Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why vote when you can fap

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 1:39:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Given the very generous bounty of a $10 trillion dollar boon for the economy if the right guy gets elected, and historical vote margins determining the probability of influencing the election, the expected value of voting intelligently is just under 4 cents.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 2:19:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I totally disagree with Carlin. The public is rationally ignorant of politics. Getting educated and voting intelligently has a generous expected payoff of less than 4 cents... :P
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 2:19:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 2:16:14 PM, djsherin wrote:


Of course he doesn't vote, the dead can't vote.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 6:36:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 6:33:46 PM, Sieben wrote:
Nothing? Come on I know all you twerps believe in democracy. Defend it!

Who believes in democracy?
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 6:40:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I donno... Not everyone's an anarchist. I assume that we don't have a large monarchist population on DDO either, which basically only leaves democracy. You're right though people could just not pick anything and have an incoherent political philosophy (which was my expectation anyway).
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 7:33:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 6:40:52 PM, Sieben wrote:
I donno... Not everyone's an anarchist. I assume that we don't have a large monarchist population on DDO either, which basically only leaves democracy. You're right though people could just not pick anything and have an incoherent political philosophy (which was my expectation anyway).

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:16:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Aren't you boiling people down into calculators? Plus, people aren't just worried about themselves, but about everyone else as well to an extent. And because people don't operate in such robotic ways, time will still be invested in voter decisions either way. Everyone has their views of how to improve society, and a quick internet search can indicate which candidate is best suited for that person's vote, so I don't see this as that big a deal.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:22:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:16:46 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Aren't you boiling people down into calculators? Plus, people aren't just worried about themselves, but about everyone else as well to an extent.

I was very generous with the economic benefits of voting. 10 trillion dollars. And the differential only amounts to 3.3 cents.

And because people don't operate in such robotic ways, time will still be invested in voter decisions either way.
This is the charity argument that you shoot down all the time when market advocates use it.

Everyone has their views of how to improve society, and a quick internet search can indicate which candidate is best suited for that person's vote, so I don't see this as that big a deal.
If you spend 5 minutes figuring out which candidate is better, you are working for 12*3.5/100 = $0.42 an hour. So searching for information on candidates should be illegal because it means you're working below minimum wage.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:26:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 6:40:52 PM, Sieben wrote:
I donno... Not everyone's an anarchist. I assume that we don't have a large monarchist population on DDO either, which basically only leaves democracy. You're right though people could just not pick anything and have an incoherent political philosophy

There's nothing incoherent about caring more about the policy of a government than whether it happens to be elected.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:28:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:16:46 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Aren't you boiling people down into calculators?

It's true that a lot of people are too stupid to understand exactly why they vote, but they still, somewhere deep down inside, haunting them, have a vague sense that this is correct.

In fact, it is because they have this vague sense that they vote the way they do. That is, with little information. If they actually thought there vote would make a difference they would do a lot more research about policies and the candidates before casting their ballot on election day.

Because their vote has effectively no chance of making a difference, however, they are free to vote in whatever way bring them the most psychic satisfaction.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:31:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:26:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/15/2011 6:40:52 PM, Sieben wrote:
I donno... Not everyone's an anarchist. I assume that we don't have a large monarchist population on DDO either, which basically only leaves democracy. You're right though people could just not pick anything and have an incoherent political philosophy

There's nothing incoherent about caring more about the policy of a government than whether it happens to be elected.

Well, if all you say is "I want marijuana to be legal", then no. But that isn't a political philosophy, or an institutional framework, or anything. You're just kind of sending down commands without trying to figure out whether the policy makes practical sense.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:45:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:31:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:26:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/15/2011 6:40:52 PM, Sieben wrote:
I donno... Not everyone's an anarchist. I assume that we don't have a large monarchist population on DDO either, which basically only leaves democracy. You're right though people could just not pick anything and have an incoherent political philosophy

There's nothing incoherent about caring more about the policy of a government than whether it happens to be elected.

Well, if all you say is "I want marijuana to be legal", then no. But that isn't a political philosophy, or an institutional framework, or anything.
"I want marijuana to be legal" is a strawman, because it is a single policy. I do have a political philosophy. It remains coherent even though I lack an institutional framework for it. Multiple institutional frameworks are acceptable.

If I can revolt and win, will I because marijuana is illegal? Yes. If I can revolt and win, however, I will not take into account whether my opponent is a self-proclaimed God-emperor or a majority. If i revolt and win, will I set up a democracy, or a dictatorship with myself at head, or something in between? Well, that depends on particular circumstances, like where I got the power to revolt and win, how much relative resistance each will face, whether the voters there are more or less fickle than usual....My philosophy no more answers that than welfare liberalism answers where the floor income should be.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:48:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:45:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"I want marijuana to be legal" is a strawman, because it is a single policy. I do have a political philosophy. It remains coherent even though I lack an institutional framework for it. Multiple institutional frameworks are acceptable.

Its just an example. I'm not talking specifically about you.

See I don't think policy is the interesting part. Its institutional frameworks... particularly since which framework you choose will determine whether your policies get implemented properly.

If I can revolt and win, will I because marijuana is illegal? Yes. If I can revolt and win, however, I will not take into account whether my opponent is a self-proclaimed God-emperor or a majority. If i revolt and win, will I set up a democracy, or a dictatorship with myself at head, or something in between? Well, that depends on particular circumstances, like where I got the power to revolt and win, how much relative resistance each will face, whether the voters there are more or less fickle than usual....My philosophy no more answers that than welfare liberalism answers where the floor income should be.

So you have a philosophy of law, but don't touch political philosophy.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:55:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:48:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
See I don't think policy is the interesting part. Its institutional frameworks... particularly since which framework you choose will determine whether your policies get implemented properly.
Not blind to other variables it won't. The framework determines which particular people get power. The particular people implement the policies. It is important to first discover what people are available to you, which ones are more likely to stick with your policies, and then try to craft institutions that stick with those people or types of people staying in power.

I can't do that right now because, frankly, I don't have people available to me. It's not a question that can be solved until you've won a revolt. The people you study are the ones you won the revolt with and the ones who resisted you.


If I can revolt and win, will I because marijuana is illegal? Yes. If I can revolt and win, however, I will not take into account whether my opponent is a self-proclaimed God-emperor or a majority. If i revolt and win, will I set up a democracy, or a dictatorship with myself at head, or something in between? Well, that depends on particular circumstances, like where I got the power to revolt and win, how much relative resistance each will face, whether the voters there are more or less fickle than usual....My philosophy no more answers that than welfare liberalism answers where the floor income should be.

So you have a philosophy of law, but don't touch political philosophy.
That's like saying I study food, but not organic matter. Politics is the determination of who must be shot under what circumstances. What I don't have is an institutional philosophy. A political philosophy can but needn't include institutional rules.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:00:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:22:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
So searching for information on candidates should be illegal because it means you're working below minimum wage.

However, minimum wage laws are bullsh1t.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 7:21:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:55:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Not blind to other variables it won't. The framework determines which particular people get power. The particular people implement the policies.
I thought the whole point of markets was that we don't have problems of personality, we have problems of office. I think Obama would make an excellent libertarian lawmaker if he would lose his job for attacking people.

It is important to first discover what people are available to you, which ones are more likely to stick with your policies, and then try to craft institutions that stick with those people or types of people staying in power.
So basically you're depending on charity and goodwill of a handful of people?

I can't do that right now because, frankly, I don't have people available to me. It's not a question that can be solved until you've won a revolt. The people you study are the ones you won the revolt with and the ones who resisted you.

But there are zounds of alternative ways to make the status quo libertarian. Just consider that if a technology existed to make tax dodging super cheap and safe, everyone would do it, and the state would be dealt a crippling blow within weeks.

So you have a philosophy of law, but don't touch political philosophy.
That's like saying I study food, but not organic matter. Politics is the determination of who must be shot under what circumstances. What I don't have is an institutional philosophy. A political philosophy can but needn't include institutional rules.
No. Law is the determination of who must be shot. Political philosophy is institutional.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 2:14:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:22:33 PM, Sieben wrote:

I was very generous with the economic benefits of voting. 10 trillion dollars. And the differential only amounts to 3.3 cents.

That's only the individual benefit in monetary terms.

This is the charity argument that you shoot down all the time when market advocates use it.

Sure, and that's why I agree with your argument to an extent. However, the incentive structure and benefits are distinct. Market charity only yields emotional benefits, while voter charity yields other sorts of returns as well. If I don't invest time into voting, then a moron president might crash the economy and reinstate DADT, which I don't like on an individual, collective, emotional, or monetary level.

If you spend 5 minutes figuring out which candidate is better, you are working for 12*3.5/100 = $0.42 an hour. So searching for information on candidates should be illegal because it means you're working below minimum wage.

The minimum wage doesn't apply to those who are self-employed. The minimum wage doesn't apply to voting either.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 3:52:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 2:14:46 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:22:33 PM, Sieben wrote:

I was very generous with the economic benefits of voting. 10 trillion dollars. And the differential only amounts to 3.3 cents.

That's only the individual benefit in monetary terms.

If you want to add another 10 trillion dollars in non-monetary benefit, be my guest :)

Sure, and that's why I agree with your argument to an extent. However, the incentive structure and benefits are distinct. Market charity only yields emotional benefits,
Actually if one charitably provides public goods, one gets the benefit from them too. That's what this is - a public goods problem.

while voter charity yields other sorts of returns as well.
At a rate of 42 cents an hour. I don't see how you can argue this is "significant".

If I don't invest time into voting, then a moron president might crash the economy and reinstate DADT, which I don't like on an individual, collective, emotional, or monetary level.

When you make decisions, you consider all the possible outcomes right? Do you consider outcomes that have a 1/10,000,000 chance of coming to pass?

If you spend 5 minutes figuring out which candidate is better, you are working for 12*3.5/100 = $0.42 an hour. So searching for information on candidates should be illegal because it means you're working below minimum wage.

The minimum wage doesn't apply to those who are self-employed. The minimum wage doesn't apply to voting either.

I know it doesn't. I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't ask people to vote if you believe no one should earn less than $7.50/hr.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:01:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am pro-voting, even though I rarely break with philosopher Carlin on anything political in nature. He has a valid point that voting legitimizes the system. If I'm born in the U.S. there is no contract I sign to abide by whatever these people have set up all around me and by voting I am passively conceding that. These philisophical problems are moot in AnCom.

While that is a good POV to give people a little kick to the side of the head, we should take advantage of this Democracy and use it to vote away our problems. Our problems being the government.
no comment
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 12:20:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 7:21:30 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:55:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Not blind to other variables it won't. The framework determines which particular people get power. The particular people implement the policies.
I thought the whole point of markets was that we don't have problems of personality, we have problems of office.
"Markets" in government are sort of like swimming pools on Venus.

It is important to first discover what people are available to you, which ones are more likely to stick with your policies, and then try to craft institutions that stick with those people or types of people staying in power.
So basically you're depending on charity and goodwill of a handful of people?
No, I'm depending on selfishness and intelligence of a handful of people. And if they turn out not to have one of those, I'll get the next one. A government made up of very charitable people is all but certain to overreach what government ought to be doing.

But there are zounds of alternative ways to make the status quo libertarian.\
Yes, but those don't require making new institutions from scratch, they require sticking with the institutions already there whatever they may be, because you managed to wangle libertarianism out of those institutions. You might make a few reforms to secure it, but you keep the basics.

Just consider that if a technology existed to make tax dodging super cheap and safe, everyone would do it, and the state would be dealt a crippling blow within weeks.
I call that a revolt.


So you have a philosophy of law, but don't touch political philosophy.
That's like saying I study food, but not organic matter. Politics is the determination of who must be shot under what circumstances. What I don't have is an institutional philosophy. A political philosophy can but needn't include institutional rules.
No. Law is the determination of who must be shot. Political philosophy is institutional.
Common definition among the people less violence conscious: "Political philosophy is the study of such topics as liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever."

(wiki).
Most of those considerations say nothing about a particular institutional framework. Some people might say that a particular sort of that "makes a government legitimate--" I don't.

You could say my institutional preference is a sort of libertarian Mandate of Heaven-- whoever gets us libertarianism, the institutions they want are the right ones until such time as they violate libertarianism.

(Yes, there's no heaven in that. But there wasn't in the original Mandate of Heaven either).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 8:05:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 11:16:46 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2011 1:38:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
http://img830.imageshack.us...

I assume you just made up the influence probabilities and benefits, correct?
The probabilities aren't made up. 10 million is the average vote margin. The benefit IS made up, but is extraordinarily generous. I don't think one candidate is 10 trillion dollars better than the other.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:17:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 8:05:17 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/23/2011 11:16:46 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2011 1:38:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
http://img830.imageshack.us...

I assume you just made up the influence probabilities and benefits, correct?
The probabilities aren't made up. 10 million is the average vote margin. The benefit IS made up, but is extraordinarily generous. I don't think one candidate is 10 trillion dollars better than the other.

To clarify, Sieben works under the false assumption that the probability of being critical to the outcome is equal to the reciprocal of the average margin of victory. It can be briefly demonstrated (and has been to Sieben) that such an equation leads to contradictions, if anyone's interested.

The keen eye will also notice that 10e12*.5 is 5e12, not 16.5. To clarify, that random figure 10e12 doesn't stand for the difference between the candidates in the relevant, individual sense at all. It does so rather in the collective sense, from which 33e3 is derived by illegitimately narrowing the question of individual benefit to a question of per capita total benefit (i.e. ignoring distribution).

More importantly, the unlikelihood that's crucial to the formula is an element of anonymous voting only. If he'd presented this as a critique of anonymous voting, his conclusion might have been valid despite his mathematical errors. But instead he's under the delusion that it applies to democracy per se, communism, or even all systems other than anarcho-capitalism. And whereas Sieben must invoke paradises like Somalia in order to prove that the latter is possible, one need only look at any parliament or even shareholders meeting anywhere to find an example of voters using their votes like bargaining chips as opposed to lottery tickets.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:47:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:17:16 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

To clarify, Sieben works under the false assumption that the probability of being critical to the outcome is equal to the reciprocal of the average margin of victory. It can be briefly demonstrated (and has been to Sieben) that such an equation leads to contradictions, if anyone's interested.

Oh, actually I already rebutted this. I'm assuming that the average outcome is "0", or that republicans and democrats are just elected equally. So the election can swing either way, but the average magnitude it swings is 10 million (for a total spread of 20 million).

So now you assume that if the voting outcomes are uniformly distributed, the chance that the outcome will be +/-1 vote is 2.

2/20 million is 1/10 million.

So fück yourself.

The keen eye will also notice that 10e12*.5 is 5e12, not 16.5.

Holy crap you know how to use a calculator!

To clarify, that random figure 10e12 doesn't stand for the difference between the candidates in the relevant, individual sense at all. It does so rather in the collective sense, from which 33e3 is derived by illegitimately narrowing the question of individual benefit to a question of per capita total benefit (i.e. ignoring distribution).

Right. So I don't clarify how the 10 tril would be distributed, but I think its implicitly egalitarian, so yes I can use the per capita benefit.

But I don't see how it would make things better for you if some people had even less incentive to vote...

More importantly, the unlikelihood that's crucial to the formula is an element of anonymous voting only. If he'd presented this as a critique of anonymous voting, his conclusion might have been valid despite his mathematical errors. But instead he's under the delusion that it applies to democracy per se, communism, or even all systems other than anarcho-capitalism. And whereas Sieben must invoke paradises like Somalia in order to prove that the latter is possible, one need only look at any parliament or even shareholders meeting anywhere to find an example of voters using their votes like bargaining chips as opposed to lottery tickets.

So basically, you're trolling, have nothing to say, and want us to watch you masturbate over vote-trading.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:52:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wait! I made a mistake!

The chance of a vote making a difference is 1/10million, but the chance of a vote making a difference for the right candidate is half that.

So everyone please revise the calculation - voting is now worth less than 2 cents. Sorry for the confusion!
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 5:12:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I still think you've miscalculated the probability of a vote making a difference.

The election uses an electoral college system that implements a winner-take-all policy. Now, the only way to influence the electoral college count with your decision to vote is if the candidate you choose wins by one vote. This probability can hardly be calculated without knowing the voting proportions of your specific state, but the calculation is essentially binomial (I'll use 2008 election statistics):
Assuming that 8 million (without me) people vote in Texas in the election, and assuming that the proportion of the 20 million Texans that would vote for John McCain is .555, the probability of an even voting count, from a sample of 8 million, disregarding third parties, is certainly less than 1 in 10000000. It is:

8000000!/(4000000!^2) * .555^4000000 * .445^4000000

This is so insignificantly small, I cannot even begin to tell you. It's so small that no calculator I can find can measure it, outside of zero. Even if Texas only had 8000 voters with the same proportion, the probability would be:

8000!/(4000!^2) * .555^4000000 * .445^4000000
...which equals 6.3434 E-24

And that's just for Texas. One must also calculate the probability of Texas' electoral votes influencing the election, which is even more complex, but unnecessary as a calculation. The probability of one's vote making a difference is a virtual zero, far less than 1 E-100, and the difference that vote makes is only the difference between 4 years of Republican presidency and 4 years of Democratic presidency.

Therefore, any productive alternative activity, including fapping, is more intelligent a decision than voting, at least for all national elections from now until the end of the solar system or global thermonuclear war, whichever happens first.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light