the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

[henry quirk]

he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise

a specific example, please

I ain't holdin' my breath that you'll foist one up

You want me to give you specifics about your particular life?

You understand what the principle-agent problem entails (conflict of interest).
You know who you have hired.
You know the kind of power you've bestowed upon your principals
You know how they can screw you if they so choose to.

Surely you don't need me to do your thinking for you?

why can't anyone just have a legit, straightforward conversation or debate with you?

it's always bait & switch with you

go: sit in my penalty box with the three other stooges

[Skepdick]

why can't anyone just have a legit, straightforward conversation

We are having a conversation!

or debate with you?

Debates/arguments are zero-sum games - If you drag me into one of those, I play by the same rules as you do.

Don't start a fight, but finish it.

it's always bait & switch with you

I've given you as straight-forward an answer as is possible given the circumstances - I am not in your head. I have no idea who you are in business with.

You have to produce the particulars all by yourself.

[commonsense]

You have to produce the particulars all by yourself.

Skep, I have to call bullshit on you. Henry asked for an example. You didn’t provide one. Instead, you simply indicated that Henry was on his own. How rude of you to deflect Henry’s request for help.

You should have given an example from your own experience or from an imagined situation. It’s possible that Henry wanted a concrete example so that he could understand how to pull an example out of his own experiences. Or it could have been something else altogether.

Henry, I’m not trying to speak for you or fight your fight. This guy pissed me off, so that’s why I’m speaking out.

[henry quirk]

You have to produce the particulars all by yourself.

Skep, I have to call bullshit on you. Henry asked for an example. You didn’t provide one. Instead, you simply indicated that Henry was on his own. How rude of you to deflect Henry’s request for help.

You should have given an example from your own experience or from an imagined situation. It’s possible that Henry wanted a concrete example so that he could understand how to pull an example out of his own experiences. Or it could have been something else altogether.

Henry, I’m not trying to speak for you or fight your fight. This guy pissed me off, so that’s why I’m speaking out.

no, you're good...skep knows what I was askin' for, and the context of my request, but he chose to play the same game he plays all the damned time (look at any back & forth he's had with Mannie, with RC, with anyone)...I'm in no mood, so he can sit in my penalty box till he rots

[Skepdick]

You have to produce the particulars all by yourself.

Skep, I have to call bullshit on you. Henry asked for an example. You didn’t provide one. Instead, you simply indicated that Henry was on his own. How rude of you to deflect Henry’s request for help.

You should have given an example from your own experience or from an imagined situation. It’s possible that Henry wanted a concrete example so that he could understand how to pull an example out of his own experiences. Or it could have been something else altogether.

Henry, I’m not trying to speak for you or fight your fight. This guy pissed me off, so that’s why I’m speaking out.

And I have to call bullshit on your bullshit.

My original comment contained a link to the WIkipedia page for the principal-agent problem. It has high-level context AND a bunch of examples/scenarios with different social dynamics, plus tons of references.

Either way, he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise when you can't hold your "proxies" accountable.

This is literally the second paragraph in the article:

Common examples of this relationship include corporate management (agent) and shareholders (principal), elected officials (agent) and citizens (principal), or brokers (agent) and markets (buyers and sellers, principals).[2] Consider a legal client (the principal) wondering whether their lawyer (the agent) is recommending protracted legal proceedings because it is truly necessary for the client's well being, or because it will generate income for the lawyer. In fact the problem can arise in almost any context where one party is being paid by another to do something where the agent has a small or nonexistent share in the outcome, whether in formal employment or a negotiated deal such as paying for household jobs or car repairs.

Did you not the read the article?
Did you not read the examples?
Did you not type "principal-agent problem" in Google?
Is this not sufficient introduction to the general idea so that you can identify relevant examples in your own context?

Since you had plenty of opportunity to acquire the information that you wanted without needing anything from me your "outrage" is a tad misplaced and entitled, no?

[commonsense]

You have to produce the particulars all by yourself.

Skep, I have to call bullshit on you. Henry asked for an example. You didn’t provide one. Instead, you simply indicated that Henry was on his own. How rude of you to deflect Henry’s request for help.

You should have given an example from your own experience or from an imagined situation. It’s possible that Henry wanted a concrete example so that he could understand how to pull an example out of his own experiences. Or it could have been something else altogether.

Henry, I’m not trying to speak for you or fight your fight. This guy pissed me off, so that’s why I’m speaking out.

And I have to call bullshit on your bullshit.

My original comment contained a link to the WIkipedia page for the principal-agent problem. It has high-level context AND a bunch of examples/scenarios with different social dynamics, plus tons of references.

Either way, he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise when you can't hold your "proxies" accountable.

Did you not the read the article?
Did you not read the examples?
Did you not type "principal-agent problem" in Google?

Since you had plenty of opportunity to acquire the information that you wanted without needing anything from me your "outrage" is a tad misplaced and entitled, no?

Touché. I did follow the link and apparently forgot everything I saw there. But you were given a request. Do you think anyone was supposed to know what they would find at your link? Does everyone follow the links that appear in the posts?

Bottom line—I apologize for my mistake. It was wrong of me to think that you were being rude or you were trying to outsmart anyone.

[Skepdick]

Touché. I did follow the link and apparently forgot everything I saw there. But you were given a request. Do you think anyone was supposed to know what they would find at your link? Does everyone follow the links that appear in the posts?

Bottom line—I apologize for my mistake. It was wrong of me to think that you were being rude or you were trying to outsmart anyone.

henry asked for a specific example.

a specific example, please

I can only assume that all the background contained in the link was not specific enough.
I can't get any more "specific" than all of the above without getting up in henry's personal business.

[henry quirk]

[commonsense]

.

[commonsense]

You’re always a mensch in my book.

[henry quirk]

You’re always a mensch in my book.

the check is in the mail...

[commonsense]

Touché. I did follow the link and apparently forgot everything I saw there. But you were given a request. Do you think anyone was supposed to know what they would find at your link? Does everyone follow the links that appear in the posts?

Bottom line—I apologize for my mistake. It was wrong of me to think that you were being rude or you were trying to outsmart anyone.

henry asked for a specific example.

a specific example, please

I can only assume that all the background contained in the link was not specific enough.
I can't get any more "specific" than all of the above without getting up in henry's personal business.

You are in the right, of course. Still, for the sake of civility always look at things from your audience’s perspective.

[Skepdick]

You are in the right, of course. Still, for the sake of civility always look at things from your audience’s perspective.

I do. Which is why I can't provide specifics.

I am not in henry's head - I have zero context on the network of proxies he has constructed around himself.

Any "specific" example I produce will be contrived to henry's circumstances.

[FlashDangerpants]

What are proxies?

Representatives that act on your behalf, I figure?

But as you see, henry is already insisting that proxies aren't members of parliaments or subordinates (and other special pleading)

Either way, he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise when you can't hold your "proxies" accountable.

If a board member at a company cannot attend a meeting in person to cast their vote in a matter of importance, they are likely to authorise another to vote on their behalf in this single matter using the phrase "you have my proxy". Given Henry's prediliction for small government and his frequent mention that politicos are servants not masters, it seems that he intends that form of limited proxy where we delegate the performance of a specified task, rather than the usual political proxy where we grant decision making powers on our behalf.

As such it's the normal way of doing politics that has the principal-agent problem, as evidenced by the many politicans who would for instance stop opposing some government action in return for a seat on some parliamentary committee, something I would say could not happen in a minarchy, where there are no committees. You might say of Henry's plan that it's primary strength is that it does not have that particular problem, or you could say that it exists as nothing but a wild overreaction to that problem.

[Belinda]

What are proxies?

Representatives that act on your behalf, I figure?

But as you see, henry is already insisting that proxies aren't members of parliaments or subordinates (and other special pleading)

Either way, he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise when you can't hold your "proxies" accountable.

If a board member at a company cannot attend a meeting in person to cast their vote in a matter of importance, they are likely to authorise another to vote on their behalf in this single matter using the phrase "you have my proxy". Given Henry's prediliction for small government and his frequent mention that politicos are servants not masters, it seems that he intends that form of limited proxy where we delegate the performance of a specified task, rather than the usual political proxy where we grant decision making powers on our behalf.

As such it's the normal way of doing politics that has the principal-agent problem, as evidenced by the many politicans who would for instance stop opposing some government action in return for a seat on some parliamentary committee, something I would say could not happen in a minarchy, where there are no committees. You might say of Henry's plan that it's primary strength is that it does not have that particular problem, or you could say that it exists as nothing but a wild overreaction to that problem.

Are referendums like proxies in that referendums address particular problems then disappear?