V2 Conspiracy and fraud in the US elections - Historial de revisiones

Felipeperezmarti: /* The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians. */

2021-10-27T22:35:25Z

The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians.

Felipeperezmarti: /* The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians. */

2021-10-20T23:47:53Z

The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians.

Felipeperezmarti: /* The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians. */

2021-10-20T22:32:21Z

The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians.

Felipeperezmarti: /* The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians. */

2021-10-20T22:14:57Z

The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians.

Felipeperezmarti: /* The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians. */

2021-10-20T22:11:19Z

The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians.

Felipeperezmarti: /* The option of a people’s political trial and the scientific method. */

2021-10-20T21:54:47Z

The option of a people’s political trial and the scientific method.

Felipeperezmarti: /* The option of a people’s political trial and the scientific method. */

2021-10-20T00:17:48Z

The option of a people’s political trial and the scientific method.

Felipeperezmarti: /* Introduction */

2021-10-15T11:13:09Z

Introduction

Felipeperezmarti: /* The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians. */

2021-10-15T09:58:34Z

The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians.

Felipeperezmarti: /* The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians. */

2021-10-15T08:53:50Z

The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians.

@@ Línea 96: / Línea 96: @@
 To finish clarifying what has been said in relation to the fallacy of ignorance, in strictly logical terms, this fallacy is always false. If something has not been proven true, it is not necessarily false: It might be that the proof has not appeared yet. But in science and in a trial, be it in court or from the people, the argument is false, but only up to a requirement related to who has the burden of proof. The social and scientific convention is that, for the null hypothesis, it is true unless it is proven false. In the case of a court trial, a citizen is innocent unless proven guilty, since the accuser has the burden of proof.
-What we have shown is that for a politician, it is natural, and optimal, for the people to assume that they are corrupt unless the politician in question  shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is or she is honest. In our electoral case, it must be assumed that there was fraud unless Biden's side proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was not. The reason is that Biden must bear the burden of proof, as we have shown. If the electoral and justice system worked, that wouldn't be necessary, really. But in this case, and as I have said, the doubt remains for many of the jury, the people, who for that reason should side, and in fact do, as expected, with the null hypothesis, of the guilty verdict.
+What we have shown is that for a politician, it is natural, and optimal, for the people to assume that they are corrupt unless the politician in question  shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is or she is honest. In our electoral case, it must be assumed that there was fraud unless Biden's side proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was not. The reason is that Biden must bear the burden of proof, as we have shown. If the electoral and justice system worked, that wouldn't be necessary, really. But in this case, and as I have said, the doubt remains for many of the jury, the people, who for that reason should side, and in fact do, as expected, with the null hypothesis, of the guilty verdict. Let us now take a closer look at the signs that the justice system and the electoral system are failing the people.
 === Is the justice system in the US failing the people? ===

@@ Línea 94: / Línea 94: @@
 Coming back to the Joe Biden’s case, his attitude transgresses the basic principle normal in sales, hiring, etc that should be natural too in a representative democracy, as we have seen: An applicant for a job can not pretend that it is the firm’s owners who have to show that he is capable and then hire him. In that tenor, the Biden’s camp go to the extreme of using the fallacy of ignorance: since fraud has not been proven to be true, we have to conclude that it is false. In other words, since the job applicant has not been proven incapable, we have to conclude that he is capable, so that the employer has to hire him or her. Isn’t it outrageous? But that is exactly what is going on here, to the surprise of many people: something is wrong with their minds, then, and we will talk about that too when we address the cultural aspects of this political conflict.
-In strictly logical terms, the fallacy of ignorance is always false. If something has not been proven true, it is not necessarily false: It might be that the proof has not appeared yet. But in science and in a trial, be it in court or from the people, the argument is false, but only up to a requirement related to who has the burden of proof. The social and scientific convention is that, for the null hypothesis, it is true unless it is proven false. In the case of a court trial, a citizen is innocent unless proven guilty, since the accuser has the burden of proof. What we have shown is that for a politician, he is corrupt unless he proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is innocent. In this election case, there was fraud unless the Biden camp proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was not. The reason is that Biden has the burden of proof, as we have demonstrated. And as I have said, the doubt remains for too many of the jury, the people, who, because of that, should side, and in fact sides, as it is expected too,  with the null hypothesis, the guilty verdict.
+What we have shown is that for a politician, it is natural, and optimal, for the people to assume that they are corrupt unless the politician in question  shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is or she is honest. In our electoral case, it must be assumed that there was fraud unless Biden's side proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was not. The reason is that Biden must bear the burden of proof, as we have shown. If the electoral and justice system worked, that wouldn't be necessary, really. But in this case, and as I have said, the doubt remains for many of the jury, the people, who for that reason should side, and in fact do, as expected, with the null hypothesis, of the guilty verdict.
 === Is the justice system in the US failing the people? ===

@@ Línea 93: / Línea 93: @@
 In Trump's case, he's willing to show, given the chance, that he's not lying, through submitting to the verdict of forensic audits in each county, for example, or through cyber forensic audits. On Biden’s side, Trump's attitude might seem costless. But in this case the result would mortally harm him as a politician, especially since he has not acknowledged his defeat and has not conceded Biden the victory. In fact, most of the media are already calling him a liar and a dictator for not accepting democratic rules, not accepting the verdict of a vote. They have advanced the theory that he is knowingly lying, just to maintain his popularity with the Republican people heading into the next election. But this theory is unsupported if he is willing to see himself as a liar if there are forensic audits and, if it is true that he is lying knowingly, the consequences for a politician should be devastating if a democratic system works, as we will see more clearly in the signaling games section. The reason is that even republican people would not elect a liar, even if he is republican. In a primary, for example, that would be devastating for him.
-Regarding Joe Biden, his attitude transgresses the basic principle normal in sales, hiring, etc that should be natural too in a representative democracy, as we have seen: An applicant for a job can not pretend that it is the firm’s owners who have to show that he is capable and then hire him. In that tenor, the Biden’s camp go to the extreme of using the fallacy of ignorance: since fraud has not been proven to be true, it is false. In other words, since the job applicant has not been proven incapable, he is capable, so that the employer has to hire him or her. Isn’t it outrageous? But that is exactly what is going on here, to the surprise of many people: something is wrong with their minds, then, and we will talk about that too when we address the cultural aspects of this political conflict.
+Coming back to the Joe Biden’s case, his attitude transgresses the basic principle normal in sales, hiring, etc that should be natural too in a representative democracy, as we have seen: An applicant for a job can not pretend that it is the firm’s owners who have to show that he is capable and then hire him. In that tenor, the Biden’s camp go to the extreme of using the fallacy of ignorance: since fraud has not been proven to be true, we have to conclude that it is false. In other words, since the job applicant has not been proven incapable, we have to conclude that he is capable, so that the employer has to hire him or her. Isn’t it outrageous? But that is exactly what is going on here, to the surprise of many people: something is wrong with their minds, then, and we will talk about that too when we address the cultural aspects of this political conflict.
 In strictly logical terms, the fallacy of ignorance is always false. If something has not been proven true, it is not necessarily false: It might be that the proof has not appeared yet. But in science and in a trial, be it in court or from the people, the argument is false, but only up to a requirement related to who has the burden of proof. The social and scientific convention is that, for the null hypothesis, it is true unless it is proven false. In the case of a court trial, a citizen is innocent unless proven guilty, since the accuser has the burden of proof. What we have shown is that for a politician, he is corrupt unless he proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is innocent. In this election case, there was fraud unless the Biden camp proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was not. The reason is that Biden has the burden of proof, as we have demonstrated. And as I have said, the doubt remains for too many of the jury, the people, who, because of that, should side, and in fact sides, as it is expected too,  with the null hypothesis, the guilty verdict.

@@ Línea 89: / Línea 89: @@
 If someone claims that he has a better alternative than the current standard, the null hypothesis, he has to prove that that status quo is false (in our cases, Biden has to prove that there was no fraud, and Trump that he is not bluffing), and provide then the alternative (that Biden is innocent and Trump is not lying) as plausible, given the available evidence presented by them. And that is why the saying that "Caesar's wife should appear honest, not just be" applies to politicians: she must be above suspicion, shown by her public behaviour, for the citizens (the principals in political issues, assuming there is democracy) to trust her.
-So, what should really be outrageous, if democracy worked in that country, is what most US citizens, even some pro-Trump voters, believe: that the people have to produce proof of fraud in these elections in order to demonstrate that Joe Biden is guilty, when he is the one that has to demonstrate his innocence.
+So, what should really be outrageous, if democracy worked in that country, is what most US citizens, even some pro-Trump voters, believe: that the people have to produce proof of fraud in these elections in order to demonstrate that Joe Biden is guilty, when he is the one that has to demonstrate his innocence, given that both the electoral system and the justice system are also under suspicion. If he wants to rid his name of suspicion, he must prove that he is innocent. Not the other way around.
 In Trump's case, he's willing to show, given the chance, that he's not lying, through submitting to the verdict of forensic audits in each county, for example, or through cyber forensic audits. On Biden’s side, Trump's attitude might seem costless. But in this case the result would mortally harm him as a politician, especially since he has not acknowledged his defeat and has not conceded Biden the victory. In fact, most of the media are already calling him a liar and a dictator for not accepting democratic rules, not accepting the verdict of a vote. They have advanced the theory that he is knowingly lying, just to maintain his popularity with the Republican people heading into the next election. But this theory is unsupported if he is willing to see himself as a liar if there are forensic audits and, if it is true that he is lying knowingly, the consequences for a politician should be devastating if a democratic system works, as we will see more clearly in the signaling games section. The reason is that even republican people would not elect a liar, even if he is republican. In a primary, for example, that would be devastating for him.

@@ Línea 83: / Línea 83: @@
-Regarding the first issue, citizens and politicians are placed on opposite sides of the principal vs agent contradiction.  What separates those players is the presence of asymmetric information they have about the topic at hand. A dentist, for example, knows more than the client about the true problem present in the teeth of the patient; a CEO knows more about his work effort than the company owners; an applicant for a job knows more about what his abilities are than an employer. And so on. In our case, the  politician knows more than the citizens about what his true intentions are and about the kind of management  he makes in private about the public matter. That is why the patient, the company owners and the employer (the principals) want to see good references, based on performance, in order to hire the dentist, the CEO and a job applicant, respectively (the agents). And that is why the saying that "Caesar's wife should appear honest, not just be" applies to politicians: she must be above suspicion, shown by her public behaviour, for the citizens (the principals in political issues, assuming there is democracy) to trust her.
+Regarding the first issue, citizens and politicians are placed on opposite sides of the principal vs agent contradiction.  What separates those players is the presence of asymmetric information they have about the topic at hand. A dentist, for example, knows more than the client about the true problem present in the teeth of the patient; a CEO knows more about his work effort than the company owners; an applicant for a job knows more about what his abilities are than an employer. And so on. In our case, the  politician knows more than the citizens about what his true intentions are and about the kind of management  he makes in private about the public matter. That is why the patient, the company owners and the employer (the principals) want to see good references, based on performance, in order to hire the dentist, the CEO and a job applicant, respectively (the agents).
 This implies that, like the dentist, the CEO and the job applicant have to demonstrate, by their actual performance, that they are well trained, the politicians have the burden of proof in a political trial made by the people. So, the null hypothesis in our cases is the guilty presumption for dentists, job applicants, CEOs and politicians, since it does not make sense for their principals to start assuming that they are capable without knowing them beforehand. And to know them they must have information about them, not only by their words, but by real empirical evidence: reliable references and performance observable by their principals.
-If someone claims that he has a better alternative than the current standard, the null hypothesis, he has to prove that that status quo is false (in our cases, Biden has to prove that there was no fraud, and Trump that he is not bluffing), and provide then the alternative (that Biden is innocent and Trump is not lying) as plausible, given the available evidence presented by them.
+If someone claims that he has a better alternative than the current standard, the null hypothesis, he has to prove that that status quo is false (in our cases, Biden has to prove that there was no fraud, and Trump that he is not bluffing), and provide then the alternative (that Biden is innocent and Trump is not lying) as plausible, given the available evidence presented by them. And that is why the saying that "Caesar's wife should appear honest, not just be" applies to politicians: she must be above suspicion, shown by her public behaviour, for the citizens (the principals in political issues, assuming there is democracy) to trust her.
 So, what should really be outrageous, if democracy worked in that country, is what most US citizens, even some pro-Trump voters, believe: that the people have to produce proof of fraud in these elections in order to demonstrate that Joe Biden is guilty, when he is the one that has to demonstrate his innocence.

@@ Línea 75: / Línea 75: @@
 In any case, and given the failure of the justice system, we then appeal to the people for a simulated political trial, using the mentioned economics tools that allow inferences even in the worst possible scenario: if the actual evidence of fraud is not used directly in the final verdict. The observed variables are the public performances of the politicians, countries and institutions being judged by the people. Even though, again, there is evidence that clearly signals fraud and conspiracy and we will use them to strengthen our main conclusions, here we will go to the extreme to prove our points and take those variables of actual corruption as unobservable.
-The democratic party followers, in order to accept our arguments, only have to accept the clear correlation, in general, between corruption and public attempts to hide it, on the one hand, and between innocence and the public attempts to be transparent about signs of corruption, on the other. Those correlations are a required condition in scientific practices in order to be able to replicate and be able to establish as the new standard a new theory proposed to overturn the status quo one, and in business administration and economics in general for an agreement, called a contract, when asymmetric information is present in the players involved. In politics under democracy, that is what a social contract requires, a Constitution. Otherwise, we face a situation where the use of force, and not mutual agreement, is what rules. That establishes the rule of law vs rule of force for matters of justice and human interaction in a society.
+The democratic party followers, in order to accept our arguments, only have to realize that, in general, there is a clear correlation between corruption and public attempts to hide it, on the one hand. On the other, there is a clear correlation between innocence and observable willingness to be transparent. Those correlations are a required condition in scientific practices in order to be able to replicate and be able to establish as the new standard a new theory proposed to overturn the status quo one, and in business administration and economics in general for an agreement, called a contract, when asymmetric information is present between the players involved. In politics under democracy, that is what a social contract requires, a Constitution. Otherwise, we face a situation where the use of force, and not mutual agreement, is what rules. That establishes the rule of law vs rule of force for matters of justice and human interaction in a society.
 The two Economics models that I find to be useful in this situation are, again, the Agency Problem and Signaling Games. The first one to show what the null hypothesis is, which will reveal who has the burden of proof here. The second model will show, using theoretical and political inference, that Biden turns out to be  guilty of conspiracy and fraud, and is the loser of this election, while Trump turns out to be innocent and the winner of the presidency.

@@ Línea 69: / Línea 69: @@
 The same happens in business administration. It should happen in politics too, but too often, as in our case, it does not occur, as we will see here, which in itself is a sign of something very important: this is not normal, much less optimal. And now comes the surprise: as we will show, the null hypothesis in politics is that both, Biden and Trump, as well as any politician and public institutions or private companies performing a public job, like Dominion, are guilty unless proven innocent.  And all of them have the burden of proof. If Joe Biden, our main case in this essay, does not provide enough evidence that there was no fraud, the people should continue to suspect that he is guilty. The same happens to Dominion and similar companies who participated in the elections.
-Since Joe Biden was inaugurated as President, most of the courts have not admitted the cases for an electoral fraud trial, either because of procedural decisions, or because the side that claims fraud did not have enough preparation to prove the case. Now, as it might seem odd, again, to many people, but according to what we have said, the ones who should have initiated the case against the accusation of fraud, are Biden and his camp.
+Since Joe Biden was inaugurated as President, most of the courts have not admitted the cases for an electoral fraud trial, either because of procedural decisions, or because the side that claims fraud did not have enough preparation to prove the case. Now, as it might seem odd, again, to many people, but according to what we have said, the ones who should have initiated the case against the accusation of fraud, are Biden and his camp. Recall what was said in the introduction about forensic audit evidence in Maricopa County.
-Using these kinds of arguments we can claim then, strictly speaking, then, that the judiciary system is not working for electoral matters of this importance, which is fundamental for democracy where the rule of law holds. This is probably seen to many as extreme, but, as we will be ilustrate in the case of Dominion using the marketplace example, it is the common and healthy practice, and even though what has happened seems normal to many, maybe because it has been like this for some time, it further signals that the democracy is not working in the US.
+This is probably seen by many as extreme, but, as we will be ilustrate in the case of Dominion using the marketplace example,it is common and healthy practice, and although what has happened seems normal to many, perhaps because it has been the case for some time, it strengthens the idea even more that democracy is not working in the US.
 In any case, and given the failure of the justice system, we then appeal to the people for a simulated political trial, using the mentioned economics tools that allow inferences even in the worst possible scenario: if the actual evidence of fraud is not used directly in the final verdict. The observed variables are the public performances of the politicians, countries and institutions being judged by the people. Even though, again, there is evidence that clearly signals fraud and conspiracy and we will use them to strengthen our main conclusions, here we will go to the extreme to prove our points and take those variables of actual corruption as unobservable.

@@ Línea 41: / Línea 41: @@
 As it will be made clear with some detail, the claim conspirators maintain regarding the lack of evidence of fraud in the US and the false inference that it is what clears them from suspicion, is based in the use of the fallacy of ignorance: “since fraud has not been proven to be true, it is false”. We will show that it is  false and that it has the objective of shifting the burden of proof to their opponents, the people, while they use their mafia-like tools to make it impossible for the people to produce the proof. They base their arguments, for example, on the fact that the Attorney General William Barr, and  some courts, have said that they did not find significant proof. Contrary to that, what is clear at this moment is that almost all attempts to prove fraud in court were not carried out by the public institutions that are supposed to do that, like the Department of Justice itself and the FBI. Some of those attempts  were dismissed on procedural grounds, for example  at the national Supreme Court level.
-That is why the courts have so far not been able to examine the evidence, really, since the burden of proof has not been assumed by the entities prepared for it given their function, with their logistical and professional capacity. As I will argue here, the justice system has failed the country, and some private citizens, notably Sidney Powell and Michael Lindell, have tried to fill in that void. Forensic audits starting in Maricopa county are in the process of establishing the truth. If the fraud is verified, I will show that there are incentives for this to spiral, since the evidence is quite similar all over the place, as we argue below regarding a common pattern observed at the lower echelons of the claimed pyramidal conspiracy. It is false, then, that the fraud claim was found to be wrong, even in the presence of some negative outcomes in the courts of law.  What is certain is that fraud is a very real possibility, and we are in a war between truth and lies in this matter. Here we will use in a crucial way to identify which side the politicians take, whether of transparency to reveal the truth, or of the obstruction of the investigation in this regard. That will give us the political verdict, while the empirical evidence is finished verifying, on whether they are guilty or not, and whether there was fraud or not.
+That is why the courts have so far not been able to examine the evidence, really, since the burden of proof has not been assumed by the entities prepared for it given their function, with their logistical and professional capacity. As I will argue here, the justice system has failed the country, and some private citizens, notably Sidney Powell and Michael Lindell, have tried to fill in that void. Forensic audits starting in Maricopa county are in the process of establishing the truth.
 Michael Lindell and many other people  claim that there was a conspiracy to “cancel” the truth on the matter of evidence, which consisted in hiding it from mediatic and Internet exposure, on the one hand, and also to attack the prestige and interests of the citizens, whistleblowers and leaders objecting to the election process. That involved the FBI (who harassed whistleblowers instead of investigating the allegations), the Department of Justice, and the Homeland Security Department, besides many State and County level officials of both parties. That claim is consistent with the theory we present here. This is like a murder case carried out by a drug mafia cartel: they want to erase the the incriminating evidence and silence the witnesses, buying in the process some key governmenet officials of the police, national and local congreses and judiciary system. My take is that truth will prevail. No doubt in my mind about it, and I will try humbly to contribute here to this endeavor with my capabilities: economic theory and political experience in Venezuela.