The Argument for a Falsity Tax, Against libertarianism Options

[Peter Damian]

I briefly discussed this http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html in another thread but perhaps the general idea belongs in a thread of its own. The gist is that the truth will only flourish if there is a 'tax on falsity'. This is because the vast majority of people who are interested in the truth, are only mildly interested in it. Conversely, those who are interested in error are passionate about their error (there are various categories of these people which I discuss in the post). Thus the people interested in the truth are not interested enough to get in protracted argument with those who are on the side of error. Thus, without any social mechanism to favour the truth, error will always prevail.

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

This is a general argument against libertarianism. At least, versions of libertarianism that hold that all taxation is wrong.

There are libertarians here: what do they think?

* Oh dear I completely mispelled both parts of the title - It should be 'The argument for a falsity tax' and 'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different). Could a mod oblige please? - Thanks.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[the fieryangel]

'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different).

Boy, all of that Wikiporn is finally getting to you, Peter!

Interesting ideas, which require some thought. I'm thinking about it, but my initial response is that this is a very good idea that will probably never be put into practice. Kind of like that "Christianity" thingee....

[Peter Damian]

my initial response is that this is a very good idea that will probably never be put into practice. Kind of like that "Christianity" thingee....

Well as I point out, the idea of a 'university' is precisely that, or at least the university model as used to exist in England, where the state subsidises education by means of taxation. The more recent model, where education is nearly universal, but has to be paid by the parents of those who are educated, or by ruinous loans to students, is a retrograde step in my view.

The principle of having government departments responsible for regulating commercial interests is also similar. Both of these are rejected by libertarians, who hold (AFAIK) that a completely market-controlled economy is sufficient for what is socially useful. My view is that the market = the crowd, and that there is no magic about a crowd that gets you to truth, or justice, or whatever.

I suspect a lot of the WR crowd will agree with me here, and I put it to you that the real defining principle that separates 'WR' from 'WP' is around libertarianism. I see many posts here against libertarian ideas. Turning to WP, by contrast, all I get is the idea that 'anyone can edit', this inviolable principle that somehow defines a Wikipedian.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

And Bamboozlement Grew Like Kudzu

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

I generally agree with the notion of providing a reward for producing truth and imposing a cost for producing falsehood, in proportion to the social costs associated with the falsehood. The reward-cost function should be constructed according to the principles first set forth by Joseph-Louis Lagrange, one of the first mathematicians to study the design of optimal regulatory models. The slope of the reward-cost curve must correspond to the marginal social value of truth and the marginal social cost of falsehood. When the Lagrangian function is properly constructed, people will ride the curve gracefully in the desired direction (toward valuable truths and away from costly falsehoods). Nor will there be any temptation to game the system. Unlike the present dysfunctional model, Bamboozlement will not grow like Kudzu. Neither shall they learn deceit any more.

[CharlotteWebb]

Of 100,000 people, probably all but ten would like to see the truth.

Maybe in a minarchy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

In seriousness you must take a brighter view of humanity than I do. I'll accept that a majority of people (though certainly not 99.99%) favor information which they believe to be true, but how often is it so? How many people have a vested interest in promoting information which they do not believe to be true? Certainly more than ten.

[Peter Damian]

Of 100,000 people, probably all but ten would like to see the truth.

Maybe in a minarchy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

In seriousness you must take a brighter view of humanity than I do. I'll accept that a majority of people (though certainly not 99.99%) favor information which they believe to be true, but how often is it so? How many people have a vested interest in promoting information which they do not believe to be true? Certainly more than ten.

The article was slightly tongue in cheek and remember I am English so 'X is very Y' means 'X is slightly Y' and 'X is slightly Y' means 'X is very Y'. This doesn't always translate well.

But, seriously, you have reminded me of another class of contributor: companies. Everybody, apart from those who moan about their company, lies about their company.

[CharlotteWebb]

But, seriously, you have reminded me of another class of contributor: companies. Everybody, apart from those who moan about their company, lies about their company.

Yes, and/but/however the same shoe fits governments equally well.

[Peter Damian]

But, seriously, you have reminded me of another class of contributor: companies. Everybody, apart from those who moan about their company, lies about their company.

Yes, and/but/however the same shoe fits governments equally well.

Very true, and another to add to the list. Does anyone have anything on this? There was a thread somewhere about some government sponsoring Wikipedia articles.

Oh yes

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sourc...l=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Thousands of changes by employees at the Defence Department and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have been discovered by tracking site WikiScanner, including some rather obscure contributions. One simply stated: “Poo bum dicky wee wee”.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

What I have to add probably goes well beyond the scope of your article. (There's that blasted "beyond scope" meme again.)

As a science educator, what interests me are widespread popular misconceptions that, at present, only a handful of scientists know about. Probably the most famous one in history was the Copernican Model that Galileo was stupid enough to blab about in front of Pope Urban (or was it Pope Yerbanned?).

But that was four centuries ago.

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one).

And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

[the fieryangel]

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one).

And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

<going off-topic here> Care to fill us in, Barry?</back on topic>

[Peter Damian]

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one).

And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

<going off-topic here> Care to fill us in, Barry?</back on topic>

Yes please tell.

[Moulton]

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one). And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

Care to fill us in, Barry?

Functional Systems vs. Rule-Based Systems - How to understand the oldest error in the architecture of human culture.

The First Book of System Design - A creation story for the Cybernetic Age from the Post-Apocalyptic Seminary of Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology.

Disjunction Dysfunction and the Error Function - Why rule-driven systems are chaotic sources of dramaturgy, and what it takes to craft a functional and graceful regulatory process.

Rules, Games, and Dramas - Mathematicians have known for over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic.

Apostasy and Emunah - Turning away from unreliable and untrustworthy belief systems.

Punishment and Violence: Is the Criminal Law Based on One Huge Mistake? by James Gilligan, Harvard University; published in the Journal of Social Research, Fall 2000.

[the fieryangel]

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one). And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

Care to fill us in, Barry?

Functional Systems vs. Rule-Based Systems - How to understand the oldest error in the architecture of human culture.

The First Book of System Design - A creation story for the Cybernetic Age from the Post-Apocalyptic Seminary of Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology.

Disjunction Dysfunction and the Error Function - Why rule-driven systems are chaotic sources of dramaturgy, and what it takes to craft a functional and graceful regulatory process.

Rules, Games, and Dramas - Mathematicians have known for over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic.

Apostasy and Emunah - Turning away from unreliable and untrustworthy belief systems.

Punishment and Violence: Is the Criminal Law Based on One Huge Mistake? by James Gilligan, Harvard University; published in the Journal of Social Research, Fall 2000.

Thanks! I'll read all that stuff, but it runs along the lines of a lot of stuff I've been thinking about myself lately...

[Moulton]

Thanks! I'll read all that stuff, but it runs along the lines of a lot of stuff I've been thinking about myself lately...

As you can see, I've been thinking about it for well over a decade. And more recently I've been working up an educational module for demonstrating the core ideas in those essays and references to the original literature.

[Peter Damian]

Functional Systems vs. Rule-Based Systems - How to understand the oldest error in the architecture of human culture.
[...]

Back on topic please. This is nothing to do with rule-based vs functional systems. The question is whether there is something wrong with the libertarian model of Wikipedia. Allowing 'anyone to edit' does not result in a comprehensive and reliable reference work.

I don't care whether the process is drama-filled or not. Drama is often a good thing as it keeps people amused and concentrates the mind. The question is: is the end-product any good - I don't care how we get there. And my point is that the end-product is rubbish.

[GlassBeadGame]

I briefly discussed this http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html in another thread but perhaps the general idea belongs in a thread of its own. The gist is that the truth will only flourish if there is a 'tax on falsity'. This is because the vast majority of people who are interested in the truth, are only mildly interested in it. Conversely, those who are interested in error are passionate about their error (there are various categories of these people which I discuss in the post). Thus the people interested in the truth are not interested enough to get in protracted argument with those who are on the side of error. Thus, without any social mechanism to favour the truth, error will always prevail.

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

This is a general argument against libertarianism. At least, versions of libertarianism that hold that all taxation is wrong.

There are libertarians here: what do they think?

* Oh dear I completely mispelled both parts of the title - It should be 'The argument for a falsity tax' and 'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different). Could a mod oblige please? - Thanks.

This is an interesting idea that at least begins to address the problem one of the basic problems of "free" as a price point almost universal on the internet. "Free" content requires that all burdens relating to the content to be shifted to persons other than whoever hosts the content. Thus Section 230 immunity. Thus take down notices and safe harbors. Thus shifting the burden of offensive content unto parents via "controls." Thus wholesale BLP irresponsibility. Thus every form of spam, inaccuracies, lies and deceit imaginable.

I believe that the burden ought to be born by the host and speakers jointly and severally. So I would prefer a system that would tax (or provide tort liability and regulation) the host and speakers rather than the general public. In the case of a "truth tax" it could be perhaps best imposed based on upload bandwidth usage. Believing in a mixed rather than outright command economy I would prefer the revenue be dispersed via grants to universities and public advocacy groups rather than some kind of government "Truth Ministry." But the idea has a lot merit.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

[CharlotteWebb]

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

Meanwhile churches will continue hiding behind form 1023, schedule A.

Falsity tax, my ass.

[Peter Damian]

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

No. Surely the context makes it clear that universities are the recipients of the tax, which everyone pays (at least in the UK until the 1990's). I admit the wording was unclear.

Neither I nor my parents paid for my university education. My grant and living costs were entirely subsidised by the UK government via direct and indirect grants. The indirect grant was for the tuition fee, which went to the university to pay adminisration costs, lecturer salaries and so on. My PhD was also entirely funded by the State.

This was not so expensive because in the 1970's far fewer school students went on to university. Academic salaries were relatively higher then, and the universities could afford really high quality staff. The arrival of universal higher education in the 1990's and beyond completely changed that, and was bad thing in my view. There were a lot of junk courses created, and a lot of students left university without any chance of a job, because completely unqualified for the sort of jobs available. We see the results around us. Many unemployed 23 year olds, or working in McDonalds. But I am drifting from the topic. Or perhaps not. The American 'privatised' system, which does not rely on universal taxation, is demonstrably inferior to the taxation model. The Dean of studies at one of the London universities told me that he only recruits students from the former communist countries, who still stick to the model of educating a small number of talented people at the expense of the State.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

No. Surely the context makes it clear that universities are the recipients of the tax, which everyone pays (at least in the UK until the 1990's). I admit the wording was unclear.

I was attempting to make a joke. I'm not a big fan of today's universities. They remind me of Wikipedia.