• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Coasianism

Xerographica said:
Evidently you missed the part about coasianism replacing voting with spending. With coasianism... there wouldn't be any votes to buy.

Let's take prohibition for example. The majority voted for it. One side lost... the other side won. The outcome was not mutually beneficial.

What would have happened with coasianism? Each side would have spent as much money as they wanted on their preferred option. After all the participants spend their money... the money would be counted and the totals for each side revealed. Whichever side spent the most money would win. Not only would the losers have gotten their money back... but they would have gotten a proportional percentage of the money spent by the winners. So the outcome would have been mutually beneficial. The outcome would have been a mutually beneficial trade.

Let's say that I derive $100 dollars worth of benefit from drinking in one year. If you give me $200 dollars to quit drinking then it's a mutually beneficial trade. I gave up drinking for a year but gained something even more beneficial ($200). You gave up $200 dollars but gained something even more beneficial (me not drinking for one year).
Click to expand...

That's not substantively different from "buying votes."

This system is literally "the wealthy get to decide everything."
 
AlbqOwl said:
The person who invented coasianism was Ronald Coase. Coasianism is not spending--that would be more suit to a a discussion on Keynesianism-- but since I can make neither heads nor tails of what you want to discuss in the OP--and the link you provided is to an essay like document that is far too lengthy and wordy to inspire me to read it--I will accept my denseness in this matter and will withdraw from the thread. Do have a nice day though.
Click to expand...

Ronald Coase didn't invent coasianism. LOL. I named the idea of "replacing voting with spending" after him. The link is to my Medium story. It's too lengthy and wordy for you to read it? The OP was too short for you to understand but my Medium post was too long for you to understand.

And now you've bravely run away. Unlike Deuce. That guy has some thick skin. I have thick skin as well. It helps to have thick skin. Not sure if someone is born with thick skin or whether it can be thickened.
 
Deuce said:
That's not substantively different from "buying votes."

This system is literally "the wealthy get to decide everything."
Click to expand...
LOL. Yeah, let's prevent rich people from giving their money to poor people. In other words, let's end all employment. Oh Deuce, I can always count on you for some stupendous analysis.
 
Xerographica said:
LOL. Yeah, let's prevent rich people from giving their money to poor people. In other words, let's end all employment. Oh Deuce, I can always count on you for some stupendous analysis.
Click to expand...

And I can always count on you for an absolutely absurd interpretation of what people write.

On what planet did I suggest making it illegal to give money to someone? You know in the current system employment occurs, right? You know, the one I support already? But somehow, some way, you interpreted my statement as "end all employment." Jesus Christ.

Let me help you out here.

In the system you are supporting, political power is based entirely on disposable income. The wealthy would be able to implement whatever they want, because they just have more resources than everyone else. The lower quarter of income earners just wouldn't have a voice, because they couldn't afford it. They're going to pay rent and buy food before this not-voting. And if they aren't putting money into this voting pot, then they aren't "losing" the vote and get no money, right? So your system doesn't even give money to the very poor, because they wouldn't be voting in the first place. (don't argue semantics about this not technically being a vote, I'm calling it a vote because that's the system it replaces)

You don't suppose the wealthy would then implement a system that further entrenches their wealth, even if that comes at the expense of the poor? So, what, they'd have to pay a pittance to poor people to make that happen? It's a profitable decision anyway. right now, billions are spent lobbying to try and influence legislators to slant the system towards those who fund the lobbying. Imagine how much easier to corrupt the system gets when lobbying isn't a gamble anymore, but rather a direct purchase of power?

Laws implemented against my interests don't suddenly become beneficial to me just because I got a check for $20 in the mail.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Let me help you out here.
Click to expand...
Vague and generic hand-waving really doesn't help me out. Use a real issue that we've voted on, or might vote on, to juxtapose the two systems. If you're incapable of doing so then you'll simply prove that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you need a hand thinking of a real life issue? Probably. How about brexit? We know the outcome with the current system. So tell us what the outcome would have been with coasianism.
 
Xerographica said:
Vague and generic hand-waving really doesn't help me out. Use a real issue that we've voted on, or might vote on, to juxtapose the two systems. If you're incapable of doing so then you'll simply prove that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you need a hand thinking of a real life issue? Probably. How about brexit? We know the outcome with the current system. So tell us what the outcome would have been with coasianism.
Click to expand...

No, how about tax rates.

0% income tax above 100k. I bet that would pass.
 
Deuce said:
A mere 70 million could defeat a tax increase? And you don't see the issue?
Click to expand...
With coasianism... the money would be counted after the last participant had spent their money. So how could anybody know beforehand exactly how much either side would spend? Are you assuming that the rich people would know beforehand that the poor people would spend $67 million? In other words, are you assuming that all the rich people are omniscient? Don't you think it's stupid to assume that anybody is omniscient?

But let's say that 7,014,114 people did spend $67,100,000 for the tax increase and 5,653,637 people did spend $70,000,000 against the tax increase. Feel free to double check my math but this would mean that the average proponent would spend around $9.50 and the average opponent would spend around $12.40.

Let's say that you're a proponent and I'm an opponent. You'd get your $9.50 back and I'd give you $12.40. You'd lose the tax increase... but you'd gain $12.40. I'd lose $12.40... but I'd avoid a tax increase.

Don't these numbers sound iffy? Why are you only spending around $10 bucks and why am I only spending around $12 bucks? We're talking about a trip to McDonalds here. I'm guessing that the tax increase would cost me a lot more than a trip to McDonalds. Which means that a tax increase would benefit you a lot more than a trip to McDonalds.

Let's say that a tax increase would set me back $10,000 dollars. Would I spend this to try and prevent the tax increase? Even if I won... I'd still be out $10,000 dollars. How likely would it be that I'd lose? Why would you, a proponent, spend more than the tax increase would be worth to you? You wouldn't.

So how much should I spend? Let's say that I spend $9,000 dollars. How much do you spend? You know that I'm not going to spend more than the tax increase. You know I'm going to spend less than the tax increase. You could spend $1... but you understand that the winnings are divided proportionally. The more you spend... the more you get. So how much do you spend?

Let's say that you spend $500 and your side loses. You get your $500 back and you get my $9,000 (we're pretending this would be the proportional amount). You lose the tax increase... but got $9,000. I won so there's no tax increase... but I did have to pay $9,000.... which means that I'm $1000 dollars better off than I would have been if the tax rate had increased.

The issue is whether the $9,000 in your pocket is better than the $10,000 dollars that would have been in the government's pocket if the tax rate had increased. How much of that $10,000 dollars would have ended up in your pocket in the form of benefits?

In any case, I completely fail to see how coasianism is clearly and obviously beneficial for the wealthy. So either come up with better numbers or come up with an argument against coasianism that isn't dumb.
 
Last edited:
Xerographica said:
The outcome of voting is never mutually beneficial. But if we replaced voting with spending (coasianism), then the outcome would be mutually beneficial.

In this story on Medium... here's how I inappropriately summed up coasianism...

If I was stranded on a deserted island with some animal liberation chick… and she was like, “I’ll have sex with you if you stop eating rats and fish”… then it’s entirely possible that I might consider it to be a good deal.
Click to expand...

Then you'd probably both die. Happy, maybe, but still dead.
 
Xerographica said:
Don't you think it's stupid to assume that anybody is omniscient?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Until you can start debating honestly, I see no reason to continue. You have to admit that this isn't what I suggested, or you're just a liar. Which is it?
 
Deuce said:
Until you can start debating honestly, I see no reason to continue. You have to admit that this isn't what I suggested, or you're just a liar. Which is it?
Click to expand...
You suggested that, with coasianism, the wealthy simply would have spent $70 million in order to defeat the tax increase. I asked you how the wealthy, or anybody, could possibly know beforehand that this was the correct amount of money to spend. The only way that they could truly know beforehand would be if they were omniscient. So I asked if this is what you were assuming.

If you're not assuming omniscience... then you need to explain how the wealthy came up with this number.
 
Xerographica said:
You suggested that, with coasianism, the wealthy simply would have spent $70 million in order to defeat the tax increase. I asked you how the wealthy, or anybody, could possibly know beforehand that this was the correct amount of money to spend. The only way that they could truly know beforehand would be if they were omniscient. So I asked if this is what you were assuming.

If you're not assuming omniscience... then you need to explain how the wealthy came up with this number.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they knew the number in advance, merely that this was all that is required.

Do you understand now?
 
Deuce said:
I didn't say they knew the number in advance, merely that this was all that is required.

Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

What you're saying has absolutely no relevance to coasianism. With coasianism... people only know their own valuations of the tax increase. They spend their money accordingly. After they all do so... the money is counted and the totals are revealed. After the fact people can say, "Oh, $150 million was all that we needed to win." But by then it's not like they can go back and change the amount that they spent.

As it stands... you have yet to make even a moderately decent argument against coasianism. Everybody with at least half a brain can see this. Either make a decent argument or admit that you're incapable of doing so.
 
Xerographica said:
What you're saying has absolutely no relevance to coasianism. With coasianism... people only know their own valuations of the tax increase. They spend their money accordingly. After they all do so... the money is counted and the totals are revealed. After the fact people can say, "Oh, $150 million was all that we needed to win." But by then it's not like they can go back and change the amount that they spent.

As it stands... you have yet to make even a moderately decent argument against coasianism. Everybody with at least half a brain can see this. Either make a decent argument or admit that you're incapable of doing so.
Click to expand...

You're just handwaving utterly massive corruption problems. You don't need to know the exact number to beat the other side when you have hundreds of times their resources. You hire people to get the best estimate of what will be spent, and beat that by a comfortable margin. Boom. 0% tax rates on the wealthy. How about massive government subsidies for whatever business you happen to run, at the taxpayers' expense. They'll be on the hook for ten times the amount they get back in your little kickback system, and they can't do anything about it because they're badly outgunned in the dollars department.


If you can't make any argument to defend your stupid system, admit you're incapable of doing so.
 
Deuce said:
You're just handwaving utterly massive corruption problems. You don't need to know the exact number to beat the other side when you have hundreds of times their resources.
Click to expand...
Really? Hundreds of times their resources?

Xerographica said:
Donations

Yes: $67,100,000
No: $53,400,000
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
You hire people to get the best estimate of what will be spent, and beat that by a comfortable margin. Boom. 0% tax rates on the wealthy.
Click to expand...
My argument is that the outcome of coasianism is mutually beneficial. In order to disprove this... you need to come up with some realistic numbers. How much did the proponents spend? How much did the opponents spend?

Deuce said:
How about massive government subsidies for whatever business you happen to run, at the taxpayers' expense. They'll be on the hook for ten times the amount they get back in your little kickback system, and they can't do anything about it because they're badly outgunned in the dollars department.
Click to expand...
Coasianism replaces voting with spending. Do we vote on subsidies for businesses? If so, then you should have absolutely no problem providing a real world example for us to work with.

Deuce said:
If you can't make any argument to defend your stupid system, admit you're incapable of doing so.
Click to expand...
How can I defend my system when you're not even attacking it?

Be a man and show your work. I've already shown my work and you completely failed to disprove it. The longer you fail to show your work, the more obvious it will become that you're either incapable of doing so... or you're capable of doing so but you realize that it proves, rather than disproves, the mutual benefit of coasianism.
 
Xerographica said:
Really? Hundreds of times their resources?
Click to expand...

Yes, they have hundreds of times the resources. You're giving numbers for a system that still requires votes and trying to pretend this would be the outcome in your system. You haven't shown any numbers, you've stolen numbers from an entirely different scenario.

A law making it illegal to drive a car doesn't become beneficial to me just because I got a $20 check. It's not mutually beneficial.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, they have hundreds of times the resources. You're giving numbers for a system that still requires votes and trying to pretend this would be the outcome in your system. You haven't shown any numbers, you've stolen numbers from an entirely different scenario.
Click to expand...
It's entirely plausible that the wealthy would have spent a lot more with coasianism. If this is your argument... then show your frickin work.

Deuce said:
A law making it illegal to drive a car doesn't become beneficial to me just because I got a $20 check. It's not mutually beneficial.
Click to expand...
If you got a $20 check... then it's only because you spent less than $20 dollars. If you value being able to drive a car for less than $20 dollars... and you receive $20 dollars to not drive your car... then clearly the outcome was mutually beneficial.

Right now it's illegal, mostly, to solicit prostitutes. How much does this harm you? Or... how much does it benefit you? I have no idea. Do you think lawmakers have any idea? Do you think the law can possibly maximize benefit when lawmakers have no f'ing clue how much this law benefits or harms people?

With coasianism... if this law harms you... then you'd have to figure out how much, exactly, this law harms you in one year. Let's say that it harms you to the tune of $500 dollars. In other words... this is how much benefit that you'd derive if prostitution was legal. Would you spend $500 with coasianism? Probably not. Maybe you'd spend $400 bucks. If your side won... then you'd be $100 dollars better off than you currently are. If your side lost... then you'd be at least $400 dollars better off than you currently are. Show me some numbers that would result you in being worse off than you currently are.
 
Xerographica said:
It's entirely plausible that the wealthy would have spent a lot more with coasianism. If this is your argument... then show your frickin work.


If you got a $20 check... then it's only because you spent less than $20 dollars. If you value being able to drive a car for less than $20 dollars... and you receive $20 dollars to not drive your car... then clearly the outcome was mutually beneficial.

Right now it's illegal, mostly, to solicit prostitutes. How much does this harm you? Or... how much does it benefit you? I have no idea. Do you think lawmakers have any idea? Do you think the law can possibly maximize benefit when lawmakers have no f'ing clue how much this law benefits or harms people?

With coasianism... if this law harms you... then you'd have to figure out how much, exactly, this law harms you in one year. Let's say that it harms you to the tune of $500 dollars. In other words... this is how much benefit that you'd derive if prostitution was legal. Would you spend $500 with coasianism? Probably not. Maybe you'd spend $400 bucks. If your side won... then you'd be $100 dollars better off than you currently are. If your side lost... then you'd be at least $400 dollars better off than you currently are. Show me some numbers that would result you in being worse off than you currently are.
Click to expand...

I'm $400 better off? I can't get to work. Now I don't have income to contest further laws with.

Being able to get to work is worth my entire income, but I can't actually donate my entire income to fight the law I oppose.
 
Let me put it this way:

Let's say I'm very poor. My disposable income is roughly $30/week, and I use all of it to fight some law I oppose.

You're seriously suggesting that I only value fighting the law at $30. How is this not obvious to you?
 
Deuce said:
I'm $400 better off? I can't get to work. Now I don't have income to contest further laws with.

Being able to get to work is worth my entire income, but I can't actually donate my entire income to fight the law I oppose.
Click to expand...

The $400 had nothing to do with the law against driving. The $400 had to do with the law against prostitution.

For some reason I remember you being more.... coherent. I thought maybe that I got you confused with another member so I searched for and found this thread...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/85674-ask-pragmatarian.html

Nope, I didn't get you confused with another member. You used to be more coherent. Your reading comprehension was never perfect.... but now it seems noticeably worse. What happened?
 
Xerographica said:
The $400 had nothing to do with the law against driving. The $400 had to do with the law against prostitution.

For some reason I remember you being more.... coherent. I thought maybe that I got you confused with another member so I searched for and found this thread...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/85674-ask-pragmatarian.html

Nope, I didn't get you confused with another member. You used to be more coherent. Your reading comprehension was never perfect.... but now it seems noticeably worse. What happened?
Click to expand...

Your continuous dishonesty makes me less interested in careful reading of your posts. Be an adult and you will be treated like an adult. Until then, i will continue to treat your posts with the lack of respect they deserve. Once again, you are dodging, and attacking my character. That's, what, six times in this thread so far? Maybe if you stopped ****ing doing that, I'd respond better? But that would require simple understanding of human interactions, so I wont hold my breath for you to do that. Years ago, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You were new here, and deserved a chance, and some effort. You squandered that. Deal with it.

So, I got a $20 check in the mail. But I can't drive my car. You're seriously suggesting that I'm benefiting from this arrangement? That $20 was all I had. On what planet does this arrangement make things better for me?

Do you have any defense of this outcome?
 
Last edited:
Most simply put:

How easy is it to corrupt a system when laws can literally be purchased? Pretty easy. You think money's influence on politics is bad now? This system would make it so much easier.
 
Deuce said:
Your continuous dishonesty makes me less interested in careful reading of your posts. Be an adult and you will be treated like an adult. Until then, i will continue to treat your posts with the lack of respect they deserve. Once again, you are dodging, and attacking my character. That's, what, six times in this thread so far? Maybe if you stopped ****ing doing that, I'd respond better? But that would require simple understanding of human interactions, so I wont hold my breath for you to do that. Years ago, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You were new here, and deserved a chance, and some effort. You squandered that. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
I'm attacking your character? You just admitted that you're carelessly reading my posts. That's your character. It's certainly not my character. Even though I disagree with what you say I'll still take the time and make the effort to carefully read your posts.

Deuce said:
So, I got a $20 check in the mail. But I can't drive my car. You're seriously suggesting that I'm benefiting from this arrangement? That $20 was all I had. On what planet does this arrangement make things better for me?

Do you have any defense of this outcome?
Click to expand...
In your scenario... you spend $20 dollars for driving to be legal... your side loses... so driving is illegal... but you get $20 dollars. Why did your side lose when both sides spent the same exact amount of money?

Think about tug of war. You say that both sides pull equally hard on the rope... but your side loses and ends up in the mud. How does that make any sense?
 
Xerographica said:
I'm attacking your character? You just admitted that you're carelessly reading my posts. That's your character. It's certainly not my character. Even though I disagree with what you say I'll still take the time and make the effort to carefully read your posts.


In your scenario... you spend $20 dollars for driving to be legal... your side loses... so driving is illegal... but you get $20 dollars. Why did your side lose when both sides spent the same exact amount of money?

Think about tug of war. You say that both sides pull equally hard on the rope... but your side loses and ends up in the mud. How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

The other side spent more, but I'm only getting $20. That's all my cut ended up being.

Surely you understand that it's not actually just me against one other person. I have to split the "pot" with the hundred million or so people who were on my side.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom