The Cake Cutter Principle

[snoopy]

Oops! I was supposed to make that statement the title? Can titles be that many characters?

[Josh]

DIBS! Eventually, I think there should be a 'Mediate this Discussion' button that assigns a user to that role and opens the discussion for commenting. However, that functionality (as well as other functionality we need) hasn't been developed yet. So, for now, DIBS!

Also, as the OP, you won't be able to comment. You'll only be able to edit your original post to better address the comments of others. Please link the relevant revisions of your post to their respective comments and (for now) click the 'Conclude Thread' button.

That particular commenter should not comment further until I (the mediator) comment with the word 'Addressed' linked to the post that I consider to have been addressed (eventually the post itself will have a checkbox for me to check).

When you've addressed another comment, uncheck 'Conclude thread' from the first comment and check the more current one.

Incidentally, Google Chrome has a new feature that allows you to copy a hyperlink directly to selected text by right clicking and selecting 'Copy link to highlight' from the pop-up menu. This will be useful for addressing specific parts of comments.

Sorry for the long explanatory post but, like I said, a lot of the necessary functionality for this type of thread isn't in place yet. Let's take it slow and exercise discipline.

[snoopy]

Originally posted by Josh >
  Please link the relevant revisions of your post to their respective comments

I'm not following. What does this mean? I guess I'm waiting for a comment?

Originally posted by Josh > 
    and (for now) click the 'Conclude Thread' button.

What does conclude thread mean? It's over before it's started? Where will the comments be posted if the thread has concluded?

[Josh]

My first question would be, "What is the cake cutter principal?" I have an idea what it is but 'the reader' may not. Although you have already explained this much of it...

The idea is that the person should evenly divide the cake or risk getting the smallest slice when all other slices have been distributed. Applying this to government, legislation and institutions as a whole may seem daunting, but not so in my opinion. - Fidel

and some of the resource throughways that can be controlled or adjusted,...

Universal Basic Income implemented
Federal tax rates on the wealthy implemented and or loopholes closed
Government insured home loans(FHA) built-in racism corrections
Single-payer government health insurance
Estate taxes on the wealthy adjusted to where it was in the 1950's and 60's.
Personal political campaign fundraising outlawed. Replaced by a central campaign funding mechanism that distributes equally among eligible candidates. - Fidel

...but the original post of this thread would benefit from those additions. As would anyone who came upon it.

I've tried to explain how this principal proves to be far more complicated in the practice of cutting actual cakes than the simplicity of the title suggests.
I've also tried to imagine how difficult it might be to apply this principle in a 'kitchen' as complicated as Washington.

I'll limit the scope of my question to Universal Basic Income (UBI) since it's the first on your list and it's one that interest me most. A growing (and aging) population combined with ever-improving AI and ever-expanding automation seem to make UBI an inevitability. It's just not clear to my how the Cake Cutter Principal applies here. Does the cake represent the tax dollars allotted to funding UBI? Does the cake represent the total US budget and UBI is one slice of that cake? Or do you mean that if the Cake Cutter Principal were applied elsewhere in Washington, programs like UBI could be adequately funded?

[snoopy]

The Cake Cutter principle explained.

[snoopy]

Originally posted by Josh >
 and some of the resource throughways that can be controlled or adjusted

The cake cutter principle is just that...a principle. It's not something to be controlled or adjusted. It's something that allows us to assess the potential fairness, or lack thereof, of existing or proposed social, economic and political solutions.

Originally posted by Josh >
 I've also tried to imagine how difficult it might be to apply this principle in a 'kitchen' as complicated as Washington.
I've also tried to imagine how difficult it might be to apply this principle in a 'kitchen' as complicated as Washington.

This is not about "implementing" some sort of Cake Cutter doctrine within government itself. It's more of how, as an example, we the people and our representatives need to demand how our tax money(which certainly qualifies as a cake) gets used. Speaking of tax money, the cake cutter principle is already part of the reasoning behind Bernie Sanders' campaign proposals to get super rich people to contribute to the cake.

[Josh]

Okay, so this is just going to be a normal thread type thread. That's fine. It's still an interesting topic.

I understand now that 'the cake' represents tax dollars. Thanks for the Wikipedia link. The principle described there is one form of fair division that only applies to two parties. There are others that apply to an arbitrary number of parties like the Last Diminisher but that requires each person who gets a slice to take a turn being the cake cutter themselves.

Each person divides the cake by value not volume. So that would help rectify the complexity of the cake with any personal preferences. However, it might not be a practical solution because it requires slices to be cut in turn. That would be time consuming for the entire population of a country. Is there another principal that works for an arbitrary number of people and allows every person to receive in reasonable time a slice that they deem fair according to their own subjective evaluations?

...get super rich people to contribute to the cake - Fidel

Is it contribution rather than distribution that is at the heart of the problem?

Originally posted by Fidel (not Josh) >
 and some of the resource throughways that can be controlled or adjusted

This is your wording from this post.

[snoopy]

hOriginally posted by Josh >
 Okay, so this is just going to be a normal thread type thread. That's fine. It's still an interesting topic.

I'm not sure how to go about the new format.

Originally posted by Josh >
  I understand now that 'the cake' represents tax dollars. Thanks for the Wikipedia link. The principle described there is one form of fair division that only applies to two parties.

I believe at the bottom of the wiki page, it expands on how it applies to more than two parties.

Originally posted by Josh > 
Is it contribution rather than distribution that is at the heart of the problem?

I am not attempting to identify the "heart of the problem" or any problem for that matter. I am attempting to advocate for a way to assess how legislation gets applied, institutions function, taxes get used, subsidies distributed, tax codes are written, etc. etc.

Originally posted by Josh > 
This is your wording from this post.

My bad. I thought you were suggesting that the Cake Cutter principle was something that could be controlled or adjusted. My original post with that quote is fine as is. Sorry!

Originally posted by Josh > 
Is there another principal that works for an arbitrary number of people and allows every person to receive in reasonable time a slice that they deem fair according to their own subjective evaluations?

That's the thing...your not supposed to subjectively evaluate what you deem fair to you. Once you've attempted to do so, you're not operating under the principle. The evaluation should be from the perspective of size(or in most cases "value") of slices. But it's not always a quantifiable cake. It could be equal access to, say, a public park. Building an overpass on the way to that park which is too low for buses to clear, would be an example of limiting access to what our taxes have paid for. Now people living on the other side of that overpass who don't own cars won't have the same access to that public park that their taxes pay for.

There are many examples, but I'm not out to solve any or all problems. I'm mainly advocating a way to look at and assess the shit our society and our government does. It's a good way to expose unfairness, what we do about it is a whole other topic. Think of it like a "shit detector".

EDIT: And from using this shit detector, we as the voters can vote for representatives that use it, and that can result in a future of less shit.

[cozy]

(Reference for the Teapot Dome scandal caption above)

Does this only apply to two people?

If it applies to two or more groups, how do you decide where one group ends and the other begins? That is to say, if I am in group A, we cut the cake, and you are in group B, you choose the piece, but I have a friend in group B, how can we be sure that my friend in Group B will do the best thing for Group B?

[snoopy]

Originally posted by Cody >
 Does this only apply to two people?

Nope.

Originally posted by Cody > 
If it applies to two or more groups, how do you decide where one group ends and the other begins? That is to say, if I am in group A, we cut the cake, and you are in group B, you choose the piece, but I have a friend in group B, how can we be sure that my friend in Group B will do the best thing for Group B?

In a society, it wouldn't matter where one group ends or another begins, nor would it matter which group you're in. Examples:

• If we place a restriction on group A and not B, and you're in both groups, we've still discriminated against individual members of group A. The restriction is therefore not fair.
• If we make dental care available to all groups, all individuals will have equal access to that dental care. This program would be considered fair no matter which group(s) you're in, even if one or more groups opt for private dental health care.
• If groups A and B are not granted institutional privileges given to group C, it wouldn't matter if you were in more than group. The individuals are the important point here. These privileges would be unfair.

[snoopy]

I think the milkshake reference has more to do with property than it does fairness.