I agree that this is a simple statement that shouldn’t need this kind of elaboration. Unfortunately, some people don’t agree with the statement. I’m hoping that when written out in such excruciating detail, the argument gets a better chance of finally getting communicated, in those cases where a much more lightweight explanation, such as the one you’ve cited, doesn’t do the trick. (Added more disclaimers to the first paragraph, describing when there is probably no point in reading the post.)
As I noted in my other comment, this argument just makes a more precise version of the original mistake. You could just as well say that:
no matter how much you give to CARE about the election, your vote will never make a serious dent in the outcome. There are just too many other voters. Therefore, you shouldn’t bother voting against the lizards who just agreed to reduce permitted human lifespans to 34 years.
Incidentally, Landsburg advises against voting, for exactly the same reason, so it’s worth pointing out that if you don’t accept that argument there, you shouldn’t accept it here, either.
I should also add that this doesn’t meant the argument is wrong; if you agree with not-voting and not-charity-splitting, fine. But you should make it with knowledge of the parallel.
Unfortunately, some people don’t agree with the statement. I’m hoping that when written out in such excruciating detail, the argument gets a better chance of finally getting communicated, in those cases where a much more lightweight explanation, such as the one you’ve cited, doesn’t do the trick.
The keyword in the grandparent was “obfuscating.” I’ve done linear programming for half of my life and I couldn’t tell that’s what you were getting at in the OP.
I agree that this is a simple statement that shouldn’t need this kind of elaboration. Unfortunately, some people don’t agree with the statement. I’m hoping that when written out in such excruciating detail, the argument gets a better chance of finally getting communicated, in those cases where a much more lightweight explanation, such as the one you’ve cited, doesn’t do the trick. (Added more disclaimers to the first paragraph, describing when there is probably no point in reading the post.)
As I noted in my other comment, this argument just makes a more precise version of the original mistake. You could just as well say that:
Incidentally, Landsburg advises against voting, for exactly the same reason, so it’s worth pointing out that if you don’t accept that argument there, you shouldn’t accept it here, either.
I should also add that this doesn’t meant the argument is wrong; if you agree with not-voting and not-charity-splitting, fine. But you should make it with knowledge of the parallel.
But all the longer argument has that the short argument doesn’t is obfuscation of the assumptions that go into it.
The keyword in the grandparent was “obfuscating.” I’ve done linear programming for half of my life and I couldn’t tell that’s what you were getting at in the OP.