The Least Blind Group Will Win

Xerographica · Mar 12, 2017

The Libertarian Party (LP) has never won. But check this out…

https://www.lp.org/help-choose-theme-for-2018-convention/

Scroll down on that page and you’ll be able to see the actual demand for the different potential themes for their 2018 convention. We can see, in dollar amounts, just how important/relevant/valuable each theme is. We can see more! Being able to see more means being less blind! And whichever group is the least blind will win!

I’m pretty sure that markets work because they allow us to see the demand for things. In markets… people are less blind. The economic decisions they make more accurately reflect the rarity of resources in conditions and circumstances that are complex and constantly changing.

The LP is, in theory, the party that’s most supportive of markets. Now they are even allowing the market to choose the theme for their 2018 convention! If the LP allows the market to guide its biggest decisions then it will be the least blind group by far. And whichever group is the least blind will win!

Does anybody know of any other examples of surveys where voting has been replaced with spending? Do these type of surveys have a technical name?

ashurbanipal · Mar 15, 2017

Xerographica said:
In markets… people are less blind.

Seems likely to be false to me. What argument can you make for this claim?

Xerographica · Mar 16, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
Seems likely to be false to me. What argument can you make for this claim?

Before I had absolutely no idea how valuable the "Taxation is Theft" idea is... but now, thanks to the market, I can see and know that it is not very valuable.

ashurbanipal · Mar 16, 2017

Xerographica said:
Before I had absolutely no idea how valuable the "Taxation is Theft" idea is... but now, thanks to the market, I can see and know that it is not very valuable.

How is that an argument for the claim that people in markets are less blind (presumably less blind than people who are not in markets)?

Xerographica · Mar 17, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
How is that an argument for the claim that people in markets are less blind (presumably less blind than people who are not in markets)?

Seeing and knowing the demand for things = LESS BLIND

What's the demand for your threads here? We don't know. This isn't a market = MORE BLIND

ashurbanipal · Mar 17, 2017

Xerographica said:
Seeing and knowing the demand for things = LESS BLIND

What's the demand for your threads here? We don't know. This isn't a market = MORE BLIND

Doesn't make any sense to me. I can stand on the corner and see the cars pass by. So can my 70-year-old mom. But I'm less blind than see is.

All you're showing is something we already knew, that people in markets can see things. Not that they see more than others.

Xerographica · Mar 17, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
Doesn't make any sense to me. I can stand on the corner and see the cars pass by. So can my 70-year-old mom. But I'm less blind than see is.

All you're showing is something we already knew, that people in markets can see things. Not that they see more than others.

If you truly knew the benefit of seeing/knowing the demand for things, then you'd truly know the problem with markets being missing.

ashurbanipal · Mar 17, 2017

Xerographica said:
If you truly knew the benefit of seeing/knowing the demand for things, then you'd truly know the problem with markets being missing.

Well...maybe. You haven't given me any reason to believe your claims. Prima Facie, they sound quite silly.

Xerographica · Mar 17, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
Well...maybe. You haven't given me any reason to believe your claims. Prima Facie, they sound quite silly.

The Libertarian Party allowed the market to determine the order of themes. As a result, you are able to see and know the relative importance of each theme.

The DebatePolitics forum does not allow the market to determine the order of threads. As a result, you are unable to see and know the relative importance of each thread.

How can you possibly refute this? In the absence of markets, we are unable to see and know the relative importance of things.

Right now we don't have a market in the public sector. As a result, we are unable to see and know the relative importance of national defense, environmental protection and public education.

Right now we do have a market in the private sector. As a result, we are able to see and know the relative importance of donuts, shoes and computers.

What's the point of seeing and knowing the relative importance of things? It accurately informs us how society needs and wants us to use our time and brains.

How truly important to society is it for you and I to use our time and brains to discuss the value of the market? We don't know. We're here because we want to be here. But if this website allowed the market to determine the order of the threads.... then we would know just how important our current behavior is to society.

ashurbanipal · Mar 17, 2017

Xerographica said:
The Libertarian Party allowed the market to determine the order of themes. As a result, you are able to see and know the relative importance of each theme.

The DebatePolitics forum does not allow the market to determine the order of threads. As a result, you are unable to see and know the relative importance of each thread.

How can you possibly refute this?

I'm not sure what there is to refute. I have no reason to believe this is true in the first place.

Xerographica said:
In the absence of markets, we are unable to see and know the relative importance of things.

Hmmmm...I see and know that my personal integrity is worth more than, say, my little toe. Actually, it's worth more than any part of my body. I can see and know those things without the presence of any market.