While I'm reading it I'm seeing these beautiful parallels (and perpendiculars?) between Indiana and Sodom and Gomorrah (SG). But it's been a really long time since I've read the Bible story about SG. Being inspired by the article to clear out the dross... I head on over to BibleGateWay.com and read it again... Genesis 18.
I get the distinct feeling that I've never truly read the story of SG. As I've mentioned elsewhere... I grew up reading the Bible... a lot. But now that I think about it... I'm pretty sure that my family might have skipped over Genesis 18 and 19 more than a few times. Not to say that we finished Genesis 17 and then mysteriously started up with Genesis 20. We didn't read the Bible in order. We would start off with a prayer and let God mysteriously determine what chapters we read. And for some reason... God steered us away from Genesis 18 and 19. Now I know why!
The story of SG is all kinds of fucked up. And as I appreciated just how fucked up it is... I came to the conclusion that I'd really love it if the story was told on Drunk History. Have you seen Drunk History before? It's a show on Comedy Central that combines entertainment and education. I'm a huge fan of combining entertainment and education. Education should be fun! Learning should be entertaining!
Drunk History was originally a "Funny or Die web series created by Derek Waters and Jeremy Konner in 2007".
Here's the first volume...
As you can see... the narrator tells some historical story while drunk. And then more or less famous people act the story out according to how the drunk person is telling it. How accurate can the story really be when the person telling it is drunk? Is that even a good question? Maybe. Are we giving more weight to the entertainment or to the education?
In any case I decided that it would be all types of awesome if there was a drunk history episode based on the story of SG. Except, I'm also pretty sure that if I sent the request to Comedy Central... that they would mysteriously skip over it. This realization totes bummed me out. Like, I was moping around for minutes and minutes.
Today I had an epiphany. I don't need Comedy Central or... Michael Cera! Hmmm... I'm reconsidering that last part.
What I'm trying to say is that I can totally get drunk and tell the story about SG! Will it be as good as Comedy Central could do it? Uh, maybe not. But with my version I'll also throw in economics... and some parallels/perpendiculars with Indiana.
The hardest part will be the getting drunk part. I really don't drink these days. Back in my infantry days I was a super drinker. Now, not so much. And the supply of alcohol reflects this. There's a tall nearly full bottle of martini and a medium quarter-full bottle of cinnamon whisky. That's it. I'm already on my second glass of martini mixed with Trader Joes sparkling berry drink. I'm pretty sure that I'm buzzing.
The story of SG starts off with Abraham having a conversation with the Lord. The Lord tells Abraham that his wife Sarah is going to have a baby. Sarah laughs when she overhears this because both she and Abraham are super old. And the Lord's like, "hey, I can make it happen... and it's going to be the start of a very great nation. And it's going to behoove you to impress upon your people to worship me".
To emphasize the last part the Lord bring up SG. What's going on in SG? Well... they certainly don't worship the Lord. They pretty much just have a lot of gay sex all the time. And it's because of this sinning, that the Lord plans to destroy SG. This is what he tells Abraham. Again, to impress on Abraham the value of ensuring that his nation doesn't follow the path of sin.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the two or three angels that were guests of Abraham and disguised as men. When the Lord told Abraham that SG's days were numbered... the angels started walking to SG.
What happens next is priceless. It's all kinds of beautiful. Abraham asks the Lord... "are you going to throw the baby out with the bath water?" LOL. Why is this so funny? Because it's a pretty reasonable question. It's such a reasonable question that it's funny. But it's also an extremely economical question.
Abraham: Let's say that there 50 righteous people in SG... would you spare it? Because that would be pretty unjust to severely punish the innocent and guilty alike. Lord: Sure, that's pretty reasonable. If there are 50 righteous people in SG then I'll totally spare it. Abraham: Well... I'm nothing but lowly dust and ashes but... what if there are only 45 righteous people? Lord: Ok, I won't destroy it if I find 45. Abraham: What if there are 40? Lord: Ok, I'll spare SG. Abraham: Now, please don't get angry with me... but what if you only find 30 righteous people? Lord: If there are 30 righteous people in SG...then I'll still spare it. Abraham: What if there are only 20? Lord: You have a deal Abraham: Please don't get angry with me because this is the last time that I'll bring this up... but... what if there are only 10 righteous people? Lord: I'll spare SG for the sake of 10 righteous people.
What in the world was that? It's pretty epic. Does it sound familiar? Kinda reminds me of what they say about our justice system... it is better for 10 guilty people to go free then it is to wrongly convict one innocent person.
We see this distinct back and forth on the value of not throwing the baby out with the bath water. If throwing the bath water out means that we also throw out the baby... then perhaps it's better not to throw the bath water out.
x = the baby
y = throwing the bath water out
Value(x) > Value(y)
I'm on my third drink now. It's mostly martini.
The next part of the story is Genesis chapter 19.
It starts off with the angels arriving at SG. Some guy named Lot just happens to be hanging out at the city gate. And he's like, "Hey guys, gotta warn you that this place is pretty iffy. You shouldn't tarry here long." For some reason the angels want to hang out in the street at night but Lot manages to convince them to spend the night at his place.
That evening a crowd of gays gathers outside of Lot's house. The gays range from old to young. Evidently they heard that there was some new meat in town and they are looking to have some fun. So they tell Lot to send the strangers out so that they can "know" them. And that's "know" in the biblical sense. As in to have sex with.
Lot replies that they shouldn't be so wicked. But he doesn't stop there. And what follows is supremely fucked up... but maybe not so much?
What Lot does is he offers the horny crowd his two virgin daughters. He's like, "I have two virgin daughters... do what you want with them but leave my guests alone". How messed up is that? It's pretty messed up... but... there's probably a good reason that they are virgins. As in, they live in a city full of gays. And it's for this reason that the crowd has absolutely no interest in Lot's offer. They're like "no deal!" So maybe it's not so messed up that Lot is willing to sacrifice his daughters to protect the strangers? It sure seems messed up though.
The crowd of gays gets pissed that Lot isn't giving them what they want... and they are pretty darn close to breaking down his door. At that point the angels step in and unleash some heavenly can of whup ass. They strike the crowd with blindness. This ways the gays can't find the door to Lot's house.
The angels then tell Lot to gather up his family and get the heck out of dodge because they had been tasked by the Lord to destroy it. Lot goes to find his son in laws. Son in laws? What? Uh... yeah. It shouldn't be a surprise that they show absolutely no interest in leaving. Nope.
So it's pretty much just Lot, his wife and their two daughters. How many is that? Less than 10.
When they manage to make their way outside the city... Lot's like, "wherever shall I go, whatever shall I do?" Not quite. Lot does say that if he flees to the mountain that he's probably not going to survive. So Lot asks if he could flee to some tiny city named Zoar. And the angels are like, "ok, cool, you go there and we won't destroy that city... but whatever you do... when you're fleeing... don't look back!"
I don't know if they actually added emphasis... they probably didn't because Lot's wife looks back and she gets turned into salt.
Hmmm... why did Lot's wife look back? Was it morbid curiosity or something sentimental? My vote is for something sentimental. She was missing something about her sinful hometown... and she paid the price.
For whatever reason, Lot didn't feel safe in Zoar. Maybe it was because the people of Zoar would wonder whether he was responsible for the destruction of SG? Perhaps? In any case he takes his two daughters and goes to live in a cave. And then? The daughters confer with each other, "well... our bloodline is going to die unless we do something about it...". Dot dot dot. So the older daughter gets Lot drunk and has sex with him. And then the next night the younger daughter does the same thing. Their plan proves successful and they both get pregnant. What about Lot though? Ignorance is bliss? Or, "haha... you pranked me! good one!" ???
In any case, the logistics and demographics of SG are... curious. Right? I want to know what percentage of SG were women. And straight.
What role did you want Michael Cera to play? All of them? That's just greedy.
LOL. Well... to begin with there's the title. Right? I don't get the impression that Lot and his family truly wanted to leave SG. Or maybe they did? They just needed a nudge from Cass and Sunstein? heh. I bet those two guys go around gently nudging everybody. Like, every time you're somewhere with other people... and you get nudged... and you're not sure who nudged you... then you can bet your bottom that it was Cass and Sunstein. Nudgers!!! How dare they gently push us in the right direction! Who do they think they are?! Angels!????
I just got my fourth drink. Finished the bottle of martini and the bottle of blueberry sparkling juice.
The broad parallel is that in SG the straights were in the minority while in Indiana the gays are in the minority. I guess? We guess?
What else? Foot voting!
Like these people should all just move to the Bay Area! Like the Bay Area is just bustling with affordable housing for people from Indiana! It’s such a cop-out. Justice matters everywhere, you can’t just say ‘get out of there.’ - Joel Street
Bay Area vs a cave? LOL. Bay area vs having sex with your parents in a cave? In which direction do you think Cass and Sunstein would nudge Joel Street?
Here's Bret Wilson, another gay, also on the topic of foot voting...
But when the law got passed, I’m like what am I doing here? I was really active in phone-banking around gay marriage, but do I have another campaign in me? Indiana is wishy-washy. Why am I here when I could be in an accepting state? That was the biggest struggle: do I stay or do I go now? But then I think: that’s what they want to happen — they want to kick you out and make you leave your home state. That’s not right. I should feel safe in my own state.
You should feel safe in your own state? Why? Cuzz you were born there? Do you think this logic would have appeased the angry mob of gays trying to break down Lot's door?
Back to Joel Street...
But the calls to boycott the whole state — it seems like a blunt instrument. It damages Indiana companies that were actually doing their best on LGBT rights. It reinforces all sorts of feelings of self hate that a closeted kid in Indiana would have anyways.
Blunt instrument is right! The Lord destroying an entire city is the epitome of a blunt instrument. Blunt instruments throw the baby out with the bath water.
Back to Bret Wilson...
I’ve never personally been turned away from a business for any reason. Still, I don’t want my tax dollars to go to something like this: I’m paying them for them to decide whether they’re going to let people discriminate against me.
Dear Bret Wilson, I really don't want your tax dollars to go to something like this either. So please pray tell why you don't like tax choice on facebook! Tax choice really isn't a blunt instrument... it's a precise instrument.
The Lord? It didn't seem like his angels really performed a very thorough survey. Like, if you're going to decide whether or not you destroy an entire city... then perhaps it's a good idea to err on the side of more, rather than less, due diligence. Maybe it happened behind the scenes? Perhaps? Who knows. It's certainly not included in the story. And the fact that it wasn't included is worrisome.
How much progress have we made since SG? Lauren Smiley wants us to know that three gays from Indiana aren't too happy with how things stand in Indiana. Well shit. Smiley and her three gay friends really clarified things for us. Smiley engaged in far fancier due diligence than we suspect that the Lord's angels engaged in. Or not.
With all due respect to Smiley and the Lord's angels... how about we give taxpayers the opportunity to speak for themselves? For some reason I'm more inclined to give ALL their spending decisions more weight than I am willing to give a couple personal stories. Perhaps it's because I'm under the impression that actions speak louder than words? Or maybe it's just because I'm drunk? Or maybe it's because, according to Google, the population of Indiana in 2014 was 6.597 million people?
Oh, man, I really want to round up to 7 million. Because, when you're drunk, you really want easier numbers.
7 million people. And Smiley's like... here's what 3 of them have to say! Well shit... there you go. Not really though. Markets work because we can all speak for ourselves. And if you don't like what somebody says with their money... then.... you're free to speak differently for yourself.
We really should get into the whole issue of respect vs agree. I was raised by Christians. To be more specific.... I was raised by 7th day Adventists. Yes, Luke Wilson invented cornflakes. Just to put my bias on the table. Luke Wilson is cereal. Then again, so is my fabulous friend who is going to open up his new plant shop in Silverlake CA.
I might disagree with what them Indiana Christians have to say with their taxes... the point is though... who truly knows what millions of them will actually say when given the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are? The angels don't know. Smiley doesn't know. You don't know... but wouldn't you like to know? Wouldn't the Clash like to know? Whatever Christians truthfully communicate with their money when given the opportunity... I'll most definitely respect their perspectives enough to give them the freedom to accurately communicate their preferences.
*************************************************
It's the next day and I'm no longer drunk. Last night I finished my fourth drink and went to the grocery store with my gf. She drove of course. Grocery shopping isn't so bad when you're drunk. I asked her if she knew the story of SG and she replied, "the guy loses his power when he gets his hair cut." heh. Shopping, cooking and eating a steak pretty much derailed my story.
Reading over this draft though... I'm pretty impressed that I managed to hit most of the main points. Did being drunk hurt or help? If it helped then I hope it didn't help too much because I'd prefer not to have an excuse to destroy my liver!
Even though I hit most of the points that I wanted to... there are definitely some points that could use a lot more development. Like the Clash... I wonder how many people are going to catch the reference to the relevant song? Here it is... Should I Stay Or Should I Go and some of the lyrics...
Should I stay or should I go now? (Yo! ¿Me frío o lo soplo?)
Should I stay or should I go now? (Yo! ¿Me frío o lo soplo?)
If I go there will be trouble (Si me voy, va a haber peligro)
And if I stay it will be double (Si me quedo, es doble)
So you gotta let me know (Pero que tienes que decir)
Should I cool it or should I blow? (¿Me frío o lo soplo?)
Should I stay or should I go now? (¿Me frío o lo soplo?)
If I go there will be trouble (Si me voy, va a haber peligro)
And if I stay there will be double (Si me quedo, es doble)
So you gotta let me know (Pero que tienes que decir)
Should I stay or should I go
If we could choose where our taxes go... then we'd be able to more accurately communicate our preferences. This information would help people decide whether it's more valuable to stay or go.
It's been who knows how many thousands of years since SG... and the value of accurately discerning the preferences of the masses is still not appreciated. We do have ballot voting but it's all type of ignorant to believe that surveys come close to accurately reflecting demand. Demand isn't shouting for something... it's when people put their own money where their mouths are.
With tax choice... we'd know the demand for anti-gay laws not just in Indiana... but in every city, state and country. This information would help people make informed decisions. It would help them better answer important questions. Should they foot vote? If so, then where should they foot vote for?
Joel Street argued that justice matters everywhere... but tyranny of the minority seems a lot less just than tyranny of the majority. It doesn't seem very just for Street to impose his morality on a state full of Christians just like it wouldn't have been very just if Lot had somehow imposed his morality on a city full of not-Christians.
Clarifying demand is pulling our heads from the sand and confronting the truth of people's preferences. With demand clarity we'll quickly and clearly see significant geographical disparities in prosperity. There's going to be a strong positive correlation between prosperity and diversity. This definitive proof will help people really understand that progress truly does depend on difference. The regions that have more diversity will do a lot better than regions that have less diversity. As a result, the regions with more diversity will grow and the regions with less diversity will shrink.
If prosperity is truly correlated with justice/diversity... then there shouldn't be any need to force it on people. All we need to do is let the evidence speak for itself. It stands to reason that people are going to want to foot vote for the areas that have better options. And the areas with better options are going to be the areas with the most diversity.
Basically, if somebody 1. believes that diversity has to be imposed or 2. supports our current system of government then they don't truly understand the value of diversity.
