The Big Point About The Prisoners Dilemma

[David Sklansky]

For those who don't know The PD or don't get what I am driving at when I bring it up, it is simply this:

There are situations, not that rare, where you would HOPE there was a BIG BROTHER FORCING YOU to make the opposite decision than what is in your best interest (your underboss tells you not to snitch). This occurs when the loss you incur is more than made up for by the fact that a Big Brother is forcing others as well. It would be nice if he forced only them and not you, but failing that, you would prefer that you are included rather than there be no Big Brother at all. And of course "Big Brother" can mean God, government, laws, a group of people, or whatever.

The above words are fact, not opinion. What isn't clear is whether the above words prove that pure capitalism, one that never includes a big brother, is flawed.

Some might say that there is no good way to invoke a Big Brother only when needed. A practical argument but not a theoretical refutation.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
What isn't clear is whether the above words prove that pure capitalism, one that never includes a big brother, is flawed.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is clear, however, is that arguments claiming to prove the optimality of AC that have failed to take these situations into account, are flawed.

[David Sklansky]

So you agree with me for a change?

[Darryl_P]

Indeed. I think it's even the 2nd time in as many months [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There are situations, not that rare, where you would HOPE there was a BIG BROTHER FORCING YOU to make the opposite decision than what is in your best interest (your underboss tells you not to snitch).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting example for you to use, since it ignores the millions of people who are neither crime bosses nor underlings. While the boss making the decision may help the underlings and the boss, it's certainly less than optimal for the victims of their crimes. This is why I said in the other thread that most such examples of PD applicability in the real world are pathologically trivial.

Also note, in a real anarcho-capitalist system, the likleyhood of organized crime having anywhere near the power it does now is vanishingly small.

[David Sklansky]

I will repress my urge to make deprecating remarks about your post and will simply tell you that the logical concepts of the prisoners dilemma come up much more often in the opposite context. Namely situations where society is BETTER off when people cooperate rather than defect (and the players themselves gain rather than lose less). There is an excellent book by a Hungarian author who enumerates dozens of such situations.

[Darryl_P]

You mean this one?

Probably better to include the wiki link, since at least it's in English.

[David Sklansky]

I don't know. It was in English.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I will repress my urge to make deprecating remarks about your post and will simply tell you that the logical concepts of the prisoners dilemma come up much more often in the opposite context. Namely situations where society is BETTER off when people cooperate rather than defect (and the players themselves gain rather than lose less). There is an excellent book by a Hungarian author who enumerates dozens of such situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does pure capitalism imply that people won't cooperate when its to their advantage or is this a practical point about stupid people?

chez

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who don't know The PD or don't get what I am driving at when I bring it up, it is simply this:

There are situations, not that rare, where you would HOPE there was a BIG BROTHER FORCING YOU to make the opposite decision than what is in your best interest (your underboss tells you not to snitch). This occurs when the loss you incur is more than made up for by the fact that a Big Brother is forcing others as well. It would be nice if he forced only them and not you, but failing that, you would prefer that you are included rather than there be no Big Brother at all. And of course "Big Brother" can mean God, government, laws, a group of people, or whatever.

The above words are fact, not opinion. What isn't clear is whether the above words prove that pure capitalism, one that never includes a big brother, is flawed.

Some might say that there is no good way to invoke a Big Brother only when needed. A practical argument but not a theoretical refutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct "Big Brother" you are searching for that "forces" you to behave in manners that might seem immediately against your self-interest but ultimately are very much in it is called private property. PD type problems (such as the tragedy of the commons) only occur in the absence of private property (i.e. when there exist commons), and TotC (PD) situations inevitably generate property rights (to reduce costs). Hence, such situations always generate their own solutions, without recourse to centralized violence.

The Prisoners' Dilemma is not a dilemma at all for the free market.

Next.