RoR: Forum

Aaron, Good to see you back!

Post 61

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 10:36am

A solid understanding of game theory and economics in general would dictate that you never vote

huh? A fundamental tenet of game theory strategy is to NEVER PLAY AN ALWAYS DOMINATED strategy. NOT voting ALWAYS loses to voting.

Here is a Punnett square on voting I whipped up

It's clear that not voting is an always dominated strategy, never does it produce or have a better chance of producing a better outcome.

*updated*

Here is a better one which I think more accurately represents the choices we face

what stands out is that when our strategic vote has no chance of winning, then making that vote has not tangible or possible benefits, thus it would be irrational to vote that way. That is - I would not vote for a republican who stands against this health care bill if he had utterly no chance of winning. In such a case then, the only thing which could potentially produce tangible results is to vote ideologically, for your libertarian or objectivist candidate according to your preference. They won't win, but you'll make a point.

It is rational to prefer tangible progress over an idealogical stalemate. It is not purity to ones beliefs that is the highest value disregarding the context of the real world which we live in, but real and tangible progress in this real world of our values.

In fact all tangible progress toward liberty and reason has come in this form. Sparta was a tyrant by today's standards, but all of ancient Greece was more free than the rest of the world. The American revolution used conscripted soldiers to win, when everyone else had permanent indentured servitude to some god king - but the result was a freer nation and real progress toward liberty.

The uncompromising nature of objectivism is not with respect to context-less actions but with respect to values.
(Edited by Michael F Dickey on 1/20, 11:09am)

Post 62

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 10:51am

This further confirms post 61.

Post 63

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 12:25pm

I like what Michael has done in post 61. But the whole story isn't there. What is left out is that history is happening, things are changing. Those squares apply at decision time and they are static. If those squares told the whole tale we would not need to consider the Tea Party, and the turning tides that make a Scott Brown able to win whereas two years ago he wouldn't have stood a chance. These currents that direct history come out of more weight appearing in the "Lose election make point" result square. You don't see that in the squares. But in the real world it is happening. And, it is that increasing weight that shifts until you have "possible win make point." So, if there were not people doing the "Lose election make point" square, there would never be a "Possible win make point" election.

This should be a 3-D chart, with a time dimension that shows the current trend. But I'm not sure what it would look like except that it needs to more complex than what we are seeing.

There is one other point - but it does not apply to the Brown/Coakley vote. There is one case where "lose election not make point" (principled not voting) is proper. Let's say that you had to choose between say Barney Frank and Chuck Schummer.... or some equally awful choice and there was no other candidate on the ballot. Then not voting IS making a point.

Post 64

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 12:57pm

If the expanded table is used as an argument for voting, it isn't convincing. One voter's chances of determining the outcome are negligibly small. Loren Lomasky pointed out years ago in Reason that your chance of getting in a wreck on the way to the polling place is greater than your chance of casting the deciding vote in a statewide election.

If it's an argument for voting LP, the "point" is remind people that the LP is a Bozoistic sideshow, which hardly needs making anymore.

Post 65

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 1:16pm

What does it mean to cast the deciding vote? Every vote is counted towards a total. It makes no sense to ask what is your chance of casting the deciding vote. Would it be voter number 1 that cast a vote for candidate x that was the "deciding vote"? Or voter number 137,567 that voted for candidate x? Everyone who votes contributes to the chances of a candidate winning or losing. It's the aggregate chance that matters.

Post 66

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 1:32pm

To cast the deciding vote is to vote for the winner in an election in which the margin of victory is one vote (not one percentage point). Anyone who went with the winner can say accurately but for me, the election would have gone the other way.

Post 67

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 2:17pm

It's good to be back and to see you again too, Steve. I won't have too much time in the near future but hope to be more involved in a couple months.

Post 68

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 2:40pm

"Here is a better one which I think more accurately represents the choices we face"

That use of game theory is roughly as valid and useful as reframing Pascal's Wager in a Punnett square. It presents 'may win election' as an absolute good, ignoring the fact your winning candidate often betrays his promises or your ideals. Even more significant concerning the choices of 'not voting', it completely ignores opportunity costs. An individual's time is valuable and this fact cannot be disregarded in the costs of voting.

Say registering and voting takes (very optimistically) only one hour and you have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of casting the deciding vote in an election (numbers may vary, but this is a low estimate for a large state or national election). There's no avoiding that you're choosing to give up that time of your life for a miniscule chance of your presumed 'good' outcome.

Instead, why not build a Punnett square with playing the lottery?
- The chances of matching 5 balls in Powerball (not the 6 ball jackpot) is about 1 in 5 million, and pays $200,000.
- If you have a modest job making say $25/hour, your could spend the wages from the hour you would have spent voting to get a roughly 1:200,000 chance of winning $200,000.
- You'd be hard pressed to say that the good to your life of electing politician x would be more valuable that the money.
- And unlike the politician, that money if your pocket won't later betray you.

While some may not like the results, they are clear - by game theory, you're better off with the lottery than voting.

Aaron

Post 69

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 3:08pm

I think there has been enough about game theory. Back to the original topic:
Obama, allies signal they will try to scale back health care bill after Mass. Senate loss

Post 70

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 6:37pm

But the whole story isn't there.

Steve makes valid points, which I left out only for the sake of brevity. It could be argued that each resulting block is itself the result of a punnett square table, and at some level these are reduced to one's own estimations and value judgements (such as the rapidly rising popularity of the tea party)

I still fail to see anyone arguing how always not voting is the result of game theory, except for this comment about oppurtunity costs.

Even more significant concerning the choices of 'not voting', it completely ignores opportunity costs. An individual's time is valuable and this fact cannot be disregarded in the costs of voting.

opputunity costs are not relevant to this discussion, we're talking only about voting in the context of minority candidates who share more values or majority candidates that share fewer values. Whatever you do with your own time does not effect a generalized game theory plot, each individual ought to generate their own plot to determine that, but everybody wants to be a critic...

You'd be hard pressed to say that the good to your life of electing politician x would be more valuable...

than a 1 in 200,000 chance of 200,000 dollars?

You'd be hard pressed to argue that such a low chance is a better way to spend time than voting. But I suppose all that depends on what value judgment you place on voting in the first place. Or is this what (the other) Steve meant when he said game theory shows you should never vote (and instead you should play the lotto)?

Post 71

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 6:48pm

To cast the deciding vote is to vote for the winner in an election in which the margin of victory is one vote (not one percentage point). Anyone who went with the winner can say accurately but for me, the election would have gone the other way.

You refute your own position, first you say that any one voter has only a very small chance of being the 'deciding vote' and then in your next post say that everyone can legitimately claim to be the deciding vote. Which is it?

In actuality, in a close election every vote is a 'deciding' vote.

Post 72

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 9:34pm

Uh....wait a minute. They are not as collectivist as all that, but you say they collectively partially blame the government.

Yeah good one Steven.

And thanks for reaffirming why I don't vote Libertarian. Since you blame America for the irrational actions of murderous thugs, why don't you partially blame women for being raped because they are women?

Hm, which makes more sense: stating that actions have consequences, or declaring, without evidence, the irrationality of an entire group of people?

And are you really saying Libertarians are collectivist for blaming a collectivist agency? That argument is full of holes.

As for your last, individual Americans suffer at the hands of the institution we call "government". You're trying to personify and individualize an entire nation, which is nationalistic and collectivist in itself.

Among the many reasons stated for Al-Qaeda's declared "war" on America, one of them is occupation of foreign lands. There's this little thing called "blowback" that you need to look up. See also: Saddam Hussein.

Post 73

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 12:02am

Steven, there is a little thing you need to look up called "The Cold War" and this other thing, which is just about as anti-libertarian as you can possibly get called "communism" and then there was this one particular nation called the "Soviet Union" which was the first nation on Earth to state it had the explicit goal of invading and or converting every other nation on the planet to communism.

Hm, which makes more sense: stating that actions have consequences, or declaring, without evidence, the irrationality of an entire group of people?

hmm, what makes more sense, that only America has free will and every action on the planet is a direct reaction to american actions, where America is somehow an Aristotlean prime mover? Or that while the obvious actions have consequences tripe is bellowed left and right by american hating marxists, they are willfully or ignorantly ignoring the fact that Americas 'actions' are also a 're-action' to something else, and that action is a re-action to another thing, and that another thing, etc. So why is all terrorism 'blowback' to American 'actions' while American actions are not blowback to previous actions? oh, like the Soviet Union invading 1/3rd of the nations on the planet, or backing murderous communist dictatorships all over the world, or striving to acquire a warm water port, or trying to get a strangle hold on the worlds oil supply, or.. or...

Libertarian foreign policy is ignorant, naive, marxist, and murderously suicidal.

Post 74

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 12:20am

Michael, I didn't say anything of the kind, did I? In fact, I said "partially" to blame, did I not? I acknowledge that there are terrorists who did what they did and made those decisions and should be held responsible. But the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and the fact remains that our expansionist and globalist foreign policy drains our treasury and makes us look like belligerents, like it or no.

You can do your neo-con desk-pounding all you like, but you're full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Post 75

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 12:35am

Steven:

Hm, which makes more sense: stating that actions have consequences, or declaring, without evidence, the irrationality of an entire group of people?

Which group of people? Al Qaeda? Under what circumstance could you consider a member of Al Qaeda to be rational? What exactly do you consider qualifies as being a member of Al Qaeda?

And are you really saying Libertarians are collectivist for blaming a collectivist agency? That argument is full of holes.

No, that's what YOU are saying.

Steven: "Libertarians are not as collectivist as all that. They (and I) partially blame the American government.."

To which I said: "They are not as collectivist as all that, but you say they collectively partially blame the government?"

So what part aren't you getting Steven? You're criticizing me for passing a collective judgment on all Libertarians while you assume a position on behalf of all Libertarians "They (and I)" which itself is "trying to personify and individualize an entire (political party)"

I really thought that was quite a simple concept to grasp.

Among the many reasons stated for Al-Qaeda's declared "war" on America, one of them is occupation of foreign lands. There's this little thing called "blowback" that you need to look up.

Among many reasons stated for a rapist raping a woman are "she was wearing provocative clothing", or she was "walking alone down an alley way, she was asking for it!".

What does it matter what the rationalization a criminal offers for his behavior? It doesn't excuse the behavior.

And what if the reason given by Al Qaeda was "America infects our culture with their sinful music and television" What would be the response to that "blowback"? That we stop Americans from making music and television?

Basically the philosophical principle of "blowback" is that one should acquiesce to a criminal's objections to your otherwise rationally self-interested actions. Anyone who values life ought to find this blowback principle to be disgusting. I'd rather have the Democrats in power than Libertarians that would willingly surrender my country to Islamo-fascists.

So again, thanks for reaffirming why I don't vote for that political party.

Post 76

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 8:31am

OK, John, Libertarians blame the President, the Senators and Representatives who voted for expansionist foreign policy, and any and all other bureaucrats and other enablers thereby who have caused some of these problems.

Are you done being ridiculously semantical?

What does it matter what the rationalization a criminal offers for his behavior? It doesn't excuse the behavior.

Which I said already. If you are not going to bother to read my posts, do not bother responding to them.

But, think about this - if the adults in those countries use American bombs, guns and troops as an excuse for why their life sucks, and it's all a small child heres from birth forward...well, is that child really morally blameworthy when he winds up blowing up a pizzeria? That's a hypothetical, so do not go all scream-y Ayn Rand on me and excommunicate me or anything.

And what if the reason given by Al Qaeda was "America infects our culture with their sinful music and television" What would be the response to that "blowback"? That we stop Americans from making music and television?

First of all, when I said "look up the word 'blowback'", I meant it, because you did not even use the term correctly. Until such point as you decide to look it up, I do not see any reason to continue arguing with someone who is clearly reveling in his ignorance.

Anyway, no, I never said anything about muzzling peaceful freedom of speech to appease terrorists. I said something to the effect of "you know, our military has no business being in 140 countries around the world anyways, and it seems to, in cause and effect terms, cause problems, so let's knock it off and go back to the noninterventionist foreign policy we used to have, eh?"

Apparently, wanting to scale down America's overseas adventures, return more stolen loot to the victims (the taxpayers) instead of having meaningless occupation after meaningless occupation, with the added bonus that we stop pissing off children who grow up into terrorists...well, that's controversial on a freedom-lover's website. Holy crow.

Post 77

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 4:21pm

I said "partially" to blame,

Recognizing that something was done in response to something else is not the same thing as 'blame' yet you regularly confuse the two. I have no problems acknowledging that islamic terrorists dislike our presence in their 'holy land' and in response to the act to kill us. No more than I have any problem acknowledging some idiot ex-husband who killed his wife and her new boyfriend because she left him. But that does not make their actions moral, or our actions implicitly immoral merely because in response to them someone else did something immoral. Yet you use human historical 'cause and effect' as if it is a physical principle of the universe like newtonian action / reaction, as if human actions are completely deterministic and people do not make moral decisions.

That's utter bullshit.

Our actions are just or unjust regardless of the actions OTHERS perform in alleged 'reaction' to our actions. Frankly I don't care if a bunch of knuckleheads respond irrationally to a rational action, and respond by being murderous scumbags. No man should ever let the possible unjust reaction of irrational tyrants cause him to act unjustly.

Left out of all your 'blame america' talk is morality and justice. Was it or was it not just to act in opposition to the murderous expansionism of the Soviet Union? Was it or was it no just to attempt to contain communism? Is it or is it not just to oppose a greater threat and ignore a lesser threat? Is it just to use a lesser enemy to defeat a greater enemy? Is it just to hold an entire population of people hostage? Is it just to be a murderous tyrant? Is it unjust for an outside agent to act to end the reign of a murderous tyrant?

You can do your marxist psuedolibertarian desk-pounding all you like, but you're full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

(Edited by Michael F Dickey on 1/21, 4:22pm)

Post 78

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 4:29pm

And what if the reason given by Al Qaeda was "America infects our culture with their sinful music and television" What would be the response to that "blowback"? That we stop Americans from making music and television?

First of all, when I said "look up the word 'blowback'", I meant it, because you did not even use the term correctly. Until such point as you decide to look it up, I do not see any reason to continue arguing with someone who is clearly reveling in his ignorance.

We know what blowback is, the problem is you don't acknowledge it's full scope. You and marxist psuedolibertarians limit it to military actions and reactions to those. What you fail to recognize is that Islam sees the west and capitalism as Satan, but not just some abstract evil, but most directly in the classical biblical sense of satan, satan as a tempter to evil.

American culture is the most dominant culture in the world, and when free people get a taste of it, it's what they prefer. Islamic tyrants know this, this is why they ban western movies, western music, and western merchandise, because in any fair competition they will lose their youth to this satanistic temptation. The Taliban made singing and dancing illegal, in Afghanistan 'leonardo decaprio' haircuts were banned - with religious state sponsored thugs roaming the street doing the enforcing.

Even if we pulled every soldier out of the middle east, our products would still infuse Islamic culture, and they would *still* hate the west for that, and *still* committ terrorist acts. So what do you propose we do, blockade the middle east to prevent copies of Titanic from getting smuggled in?

Post 79

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 6:08pm