\Robin Hanson wrote:
>>The question is how to choose, on matters of fact as opposed to value, when
>>disagreement persists, even after substantial discourse. Whose estimate
>>should determine actions? A vote among everyone? A vote among a random
>>jury? Administrative agency experts? A panel of distinguished academics?
>>My proposal was to use the estimate of a betting market.
I responded:
>>a vote among everyone seems needed to decide general principles. Experts
>>and academics can advise the voters. Votes among those most affected seem
>>appropriate for specific cases, under the rules set by general
>>principles. A betting market encourages people to compete instead of
>>working together on these issues, which is an error when external costs
>>and benefits are so prevalent.
Robin answered:
>I don't think we're communicating.
yes, since I wasn't really paying attention.
>The topic is matters of fact, not
>value. Such as estimating whether OJ did it, how high sea levels will
>rise if CO2 emissions are or are not curtailed, or the effect of NAFTA
>on US unemployment. The question is what the general principles
>should be for such specific cases (what would you vote for?).
I'm not sure that issues of fact and value can always be separated in
practice (even though it's a good idea to do so). After all, the fact that
most White folks here on the Westside of L.A. think that OJ did it while
most Black folks in L.A. think of him as innocent suggests that issues of
values have clouded judgements of fact.
>Given persistent disagreement, almost any social institution will induce
>some forms of competition between people with different views. So it
>is not a choice of competition or not, but between forms of competition.
one issue is what defines the "winners" in the competition: is it following
the rules of democracy (one person/one vote) or those of the market (one
dollar/one vote)?
I think that Kato Kaelin was the perp who done the dirty deed.... ;-)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
