Just want to bring another discussion topic, to change from wars, religion, sex and politics (even if I wonder what can be more interesting ;) ) :

In a thread running on jokers' board, someone (Kisthor to not name him ;) ), illustrated how "being fair" is hard with a very interesting example.

You have a glass of water, and 2 persons want to drink. How can you fairly share that glass? (of course you can't measure water quantities)
The best, fairest way, where fair means that none of the 2 guys can't complain he got cheated by the other, is to make one splits the water into two glasses, and the second guy choses his glass.

Now, same problem, with 3 people. Is there a way to fairly share this glass? Kisthor was saying none, and after some reflexions, how simple and evident the "2 guys" solution is, I couldn't find any corresponding way to deal with 3. Not to talk about more!

Geeze. Give them each a drink. If they're not mature enough to share it, explain to them what idiots they are and leave them alone to be thirsty.

Try to pour 3 equal glasses of water. Put a number on it and then draw numbers telling you which glass is yours.



Ibudin

Rock, Paper, scissors works for me =)

Kick their asses and drink the whole glass. :D

Well you could do pretty much the same thing, one guy pours it into 3 glasses, then one of the other 2 (choosing by paper, rock, scissors if a solution cannot be made otherwise) picks on glass, after him goes the other guy who didn't pour the water and last we have the mofo who poured it up, so he better make sure he pours evenly, or he ain't getting much...

but then again, who would share a glass of water?

But then again, why people only see "glass of water". =/

Funny how you can see the tree but not the forest behind...

Anyway, let's try with another example, maybe more... simple?

I'm paying my employees with gold. Good ole gold bars. And I have to pay 3 of them, but I only have one bar.
So I told them "here guys, 1 bar for 3 of you, do as you wish, but share it fairly!"

And I can't imagine that /random is a fair way to do it btw...

just to be a pain in the ass, i'm gonna have to say that those 3 employees go and trade that gold bar for gold coins and split them as equal as possible, and if someone gets more than the other, just keep a tab since if you paid them with gold once, i'm guessing you'll do it again

moahaha...

Anterak, as long as you'll stick to analogies people will just nitpick and point out how today's society is able to handle such problems :)

//Kiv

A huge problem with the term "fair" is getting people to agree what is fair in all but the most simple of cases. What is "fair" to one person might be a grave injustice to someone else.

Quoting myself, where the world has come to...
The definition of fair I propose is "means that none of the 2 guys can't complain he got cheated by the other" with the share.

Yes Kiv I know... I expect too much from my fellow board citizens...
/BONKS PUNGO!!

And your example is very simple, as well.

dump the water on the floor, they all get the same amount of water that way.

Even in the case of only two people, having one guy pour it, and the other chose is not extremly fair, because if one is slightly more then the other, how does the second guy fairly chose which one to take? Does he be greedy and take the fuller one, or humble and take the smaller one?

Besides, who determines who's the one who pours?

etc...

Ultimately, the only way to be 'truely' fair would to be to use a scales taking the tare weight of the glasses of water, with an equal amount given to each.

Lacking the equipment to do such a thing though in the case of 3 people, the only way I can think of would be for one person drawn by straws to pour each glass as equally as possible to the naked eye, to the satisfaction of the other two. Then each person writes down on a piece of paper a number between 1 and 10. They then add the 3 numbers to gether, and begin doing an ini-mini-mini-mo type deal, up to the number they came up with. That glass is then given to the man who drew the shortest straw, the count is done again, and that glass is given to the middle straw, and the final glass given to the long straw.

If exact measurements are not available, then random seeding is the only possibility.

Someone solved this for N a while back. Here it is!

Some real mathematical basis for cake cutting:
www.math.hmc.edu/~su/pape...review.pdf (http://www.math.hmc.edu/~su/papers.dir/review.pdf)

A java ****** that implements approximate cake cutting:
www.math.hmc.edu/~su/fair...heory.html (http://www.math.hmc.edu/~su/fairdivision/theory.html)

Cake cutting, heh.

For 3, I think it goes:
A splits the water into 3 parts.

B can pour water from only one glass into another, if B so chooses.

C can pick any glass.

If the glass B poured water out of is still there, B must pick that glass. Otherwise, B can pick any glass.

A gets the remaining glass.

You can thus ensure that you get at least 1/3 the water, by your own measure.

It works better with a non-uniform thing like cake. Because cake has both icing and filling, and people value the two things differently. So, "1/3 of the cake" means something different to different people -- some people value the icing more, some people value the filling more.

So... are we going to define "fair" as: Producing results in such a manner so that the actions of people to be self serving and greedy are negated?

In other words, being "fair" is leveling the playing field so that people who are smarter or more successful at ensuring their own desires and needs are cared for in the most efficient manner operate at a disadvantage?

So... are we going to define "fair" as: Producing results in such a manner so that the actions of people to be self serving and greedy are negated?

In other words, being "fair" is leveling the playing field so that people who are smarter or more successful at ensuring their own desires and needs are cared for in the most efficient manner operate at a disadvantage?

Or, in other words, should "fair"ness compenstate for incompetence?

And now we're hitting the realms of communism :P

//Kiv

Shush, Kiv, I was waiting to hear some other opinions before I brought that up.... bah.

If 3 people did the same amount of work..
Then Fair says that 3 equal shares should be distributed

If 1 person did the work.. and he came on 2 people who were dehydrated.. then it becomes his personal choice to help or not..
the 2 Dehydrated people have ZERO right or claim on what is the result of another mans effort.

Assume the labor was something complicated... something the other 2 had no ability to do, and the end result of the labor produced an amount of water.

Communism/Socialism says that the 2 men who lack ability give them rights to the property of the man who has ability.
It goes a step farther.. it says that the man with Ability is not capable of making a moral decision with his property, thusly it belongs to the state, who will make the decision for the man.
The State consists of vast orginization of people whos job is to determine the best use of the mans water, how to distribute it "fairly".
But these people who work for the state, produce no water of their own... so a portion of the mans water must be given to State to supply its people who decide where whats left of the water should go.
Eventually, after all the non producers are given a cut, the state comes around and gives the Man with Ability and the 2 men without ability shares equal enough to stay alive.

The man with ability has no choice, he must get up and produce tomarrow, because he needs SOME water. The two men without are perfectly content to sit back and wait for the state to come give them "thier" water.

Now, L2, apply that to Everquest loot rules!

Nownow L2 that was pretty gloomy.

Isn't it communism's ultimate goal to abolish the state and instead having each member, or communities, living off what they produce?

Also, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't communism exclude the existance of lazy asses out of their doctrine completely? Every man is supposed to produce as much as he is able, and reap his part of the community's efforts... but no calculations are made regarding people who produce nothing?

//Kiv

Heh.. Thats in THEORY Kiv..
In theory... lots of things seem nice.

Hell.. communism may even work for a very small, tightnit agricultural community.. where people are specialized and have an abundance of the goods they produce.

Unfortunatly.. as the people of Cambodia found out under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.. this type of system does not conform with 20th century + life on wide scale... and would require the destruction and abolishment of Cities and large manufacturing centers. It would require all people to be of equal ability and production (solution: kill everyone thats educated or has special skills)
additionally
Every man is supposed to produce as much as he is able,
if it only wasnt for that damn human nature....
2 HUGE problems with this..
1. how is ability in each individual measured? I assume that there must be a baseline.. a bare minimum.. what are the incentives to go beyond that? Minimum Effort.. Maximum return..
THe other problem is.. why should I even do anything? If what I was best suited for was difficult.. "ow.. my Back. my neck, my neck and my back! Ill be home recovering, send me my free cheese there"

I guess you could have secret police going around shooting lazy people in the back of the head...
And thats the problem... there really is NO incentive NOT to be lazy..
except the use of Terror.

to change from wars, religion, sex and politics

/comfort anterak :p

o.O

Wtfroak? I come here and you turned my thread into a discussion about communism...
Good in theory, bad in real life, woo woo something new!

Amhorach, in my book fair != equal.
Like L2 pointed in his 1st post, a fair share is a share that gives the right part people deserve. To use an EQ example (I'm full of examples), let say you are in a xp group that does Alpha gem rule. Everyone has its gem, you are about to start a new cycle. Then one guy has to leave, and you replace him with Zyzx. Would it be "fair" to give next gem to Zyzx?

I used equality in my examples because it was (I thought it was actually...) easier to imagine, and brings less complication.

And thanks Laeyakk for his links, interesting reading. :)

It goes a step farther.. it says that the man with Ability is not capable of making a moral decision with his property, thusly it belongs to the state, who will make the decision for the man.
The State consists of vast orginization of people whos job is to determine the best use of the mans water, how to distribute it "fairly".
But these people who work for the state, produce no water of their own... so a portion of the mans water must be given to State to supply its people who decide where whats left of the water should go.
Eventually, after all the non producers are given a cut, the state comes around and gives the Man with Ability and the 2 men without ability shares equal enough to stay alive.

The man with ability has no choice, he must get up and produce tomarrow, because he needs SOME water. The two men without are perfectly content to sit back and wait for the state to come give them "thier" water.

ROFLMAO
This is by far the most funniest way I have ever heard communism/socialism explained.
This is so ridiculous it's hilarious.

Fairness is an interesting subject, because what is fair actually?
I don't believe fair is equal.
I believe fair is as equal as possible.
This means that if you have an item that you can't divide in equal parts for some reason, you have to find a way to make it as equal as possible.
Random is an option then, or even co-ownership, whereby one person has the item one week, the other the next week etc.....
Being fair in practice is a subjective thing and thereby subject to emotions and difference of opinion. Because what seems fair to you might not seem fair to someone else.
The key is to find a way everyone has an equal share or has an equal change on the end result.
Just try to find a way everyone agrees to.

So in the example of sharing a glass of water with three, with no other glasses around, taking turns drinking out of the glass or drawing lines on the glass to determine 3 different/equal parts and then draw straws to determine who begins to drink is a fair way to decide the distribution.
The implementation is a question of trust and honesty.
Everyone should stick to the agreement and drink not more then there assigned part, doing otherwise would not be fair to the others.

So fairness goes hand in hand with honesty and sometimes trust.

Sorry, but thats the way it works Balroughasdasd

The Soviet Union contains some of the most fertile agricultural land in the world. Prior to the communist revolution of 1917 Russia was the world's largest exporter of grain. Collectivization of agriculture during the 1920s and 1930s was quickly followed by dramatic declines in agricultural output. Between five and ten million Russians died of starvation during these years with twelve to thirteen million more saved by food donated from the Western capitalist countries. Today, the Soviet Union employs nearly 25 per cent of its labor force and invests in excess of 25 per cent of its capital in agriculture, both of which are far higher than any other industrialized country. Despite its tremendous agricultural potential, the Soviet Union is now the world's largest food importer. It now imports nearly one-third of its food, and this is despite having grudgingly permitted the establishment of private mini-farms one-half to one acre in size. These private plots comprise only three per cent of the total cropland yet produce 27 per cent of the nation's food. It is unlikely that the Soviet Union could exist without these plots.1

This pattern is repeated with monotonous regularity throughout socialist countries. Most of the Eastern European nations are blessed with fertile agricultural land. The adoption of socialist policies in most of these countries has been quickly followed by declining production, food shortages, and bread lines.2

Agricultural output in China was virtually stagnant during the 25-year reign of Mao Tsetung. The Chinese government now acknowledges that during just one three-year period, the so-called "Three Difficult Years" from 195962, between 20 and 30 million Chinese died of starvation. By the time of Mao's death in the mid-1970s the average Chinese was less well fed than he was during the 1920s or even during the Japanese occupation of the 1930s. Beginning in 1977 Mao's successors abandoned his I I socialist experiment." As a result, says The Economist, "food grain output has increased by 12 per cent a year since then, despite bad weather in 1980."3

Out of a population of only eight million, two million Cambodians died of starvation in the late 1970s after socialist measures were applied to agriculture by the Khmer Rouge.

In 1957 Ghana became the first African country to receive its independence, quickly followed by a number of others. At the time of independence famine had become a thing of the past in Africa. Yet within a few years the continent was being ravaged by perennial famines. Millions were dying from starvation or diseases associated with malnutrition. Once again, the correlation is striking.

Ghana, as Sven Rydenfelt notes, "is one of the world's best endowed countries: fertile soil, ample rainfall, and a favorable climate. . . .4 At the time of independence it was the world's leading producer of cocoa. But after President Kwarne Nkrumah adopted what he termed "African socialism" Ghana's cocoa production declined by 50 per cent. Similar production declines occurred in other crops such as cassava.

Like Ghana, much of Ethiopia is ideally suited for agriculture. "Ethiopia is one of those countries so richly endowed by nature," agronomist Doreen Warriner wrote in 1973, "that the agrarian structure, feudal in every sense of the term, does appear to be the only constraint on development. "5 In March 1975 the feudal period ended; "Ethiopian socialism" began. But instead of development, agricultural performance, poor to begin with, deteriorated rapidly. It is now well established that over one million Ethiopians have died of starvation in the most recent famine .6

And in Tanzania President Julius Nyerere began to collectivize agriculture in 1967. A food exporter in the late 1960s, Tanzania imported $18 million worth of food in 1980 despite the fact that nearly 70 per cent of its population was engaged in agriculture.7

In marked contrast to the socialist countries of the world which almost invariably find themselves on the verge of starvation despite employing between 25 and 90 per cent of their workforce in agriculture, the more capitalist countries of Western Europe and North America are able to produce huge food surpluses while employing only three to four per cent of their work force in agriculture.

Over and over and over again... its the same thing..
Socialism/Communism means a massive decline in productivity..
Explain to me what else these facts indicate?

Explain to me what else these facts indicate?

It explains that people can't seem to get communism/socialism to work, because they can't agree on what "fair" really means or they lack the honesty and trust to make it "fair".
As I stated "fair" is not by definition equal.
This has nothing to do with the theory's behind communism/socialism but everything to do with men's inability to be fair to others and share.

Therefor my statement is that the problem is not communism/socialism but it's implementation thereof and it going directly against human nature.
Although it is a very good and "fair" system it can and will never work with men.

You're statement that communism/socialism is unfair is thereby completely ludicrous and indicates you're complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject.
Therefor you're reaction is hilarious.

So.. your defensing a "theory" that NOBODY has been able to get it to work ever?
If someone says that combining 2 chemicals in theory makes gold.. but nobody has ever been able to do it.. what is that theory?

50 million people (at least) have died from starvation in people trying to get communism to work..
The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions..

Communism is dead... and its never coming back... and the reason is because it never has and never will.. work.

Communism is dead...
Not yet. ;)

ok.. once uncle fidel is dead

*cough*
North Korea
*cough*

//Kiv

ya.. forgot about that success story..

More of a dictatorship anyway.

Still needs to be adressed though.

To use an EQ example (I'm full of examples), let say you are in a xp group that does Alpha gem rule. Everyone has its gem, you are about to start a new cycle. Then one guy has to leave, and you replace him with Zyzx. Would it be "fair" to give next gem to Zyzx?

If zyzx is a cleric and has to rebuff ageo on the group, it is only fair he gets the next three gems.

That is my point- what is "fair" depends on a huge number of factors. To use a case that was in another thread, a senator from Texas thinks it is 'unfair' that hurricanes are not given names that reflect the United States' African-American community. Some people may agree, others may think the senator who proposed it is insane and things are fair the way they are. Who is right and who is wrong (and hence, what is fair and unfair) are not very black and white (pun intended) in that case.

If zyzx is a cleric and has to rebuff ageo on the group, it is only fair he gets the next three gems.
Even this rule is unfair, because 1 gem covers the cost of components. ;)

But we both agree, being fair depends on so many parameters that it quickly becomes... unsolvable.

(and they give names to hurricanes in Texas?)

So.. your defensing a "theory" that NOBODY has been able to get it to work ever?

Up
The theory is flawed and does not take into account human nature.
Therefor it is doomed to fail.
Only way for it to work is by eliminating most of the human instincts.
They tried that, but it was not a success, people tend to wanne live their own lives for some odd reason.
Silly humans.

If someone says that combining 2 chemicals in theory makes gold.. but nobody has ever been able to do it.. what is that theory?

Good point, wrong example
People have been able to produce gold by more or less combining 2 chemicals.
They bombarded one platinum molecule with hydrogen and where able to produce 1 molecule of gold at the cost of several $100000. Not very economical if there are 6,0220*10 to the 23 molecules (add 23*0) in 1 mol.
Not sure how many grams 1 mol is exactly, I think it was 79 or so (to lazy to look it up).
So the cost of making 1 gram is 602200000000000000000000/79* the amount to make 1 molecule. Even if it only cost 1$ per molecule it is still allot more then the real value. (platinum is more expensive then gold anyway).

In retrospect maybe it is a good example.
It proves that you can have a good theory, but that the price for it to work is allot higher than you are willing to pay.

Which is kind of the point L2 made in saying that a communist ideal may be able to work in a ~very~ small community, but the problem ultimately, as with many things really, is scale.