Voting VS Spending

[Xerographica]

Sorry, quoting any economist, including Adam Smith pretty much destroyed your argument.  Or quoting any politician.  Might as well quote Al Capone on law enforcement.

What about Karl Popper?  Is it safe to quote him?  If so...

If I am standing quietly, without making any movement, then (according to the physiologists) my muscles are constantly at work, contracting and relaxing in an almost random fashion, but controlled, without my being aware of it, by error-elimination so that every little deviation from my posture is almost at once corrected. So I am kept standing, quietly, by more or less the same method by which an automatic pilot keeps an aircraft steadily on its course. â€" Karl Popper, Of Clouds and Clocks

Is there a problem with this quote?  If not, then please compare and contrast it with this one...

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.  â€" Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

[Xerographica]

I have filled in that blank multiple times this thread, and you know I have.  You just refuse to address the issues I have raised and for you to pull this stunt now simply confirms that you're a dishonest debater.  You don't see what you don't want to see, which is what makes this exercise exactly like debating a creationist.

I have been perfectly clear what my objections to your thesis, assumptions and methodology are.

Over and over I've said that my experiment can potentially falsify my belief in spending.  Not once have you said that my experiment, or any experiment, can potentially falsify your belief in voting.  Yet you think that I am the one who is like a creationist? 

From the beginning I wanted to be friends and collaborate on conducting an experiment that would test our respective beliefs.  But instead of being down for a really good cause, you've been the primary obstacle.  And I honestly don't understand your objections to my proposed experiment. 

Voting is really straightforward.  There's nothing at all difficult to understand about members of this forum using voting to rank prominent atheists. 

Donating is also really straightforward.  There's nothing at all difficult to understand about members of this forum using donating to rank prominent atheists. 

Voting would create one ranking of prominent atheists while donating would create another ranking.  We would all be able to compare the two rankings and decide for ourselves which one is better.   

You don't like this experiment?  Fine.  You don't like any experiment that would compare voting and donating?  Then you've got an issue.  If you do, however, happen to prefer some other experiment to test voting and donating, then please start a thread and propose it. 

[trdsf]

You don't like this experiment?  Fine.  You don't like any experiment that would compare voting and donating?  Then you've got an issue.  If you do, however, happen to prefer some other experiment to test voting and donating, then please start a thread and propose it.

I explicitly stated that if you fixed your methodology and the errors in design, I would have no objection.  To assert that I object to all testing is strawmanning at the best, if not a deliberate lie.

This is what I mean about not reading, not paying attention, not understanding.  Go back and re-read what I've written, since it's crystal clear you haven't yet.

[Xerographica]

I explicitly stated that if you fixed your methodology and the errors in design, I would have no objection.  To assert that I object to all testing is strawmanning at the best, if not a deliberate lie.

This is what I mean about not reading, not paying attention, not understanding.  Go back and re-read what I've written, since it's crystal clear you haven't yet.

Remember the time when I said that there are a few things that the Bible gets really right?  I said that one thing is that there's safety in the multitude of counselors.  Here's another thing that the Bible gets really right... don't hide your light under a bushel.  If you genuinely believe that your proposed improvements to my proposed experiment are truly valuable... then don't make myself, or anybody else, dig through 7 pages of this thread in order to try and find them.  Start a thread dedicated to your suggestions.  If it's not worth it for you to do so, then you must not highly value your suggestions... and neither should I. 

[Baruch]

Karl Popper is a philosopher of science.  Name dropping random names doesn't help your argument.  Economics, politics, philosophy (including voting philosophy (a very active sub area)) are not sciences.  They are pissing contests by people with big words or big armies.  Economics specializes in the abuse of arithmetic ... which is used by politicians to abuse people.  Philosophers just abuse your ears and eyes.

[trdsf]

Remember the time when I said that there are a few things that the Bible gets really right?  I said that one thing is that there's safety in the multitude of counselors.  Here's another thing that the Bible gets really right... don't hide your light under a bushel.  If you genuinely believe that your proposed improvements to my proposed experiment are truly valuable... then don't make myself, or anybody else, dig through 7 pages of this thread in order to try and find them.  Start a thread dedicated to your suggestions.  If it's not worth it for you to do so, then you must not highly value your suggestions... and neither should I.

It's not my job to fix your so-called experiment.  You're the one who thinks there's a point to be made, it's your job to correct it.  I have no interest in attempting to prove your point for you, nor any responsibility to do so.  All you're accomplishing here, at least as far as I'm concerned, is adding the category 'intellectually lazy' to 'dishonest debater'.

If you didn't want to hear what people honestly thought about your idea, why did you start a thread?

[Baruch]

It's not my job to fix your so-called experiment.  You're the one who thinks there's a point to be made, it's your job to correct it.  I have no interest in attempting to prove your point for you, nor any responsibility to do so.  All you're accomplishing here, at least as far as I'm concerned, is adding the category 'intellectually lazy' to 'dishonest debater'.

If you didn't want to hear what people honestly thought about your idea, why did you start a thread?

He is working out the kinks, but he isn't kinky enough ;-)

[Xerographica]

Karl Popper is a philosopher of science.  Name dropping random names doesn't help your argument.  Economics, politics, philosophy (including voting philosophy (a very active sub area)) are not sciences.  They are pissing contests by people with big words or big armies.  Economics specializes in the abuse of arithmetic ... which is used by politicians to abuse people.  Philosophers just abuse your ears and eyes.

It's random for me to mention Karl Popper?  Why do you think that?  According to Popper, the potential for something to be falsifiable is what determines whether or not it's a science.  Yet, here you are saying that economics is not a science. 

My economic theory is that spending is better than voting.  As I've endeavored to explain in this thread, this theory can potentially be falsified. 

[Xerographica]

It's not my job to fix your so-called experiment.  You're the one who thinks there's a point to be made, it's your job to correct it.  I have no interest in attempting to prove your point for you, nor any responsibility to do so.  All you're accomplishing here, at least as far as I'm concerned, is adding the category 'intellectually lazy' to 'dishonest debater'.

If you didn't want to hear what people honestly thought about your idea, why did you start a thread?

Like I said, I honestly don't understand your objections to my proposed experiment.  If you shared your objections in a thread that you started, then other people could offer their honest thoughts on your objections.  I'd read their thoughts and this would hopefully help me better understand your objections.   

[trdsf]

Like I said, I honestly don't understand your objections to my proposed experiment.  If you shared your objections in a thread that you started, then other people could offer their honest thoughts on your objections.  I'd read their thoughts and this would hopefully help me better understand your objections.

How difficult is it to understand that when you can't (as you have already admitted) differentiate between the spending of several hundred low/middle resource individuals and one high-resource individual, your methodology is completely useless?  You're utterly incapable of relating donations to public will, without resorting to a vote.

That explicitly means the vote is more important for measuring public will than money is.  QED.

[Xerographica]

How difficult is it to understand that when you can't (as you have already admitted) differentiate between the spending of several hundred low/middle resource individuals and one high-resource individual, your methodology is completely useless?  You're utterly incapable of relating donations to public will, without resorting to a vote.

That explicitly means the vote is more important for measuring public will than money is.  QED.

The only way that my methodology could be useless is if it made it impossible for my belief in spending to be falsified.  Consider, yet again, the results from the LP's fundraiser...

$6,327.00 â€" I’m That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 â€" Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 â€" Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 â€" Empowering the Individual
$395.00 â€" The Power of Principle
$150.00 â€" Future of Freedom
$135.00 â€" Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 â€" Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 â€" Free Lives Matter
$42.00 â€" Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 â€" Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 â€" Taxation is Theft
$15.00 â€" Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 â€" All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 â€" Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 â€" Liberty Here and Now

What do I need to see in order for my belief in spending to be falsified?  Do I need to see how many people donated how much money to each theme?  No.  Do I need to see each donor's tax returns?  No.  All I need to see is that voting would have ranked "Taxation Is Theft" around the same, or lower, than donating did.  This is all I need to see in order for my belief in spending to be falsified.   

Like myself, I'm sure that you agree that "Taxation Is Theft" is a stupid theme.  So the higher it was ranked by voting, the stronger your belief in voting would be falsified. 

Does this make sense?  The entire goal of the experiment is to potentially falsify our beliefs.  This is the basis by which the methodology should be judged.   

So if you want to criticize the methodology, then you have to do so in terms of falsifiability. 

Right now I'm telling you this methodology has the potential to falsify my belief in spending.  This means that you can't say the methodology is useless.  You can certainly say that it's useless for you, but then you'd have to explain why your belief in voting is harder to falsify than my belief in spending. 

[trdsf]

What do I need to see in order for my belief in spending to be falsified?  Do I need to see how many people donated how much money to each theme?  No.  Do I need to see each donor's tax returns?  No.  All I need to see is that voting would have ranked "Taxation Is Theft" around the same, or lower, than donating did.  This is all I need to see in order for my belief in spending to be falsified.   

It already IS falsified because you can't differentiate between 100 donors donating $10 each, or one donor donating $1000.  It's just that simple, and you refuse to see it.  Money is a religion to you.

[Xerographica]

It already IS falsified because you can't differentiate between 100 donors donating $10 each, or one donor donating $1000.  It's just that simple, and you refuse to see it.  Money is a religion to you.

My belief is that voting elevates trash (ie "Taxation Is Theft") while spending elevates treasure (ie "Building Bridges, Not Walls").  How can this belief already be falsified if I don't actually see how voting ranks the convention themes? 

I'm saying that a corvette is faster than a pinto and a race would prove this.  You're arguing that a race wouldn't prove this because it wouldn't reveal what's under the corvette's hood.  Why do I need to see what's under the corvette's hood?  If what's under its hood is crap, then obviously it's not going to win the race. 

[trdsf]

My belief is that voting elevates trash (ie "Taxation Is Theft") while spending elevates treasure (ie "Building Bridges, Not Walls").  How can this belief already be falsified if I don't actually see how voting ranks the convention themes?

Then you're asserting the purest sort of elitism, where those with the money make the rules, and fuck everyone else.  Again, that's explicitly and entirely opposed to the notion of 'public will'.

I'm saying that a corvette is faster than a pinto and a race would prove this.  You're arguing that a race wouldn't prove this because it wouldn't reveal what's under the corvette's hood.  Why do I need to see what's under the corvette's hood?  If what's under its hood is crap, then obviously it's not going to win the race.

No, what you're saying is that a new $50,000 Mercedes or 50 used $1000 Yugos are better than a $30,000 Cadillac for no reason more than that it costs more, and that under your system you'd have to judge the one Mercedes and the 50 Yugos as identical.

You're measuring nothing that has anything to do with public will.

[Baruch]

Then you're asserting the purest sort of elitism, where those with the money make the rules, and fuck everyone else.  Again, that's explicitly and entirely opposed to the notion of 'public will'.

No, what you're saying is that a new $50,000 Mercedes or 50 used $1000 Yugos are better than a $30,000 Cadillac for no reason more than that it costs more, and that under your system you'd have to judge the one Mercedes and the 50 Yugos as identical.

You're measuring nothing that has anything to do with public will.

A millionaire is worth a million times as much as a street urchin ;-(