Clarifying The Demand For Having Class Outside

In this Nation States forum thread... 4th Grade Nation State... one of the participants, Galloism, has facilitated an experiment to test the relative long-term effectiveness of using spending (coasianism) to make group decisions.   At a local college, a psychology professor is allowing two of his classes to use coasianism to decide whether to have class inside or outside.  A third class is using voting to decide.

With coasianism, the students write down their...

1. Name
2. Preferred option (ie outside)
3. Willingness to pay (WTP)

Once all the students have turned in their valuation forms, the professor does some basic math to determine the most valuable option (MVO).  The students who prefer the MVO have to give their money to the professor.  The students who do not prefer the MVO do not have to spend any money.  Instead, they are proportionally compensated.  The winners have to pay the losers.

Today was the first day of the experiment.  All three classes decided to have class outside.  With the voting class... 16 voted in favor and 1 voted against.  It was a classic example of tyranny of the majority.

With the coasianism classes, it wasn't tyranny of the majority because the majority fairly compensated the minority.  The majority traded with the minority.

In a different but similar study (One Man, One Bid), which I discussed here, there were two key differences...

1. quadratic voting
2. equal compensation

Democracy vs Clarity

Reply to thread: Clarifying The Demand For Green Lights

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

So here we are.  How many people are participating in this thread?  I think that so far... I'm the only one who likes the idea.  Wouldn't be the first time!

Given that this is a forum... we don't have to come to any sort of official decision.  But what if we were the official decision makers?  The OFFICIAL decision makers.  How do you want to picture it?

Are we all jurors?  The idea... "clarifying the demand for green lights"... is on trial?  Maybe there are around 20 jurors who are certain that the idea is guilty of being moronic... and I'm the one juror who thinks the idea might be innocent.  After debating the evidence... then we vote?

Or maybe we're representatives of the world!  This forum is how the world decides whether ideas are good or bad.  Here we are debating the evidence... then we vote?  If we vote then it's going to be 20 to 1.

Well... what if we decide via tug of war?  Uhhhh... would that be fun?  I'm guessing that I'd still lose?

How about if we spend?  How much money would I spend to support the idea?  How much would you all spend to oppose the idea?  I'd LOVE to know.

Now imagine that we're at an intersection.  We're trying to determine who should have the right of way... me.... or all of you!  And I'm like... let's use spending to determine the winner!  And all of you are like... let's use a timer... or sensors... to determine the winner!

Alvecia initially was under the impression that the drivers on both sides would be stopped at the intersection while they engaged in a bidding war.  His incorrect impression was entirely my fault.  But I think his incorrect impression can be quite useful.

So there we are at the intersection... twenty of you in your cars wanting to go North/South... and me wanting to go West.  We're trying to decide who should have the right of way... me... or all of you.  But can we possibly make the correct decision without the necessary information?  No.  So we all get out of our cars and each one of us makes a case for their side.  Through this process of discussion/debate... lots of information is shared... and then we vote?  If I shared evidence that I'm on my way to save the world... then maybe most of you will vote to give me the right of way.  If it helps... pretend that I'm Batman.

This would be a really time consuming process though.  Perhaps we would make a much better decision regarding who should have the right of way... but we were all stuck at the intersection for 40 minutes when, with a timer system, we would have only been stuck there for no more than 2 minutes.  Of course one side wouldn't have been stuck there at all.

The beauty of using spending to make the decision.... is that it's the fastest way to get to the heart of the matter.  There's no details about where you're going... or why you want to go there.  Spending simply reveals how much you're willing to pay to get there in less time.  The "how much" is the most essential information.

When you go to the grocery store... or Home Depot... you don't have to sit there and explain why you want to use all the different items that you put into your shopping cart.  You simply spend your money.  That's how it's decided that you should have the items that you put in your shopping cart.  I'm sure you have your reasons for selecting the items in your shopping cart... but you don't share these reasons and the cashier doesn't ask for your reasons.  The fact that you're willing to pay for the items is all the cashier needs to know.  That's the heart of the matter.  You're willing to pay "enough" for the items.

Does the system work?  Yeah.  Does it work perfectly?  No.  Do we take it for granted?  I sure don't.  I think it's beautiful.  Unfortunately... it's extremely difficult to try and convey the beauty of using spending to decide who should use which resources.  Hence... my sooooo many words.

Let's consider a serious topic... anti-gay laws.  For the most part I think that their existence was determined by voting.  For sure each side of the debate spent money to share their evidence... but the decision itself was determined simply by sheer numbers.  And, until relatively recently, the numbers were on the side that supported anti-gay laws.  It was tyranny of the majority.  Democracy is, by definition, tyranny of the majority.  We kinda naturally accept that tyranny of the minority would be worse.

But imagine if a clarity system had been used instead of voting.  How much money would the anti-gay side have spent?  How much money would the pro-gay side have spent?

Maybe we can guess that, during the 50s and 60s, the anti-gay side would have significantly outspent the pro-gay side.  Except, given that the pro-gay side lost, not only would all of their money have been returned to them.... but they would have received all the money that the pro-gay side spent to win.  The winnings would have been divided up among the losers according to their willingness to pay.  Does that make sense?  Let's imagine that Bob is on the pro-gay side and the amount of money he was willing to spend amounted to .12% of the total amount of money spent (put into escrow) on the pro-gay side.  When their side lost... Bob would have gotten his money back as well as .12% of the money that the anti-gay side spent.

Do you think that the anti-gay side would have liked the fact that all the money that they had spent to win the right of way, so to speak, was then given to the pro-gay side?   It would still be tyranny of the majority... but not quite so tyrannical.  They wouldn't simply take the right of way as a result of superior numbers... they would pay the other side for the right of way.

Let's pretend that we applied this system right here right now in this thread.  Each participant in this thread will give, via paypal, some money to Max Barry.  The amount you give will reflect how much you oppose, or support, the idea of clarifying the demand for green lights.  When you make the payment... be sure to note whether you oppose or support the idea.  Then Max Barry can report the totals... we can guess that your side would be the winning side... but then Barry would give me all the money that you spent to oppose the idea (minus his very reasonable escrow fees)!  Sure... your side would win... but I received nearly all the money that you spent in order to win.  I'm going to put all the money into an account that I'm not going to touch.  And then next year, when we repeat this process, I'm going to spend all that money to try and win.  Will I win?  Well... I'll be spending around as much money as the total amount that all of you spent the last time!  So it's a lot more likely that I'll win.  And even if I don't win.... then maybe I'll have twice as much money in my account that's dedicated to this idea.  So the third time around... unless something drastic changes... I would be sure to win.  Which would of course mean that I'd be essentially returning all your money to you.  But at least for one year... I would have the right of way.  And everybody would bid for green lights.  And it would be a disaster?

With the anti-gay laws... when the anti-gay side won... and all the money that they spent to win was given to the pro-gay side... would each recipient put the money into an account that they wouldn't touch until the process was repeated the next year?  That's the question.  Let's say that Bob spent $700 dollars to oppose the anti-gay laws.  He was able to pay a lot more... but this is how much he was willing to pay.  Since his side lost, which of course was a huge disappointment to Bob, he received his $700 dollars back plus... how much more?  Maybe $1000 dollars more?  Bob would certainly love to marry his partner Frank... but at the same time... their roof really does need to be repaired.... and a vacation would be really nice... and so on.  So it's kind of hard to predict how much more the pro-gay side would spend the next time around.

Here's something that I love... I am nourished by your hatred!  I love it for two main reasons.  First, it's Rafi (1000% INAPPROPRIATE!!!...  you've been warned).  Second... it's entirely applicable to the clarity concept in certain circumstances.  Bob could literally be nourished by some people's hatred.  If he wanted to, he could take some of that $1000 dollars and spend it on really nice food.   I'm not sure if "literally" is the perfect word but close enough.

If democracy is tyranny of the majority... then clarity is nourishment of the minority.  What's your objection?  Don't feed the trolls?  One person's troll is another person's Socrates.  He was the original troller.

If you're gonna screw me... then at least buy me dinner first.  Is that really too much to ask?

Minimizing Economic Wackiness

Reply to: Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful response.

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

A year ago I created a group on reddit for participatory budgeting (PB). Not too long afterwards I ended up getting shadowbanned. Stupid reddit.

Apart from the banishment… I like the idea of reddit. It’s interesting and useful to know the relative popularity of ideas. 

The issue is when resources are allocated according to popularity. Take prohibition for example. The idea was popular enough for enough people to vote for it. And in order for the law to be enforced… massive amounts of resources were diverted away from numerous alternative uses. 

Allocating society’s limited resources to prohibition created X amount of value for society. If all these resources hadn’t been allocated to prohibition… then they would have created Y amount of value for society. 

If X > Y… then why bother with markets? Why should we want any consumer choice when voter choice and/or representative choice provides society with more value? 

With pragmatarianism… directly allocating taxes would be optional. Nobody would force you to choose where your taxes go. If you didn’t want to shop for yourself in the public sector…you could just give your tax dollars to congress. They would be more than happy to allocate your taxes for you. What percentage of the population do you predict would choose to have congress allocate their taxes for them? 

If you want to argue that representative choice creates more value for society than consumer choice does… then, in theory, you should predict that most people would choose to have congress spend their taxes for them. You would be the first to do so! For some reason, nobody ever predicts that most people will want congress to spend their taxes for them. Why doesn’t anybody predict that there’s a large demand for impersonal shoppers? Some possibilities…

1. It’s perceived that taxpayers don’t want more value
2. It’s perceived that few taxpayers recognize more value
3. It’s perceived that representatives don’t truly create more value

I’m pretty sure that we can cross out the first one. Because… who doesn’t want more value? Every living organism wants the most bang for its buck. If the second one is true… then we can’t have any confidence that voters (re)elect representatives who truly create more value. Which leaves us with the third explanation.

Would Obama allocate his taxes himself… or would he have congress allocate his taxes for him? Would smart people allocate their taxes themselves… or would they have congress allocate their taxes for them? If the answer isn’t readily apparent… then I think the jury’s still out regarding the efficacy of impersonal shoppers. 

Pragmatarianism, as you describe it, is one way of using the benefits of markets to shape public policy. But relying on departments (such as the EPA in your example) to adequately inform the public, and then relying on the public to magnanimously make decisions about somewhat abstract, long-term issues, seems impossible. As you mention about the free-rider problem with public goods, people are always pulled toward self-interest, and *short-term* self interest at that. I don’t see any way such a full degree of direct public control could lead to anything planful, let alone thriving.

If the EPA is going to improve at a faster rate without consumer choice… then why would this only be true of government organizations? If the government… either through PB or representatives… is going to allocate the optimal amount of funding to the EPA… then why would this only be true of government organizations? 

When it comes to allocation methods… it’s not economically consistent to simultaneously support markets and not-markets. With markets… people’s say is earned. Not-markets reduce people’s earned say. PB eliminates everybody’s earned say and gives them all an equal say. According to PB… people’s value judgements are equally good. People should all have the same power/control/influence over society’s limited resources… regardless of how resourceful or wasteful they’ve been. However, according to representation… people’s value judgements are not equally good. Some people’s values judgements are better… and we can effectively identify these people and give them more say by using a system where everybody has an equal say (voting). The additional say that is given to representatives has to come from somewhere though… and that somewhere is people’s earned say. 

Utilizing all three allocation methods results in a very contradictory, confusing and counterproductive system…

There’s a long line of people waiting to get into Bob’s Bakery. Evidently they really love his baked goods! So they are willing to wait in line for the opportunity to put their money into his pocket. After they purchase Bob’s delicious baked goods… they head over to the townhall where they engage in some PB. This entails reaching back into Bob’s pocket… taking out some of the money that they just put in there… and voting on how it gets spent. Uh… what? They already decided how it should be spent! They decided that it should be spent on Bob’s baked goods. Do they, or do they not, want more of Bob’s baked goods? 

If we make the crazy assumption that Bob’s customers are actually going to vote for spending their/his money on the public goods that Bob needs in order to improve his business… then we also need to make the crazy assumption that his customers somehow know better than he does which public goods these are. Without these two crazy assumptions… the logical result is that people are going to be made worse off. Why? Because they are veering significant resources away from something that, according to their own spending decisions, makes them better off (more of Bob’s baked goods).

This same economically wacky process gets repeated, more or less, when Bob’s customers vote for Elizabeth Warren…

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. — Elizabeth Warren

With PB… one of the the crazy assumptions was that Bob’s customers know better than he does which public goods he needs more of. With representation… the crazy assumption is that Bob’s customers know that Elizabeth Warren knows better than Bob does which public goods he needs more of. Uh… what? So Warren knows best? 

The fact of the matter is that nobody has more incentive than Bob does to try and ensure that the line outside his bakery is as long as possible. So we can be confident that, if Warren truly does know better than Bob does which public goods that he needs more of in order to get richer… then he’ll be more than happy to put his taxes in her pocket. 

Personally though… I’m skeptical that 500 representatives can know better than millions and millions of business owners which public goods that they need more of in order to successfully operate their diverse businesses. In other words, I’m skeptical of command economies. In other words, I’m skeptical of socialism. Socialism doesn’t become any less sketchy just because it’s in our public sector. Overriding society’s dispersed knowledge and individual incentive is just as defective for public goods as it is for private goods.

In order to minimize economic wackiness… the basic rule should be that, once you voluntarily and intentionally and willingly put your money into somebody else’s pocket… then you shouldn’t be allowed to remove any portion of it. If you do happen to feel that Bob didn’t give you the most bread for your buck… then learn your lesson and buy your bread somewhere else next time. Consumer choice, driven by self-interest (the desire to maximize benefit) is how we truly maximize the rate of improvement. 

Regarding short-term self interest… what is it anyways? Partying when you should be studying? Playing when you should be working? Consuming when you should be producing? Taxpayers, by definition, are the people who give up momentary pleasure for future benefit.

Socialism wouldn’t be such a disaster if well-planned steps were usually in the right directions. But no amount of planning can guarantee that a step will be in the right direction. This doesn’t mean that we should eliminate planning… it means that we should never be so confident of our plans that we force people to go along with them. Solely relying on persuasion maximizes the flow of information. Like so! 

Decentralized planning helps society hedge its bets against a future that’s always uncertain. Which is why pragmatarianism is the world’s best plan. But as good as it is… I can never be 100% certain that it doesn’t have fundamentally fatal flaws. Therefore, I would never force anybody to invest any amount of their limited time/energy/money in it. 

Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts as well! 

Elizabeth Bunn vs Builderism

ActionNetwork.org decided to send me this e-mail from the AFL-CIO...

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

Friend,

Too many workers fear retaliation from their employer for speaking out about dangerous working conditions. A lot of workers remain silent, but Kimberly King—who worked at the Lear Corp. auto parts plant in Selma, Alabama, where she made seat cushions for Hyundai cars—couldn’t take it anymore.

Kimberly was diagnosed with asthma for the first time in her life and a doctor’s visit found high levels of toxins in her blood that could be from the chemicals she was exposed to at work. Turns out, Lear Corp. had been cited multiple times by the federal government for violating health and safety laws.

Kimberly decided to speak out. She joined a community delegation to ask Hyundai to protect workers who build parts for their cars. But she ended up being fired and sued by Lear Corp. for standing up. Hyundai has the power to step in and require Lear to do the right thing.

Sign the petition now to demand Hyundai take action to ensure safe working conditions and fair wages for Kimberly and other workers who build the parts for their cars. We’ll make sure your petition is added to the others being delivered to Hyundai on the day of action workers are holding next week.

Toluene Diisocyanate, or TDI, is the chemical that may be making workers at the plant ill. The chemical is used to make the foam in many car seats. Researchers say isocyanates like TDI are among the leading causes of workplace-induced asthma.

This is no way for a global auto parts manufacturer to be treating its very own workers. That's why auto parts workers and their families are organizing a day of action on June 25, 2015. We can’t do this without you and working families everywhere.

Click here now to demand that Hyundai protect workers at Lear and other companies that provide parts for their cars.

In Solidarity,

Elizabeth
-------------
Elizabeth Bunn
Director of Organizing, AFL-CIO

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

Not exactly sure how I ended up on this list.

After reading the e-mail I immediately searched for and found the "unsubscribe" link.  But... I didn't click it. It's not like I receive daily e-mails from ActionNetwork.  Plus, I suppose I derived some utility from the insight.  At least Elizabeth Bunn gave me a good excuse to share this chart...

Yeah

I'm tempted to sign the petition.  Because... solidarity.  For poor people in developing countries.  Like China.

Except, thanks to unions, China's no longer a developing country!  Right?  The cost of labor in China has skyrocketed.  So this makes it a lot less likely that Lear would move its factory to China.

What about Africa though?  Right now Elizabeth Bunn is doing her hardest to make Africa look more attractive to Lear.  And I could help out by signing the petition.

Maybe this petition will be the tipping point that will send manufacturers to Africa?  Probably not.  I wouldn't be surprised if union participation has to increase a bit more before Africa starts looking good... enough.

In theory, Bunn is supposed to represent the best interests of American union workers.  The question is... what's in their best interest?  Is it for Bunn to petition Lear to move its factory to Africa?  Or is it for Bunn to petition to eliminate barriers to entry?

If barriers to entry are eliminated.... then, logically, workers like Kimberly King would have more employment options.  How many more employment options?  I have no idea.  But it's a given that making it easier to start a business will ensure a larger supply of businesses.  It's also a given that no two employment options will be equally beneficial to workers like King.

Is it really a difficult concept that it's in the best interests of workers that they have more, rather than less, employment options?  When there's a smaller supply of employers... then employers will have the upper hand.  When there's a larger supply of employers... then workers will have the upper hand.

What, if anything, does Elizabeth Bunn do to help ensure that there's a larger supply of employers?  What percentage of its resources does the AFL-CIO allocate to making it easier to start a business?  Imagine if the AFL-CIO allocated 100% of its resources to making it easier to start a business!!  Wow!  How awesome would that be?  What would that e-mail look like?  Maybe something vaguely like this...

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

Friend,

There's more than one way to attach an epiphyte to a tree.  Up until now, we've endeavored to improve working conditions and compensation by trying to coerce business owners.  This strategy has backfired because, well, many jobs simply left the country.  Unfortunately, we're not omniscient.  We just don't know where the tipping point is.

It's time for a new strategy.  We're going to endeavor to improve working conditions by trying to make it easier for people to start a business.

Right now it's very difficult and costly to start a business.  The barrier to entry is extremely high.  There are so many regulations designed to benefit workers that every business has to hire an army of lawyers.  As a result of our good intentions, we've inadvertently erected a huge barrier to entry... which has massively reduced employment options.

If we can help tear down the barrier to entry... then workers will have more employment options.  More employment options means more competition for labor.  This will be immensely beneficial for workers.

Not only will this strategy benefit workers... but it will also benefit consumers.  Eliminating the barrier to entry will help ensure that consumers have many more products to choose from.  Businesses will have to compete harder for both workers and consumers.  With our new strategy the interests of workers and consumers will be perfectly aligned.  

Even with consumers firmly on our side though, this will be an uphill battle.  Any preexisting business greatly profits from the reduced competition that results from the existence of a very high barrier to entry.  But, with your help, we can win this battle.  Securing a lasting victory for competition will usher in a new era of prosperity and progress.

In Solidarity,

Elizabeth
-------------
Elizabeth Bunn
Director of Organizing, AFL-CIO

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

Perhaps a bit of history will help...

Every colonist gets more land than he can possibly cultivate. He has no rent, and scarce any taxes to pay. No landlord shares with him in its produce, and the share of the sovereign is commonly but a trifle. He has every motive to render as great as possible a produce, which is thus to be almost entirely his own. But his land is commonly so extensive that, with all his own industry, and with all the industry of other people whom he can get to employ, he can seldom make it produce the tenth part of what it is capable of producing. He is eager, therefore, to collect labourers from all quarters, and to reward them with the most liberal wages. But those liberal wages, joined to the plenty and cheapness of land, soon make those labourers leave him, in order to become landlords themselves, and to reward, with equal liberality, other labourers, who soon leave them for the same reason that they left their first master. The liberal reward of labour encourages marriage. The children, during the tender years of infancy, are well fed and properly taken care of, and when they are grown up, the value of their labour greatly overpays their maintenance. When arrived at maturity, the high price of labour, and the low price of land, enable them to establish themselves in the same manner as their fathers did before them. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

America!  With high wages!  Without labor regulations!  It was stupid easy to start a business (farming).  And it was stupid easy to employ people.  The high wages reflected the fact that it was stupid easy to start a business and employ people!  There was a larger supply of employers... which meant that workers had the upper hand.

What about England?

It frequently happens that while high wages are given to the workmen in one manufacture, those in another are obliged to content themselves with bare subsistence. The one is in an advancing state, and has, therefore, a continual demand for new hands: The other is in a declining state, and the super-abundance of hands is continually increasing. Those two manufactures may sometimes be in the same town, and sometimes in the same neighbourhood, without being able to lend the least assistance to one another. The statute of apprenticeship may oppose it in the one case, and both that and an exclusive corporation in the other. In many different manufactures, however, the operations are so much alike, that the workmen could easily change trades with one another, if those absurd laws did not hinder them. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

England!  With absurd laws!

What about America now?  Absurd laws!  If you need some clues here's the most recent/relevant article... 'Employee' Label Would End Uber as We Know It.

I blame people like Elizabeth Bunn.  Good at organizing, bad at understanding.  I can't really blame her though.  Just like Hitler, she's a victim of the system.

Watch...

Politicians aren’t experts, Mr. Laffer said. “They give a speech and if anyone boos, they change their speech,” he explained. “They’re living, breathing polls and that’s the way it should be.” - Patricia Cohen, Nelson D. Schwartz, Matchmaking Season for Republican Presidential Candidates and Economists

In sober truth, whatever homage may be professed, or even paid, to real or supposed mental superiority, the general tendency of things throughout the world is to render mediocrity the ascendant power among mankind. In ancient history, in the middle ages, and in a diminishing degree through the long transition from feudality to the present time, the individual was a power in himself; and if he had either great talents or a high social position, he was a considerable power. At present individuals are lost in the crowd. In politics it is almost a triviality to say that public opinion now rules the world. The only power deserving the name is that of masses, and of governments while they make themselves the organ of the tendencies and instincts of masses. This is as true in the moral and social relations of private life as in public transactions. Those whose opinions go by the name of public opinion, are not always the same sort of public: in America they are the whole white population; in England, chiefly the middle class. But they are always a mass, that is to say, collective mediocrity. And what is a still greater novelty, the mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church or State, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves, addressing them or speaking in their name, on the spur of the moment, through the newspapers. I am not complaining of all this. I do not assert that anything better is compatible, as a general rule, with the present low state of the human mind. But that does not hinder the government of mediocrity from being mediocre government. - J.S. Mill, On Liberty

Popular/Opinion = Shallow

Elizabeth Bunn is a product of shallowness.  This is because our education system is a product of shallowness.  Elizabeth Bunn did not read either the Wealth of Nations or On Liberty in high school.  She should have.  But she didn't.  As a result, she has a shallow understanding of the true source of prosperity and progress.  And she votes accordingly.  So does the majority.  The logical result is an abundance of absurd laws.

How do we break this vicious cycle?  J.S. Mill's solution was weighted voting...

But (though every one ought to have a voice) that every one should have an equal voice is a totally different proposition. When two persons who have a joint interest in any business, differ in opinion, does justice require that both opinions should be held of exactly equal value? If with equal virtue, one is superior to the other in knowledge and intelligence—or if with equal intelligence, one excels the other in virtue—the opinion, the judgment, of the higher moral or intellectual being, is worth more than that of the inferior: and if the institutions of the country virtually assert that they are of the same value, they assert a thing which is not. - J.S. Mill, Considerations on Representative Government

This is a catch 22 solution though because obviously the majority would not vote for weighted voting.  Tax choice is another catch 22 solution.  It only has 81 likes on facebook.

What are the chances that a solution will be discovered anytime soon?  Can you even imagine what a deep culture would look like?

Consequentialist Arguments Against Children's Suffrage

What's going on here?  Campaign anonymity rule thrown out

Xerographica: You don't support allowing children to vote because they are incompetent?
megaprogman: If my boys could vote, they would vote for darth vader (I just asked them). If my daughter could vote, it would be for a disney princess.
Xerographica: Are you saying that if kids could vote then we would end up with either darth vader or a disney princess as our president?
What if...?: It becomes a possibility.
megaprogman: Not likely since they are not real people, the votes would just be voided.

Not likely?  Heh.

If you ask enough adults why kids shouldn't be allowed to vote...then you'll understand what Churchill meant when he said that the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter.  Well...unless you happen to be an average voter yourself.  In that case, then you'll think that the average voter's arguments against kids voting merely confirm your own arguments against kids voting.

Would there be any ridiculous consequences of allowing children to vote?  Not if you understand the concept of tyranny of the majority.  What's a ridiculous consequence anyways?  How about prohibition?   Was that a ridiculous consequence?  Was that a good reason why women shouldn't have been allowed to vote?

Xerographica: You don't support allowing women to vote because they are incompetent?
megaprogman: If my wife could vote, she would vote for alcohol to be illegal (I just asked her)
Xerographica: Are you saying that if women could vote then we would end up with prohibition?
What if...?: It becomes a possibility.
megaprogman: Not likely since they are not real people, the votes would just be voided.

That people believe there's a problem with allowing kids to vote...clearly indicates that there is not.

In related news...check out my arguments against personal shoppers for public goods...What's Wrong With a Representative Democracy?  What do you think?  Are my arguments so good or no good?

Power and Control

Politics is all about power and control...which is why we need checks and balances.

Frank Herbert -  "He who controls the spice, controls the universe!" - Dune

Pragmatarianism would transfer some control of taxes from congress to taxpayers.  The amount of control transfered would be determined by taxpayers themselves and would reflect their confidence in congress.  This check on the power of congress would have been supported by Herbert Spencer.

Herbert Spencer 

     When that "divinity" which "doth hedge a king," and which in our day has left a glamour around the body inheriting his power, has quite died away - when it begins to be seen clearly that, in a popularly-governed nation, the government is simply a committee of management; it will also be seen that this committee of management has no intrinsic authority. The inevitable conclusion will be that its authority is given by those appointing it; and has just such bounds as they choose to impose. Along with this will go the further conclusion that the laws it passes are not in themselves sacred; but that whatever sacredness they have, is entirely due to the ethical sanction - an ethical sanction which, as we find, is derivable from the laws of human life as carried on under social conditions. And there will come the corollary that when they have not this ethical sanction they have no sacredness, and may be rightly challenged.

     The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments - Contemporary review, Volume 46

For a few weeks now a Marxist concept that I learned while studying International Development at UCLA has been on my mind but the word wasn't even on the tip of my tongue.  Surprisingly, I just remembered it..."comprador bourgeoisie".  Basically, they were well-connected, upper class, middlemen in developing countries.  A multinational corporation (MNC) would go into a developing country and deal with the local comprador bourgeoisie...who would help "facilitate" the MNC's exploitation of local resources.  The MNCs and the comprador bourgeoisie would get rich and very little, if any, money would trickle down to the proletariat.

Is it a bit much to think of congress as comprador bourgeoisie?  Perhaps...but, in a pragmatarian system, that would be up to each taxpayer to decide.  I kind of just wanted to write it down in case I forgot it again.

Another term that I struggled to remember was "moral hazard".  I'll just be lazy and grab this one from Wikipedia...

Moral hazard also arises in a principal-agent problem, where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot completely monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.

It's straightforward to see that the interests of congress (the agent) and taxpayers (the principle) are not completely aligned.  The primary goal of politicians is to be (re)elected so their interests are strongly aligned with whoever will finance their campaign.

Guido Calabresi 

In a market regime, some are made richer and some made poorer; in a command structure, some have greater authority and some less. It is equally clear that, in an all-market regime, wealth constitutes authority, and that, in an all-command structure, authority results in wealth. Also true, but perhaps less plain, is the fact that in mixed systems like ours people will use their distributional advantage in one medium to overcome their distributional disadvantage in the other by 'altering' or 'corrupting' that other medium. The use of money to influence or 'corrupt' those in authority is easy enough to understand, whether through bribes or campaign contributions.- The Origins of Law and Economics: Essays by the Founding Fathers

This is also know as rent-seeking behavior...when special interest groups and big business attempt to influence congress.

Some decades before Herbert Spencer was worrying about how the power of parliament would be limited...Alexis de Tocqueville was worrying about tyranny of the majority.  

Alexis de Tocqueville

Again, it may be objected that the poor are never invested with the sole power of making the laws; but I reply, that wherever universal suffrage has been established the majority of the community unquestionably exercises the legislative authority; and if it be proved that the poor always constitute the majority, it may be added, with perfect truth, that in the countries in which they possess the elective franchise they possess the sole power of making laws. But it is certain that in all the nations of the world the greater number has always consisted of those persons who hold no property, or of those whose property is insufficient to exempt them from the necessity of working in order to procure an easy subsistence. Universal suffrage does therefore, in point of fact, invest the poor with the government of society. - Democracy in America

As I pointed out in my entry on taxpayers, taxpayers are better educated than the general public.  Therefore, pragmatarianism would help function as a check against any possible tyranny of the majority.

To review, pragmatarianism would...

1. help check the power of congress
2. help check tyranny of the majority
3. result in an optimal division of labor between the private and public sector
4. ensure that public goods would be produced with maximum efficiency
5. ensure levels of all public goods would accurately reflect society's values
6. provide greater freedom
7. allow taxpayers to joyfully contribute to public goods