The Big Point About The Prisoners Dilemma

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there are other examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think there are, either post them, or try thinking about them like I do.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about something as basic as contract enforcement? Tit-for-tat and reputational consequences will lead most firms to comply voluntarily with their contracts most of the time. But when the stakes get high, like when a natural disaster or unforeseen consequence makes a contract extremely unprofitable, firms will break their contacts. In fact, firms already do this, even with the threat of governmental coercion hanging over their head. Consumers generally will have even less reason to abide by their contracts if they can make a big profit from a one-off breach, because they are less likely to be repeat players in major (to them) deals. It seems like the other party to the contract would be forced to resort to self-help (like armed repossession) in an AC world.

What is the AC solution to contract enforcement?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a common debate tactic is to see who can yell the loudest. I'd rather get at the correct answer by figuring out who is using the correct axioms and appling them logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Humans Own their own bodies and by extension the things produced by/traded for their bodies. (If I trade my body to a widget maker for 8 hours a day for wages I own those wages)

2. ALL Humans act in their own percieved best interests (in terms of utility) at all times. (if it wasn't in your percieved best interests you wouldn't do it)

3. All universally prefered moral theories must be applied consistantly. (this one isn't neccesary but it makes the next steps easier.)

Any problems so far?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. The first part of one I agree with, the second part doesn't necessarily follow as it's neither eniterly correct or entirely complete. When we say self-ownership, we are speaking clearly of ethics. We must ask to whom and for what is self-ownership good for. The reason for self-ownership, is because to deny it means that someone else has a higher claim on our life then we do. In the grand sceme of things the universe will swallow you up. Does this mean that the universe owns us? Or course not, the reason why is the part about "for what?". Self-ownership is unconcered with this aspect, the princple is good for humans interacting with other humans. It doesn't pertain to humans interaction with animals, or nature, or markets. A market has no more ability or reason to recognize a principle of self-ownership any more than a animal does.

2. Percieved best interests is in terms of value, not utility, and it is often incorrect. Lets say you go to buy a car. As you are looking at the car, another possible buyer shows up. The utility does not increase, yet the value does. Supply and Demand is a major market force, utility is not increased by it, only value.

3. I'm not sure what universally prefered moral theory means. But if it means what I think it does, I'm not sure it's possible to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Humans are moral agents, we can deal with animal rights once we've sorted the important stuff out. Why, if I own my body, is it possible that I don't own the things that I trade my body (in terms of my time/human capital) for?

2. But if I choose to buy the car I'm still acting in my own percieved best interests. I'm ascribing to the car a utility value higher than the money I'm using to buy it as well as all the other things I could be doing with that money.

3. If "things fall due to gravity" is a universal physical law it must apply not only to rocks and trees but to people pigs and fish too. Similarly if "Stealing is wrong" is a universal moral law it must apply to both private individuals and the mafia and governments.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a common debate tactic is to see who can yell the loudest. I'd rather get at the correct answer by figuring out who is using the correct axioms and appling them logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Humans Own their own bodies and by extension the things produced by/traded for their bodies. (If I trade my body to a widget maker for 8 hours a day for wages I own those wages)

2. ALL Humans act in their own percieved best interests (in terms of utility) at all times. (if it wasn't in your percieved best interests you wouldn't do it)

3. All universally prefered moral theories must be applied consistantly. (this one isn't neccesary but it makes the next steps easier.)

Any problems so far?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. The first part of one I agree with, the second part doesn't necessarily follow as it's neither eniterly correct or entirely complete. When we say self-ownership, we are speaking clearly of ethics. We must ask to whom and for what is self-ownership good for. The reason for self-ownership, is because to deny it means that someone else has a higher claim on our life then we do. In the grand sceme of things the universe will swallow you up. Does this mean that the universe owns us? Or course not, the reason why is the part about "for what?". Self-ownership is unconcered with this aspect, the princple is good for humans interacting with other humans. It doesn't pertain to humans interaction with animals, or nature, or markets. A market has no more ability or reason to recognize a principle of self-ownership any more than a animal does.

2. Percieved best interests is in terms of value, not utility, and it is often incorrect. Lets say you go to buy a car. As you are looking at the car, another possible buyer shows up. The utility does not increase, yet the value does. Supply and Demand is a major market force, utility is not increased by it, only value.

3. I'm not sure what universally prefered moral theory means. But if it means what I think it does, I'm not sure it's possible to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Humans are moral agents, we can deal with animal rights once we've sorted the important stuff out. Why, if I own my body, is it possible that I don't own the things that I trade my body (in terms of my time/human capital) for?

2. But if I choose to buy the car I'm still acting in my own percieved best interests. I'm ascribing to the car a utility value higher than the money I'm using to buy it as well as all the other things I could be doing with that money.

3. If "things fall due to gravity" is a universal physical law it must apply not only to rocks and trees but to people pigs and fish too. Similarly if "Stealing is wrong" is a universal moral law it must apply to both private individuals and the mafia and governments.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Cerntianly we are capable of moral agency, but does not mean that all of our actions are best described in a moral agent pardigm. The bahaviors we exhibit are more often a function of behavioral reinforcement than moral agency. But that's really a side dicussion, unless there is some reason to expand on that in this framework that I'm missing.

In order to go from the principle of self-ownership, we can go to responsiblity in one step. But we can't go to the ownership of things without a 2nd principle. Self-ownership is as valid in a socialistic construct as a capitalistic one.

2. Are you saying the cars utility has increased becuase there are more buyers for it, or merely that you are willing to exhange more promises of utility(i.e cash) for it?

3.Yes, I don't really think there are any universally prefered moral theories. Expanding on that, yes "stealing is wrong" is a widespread moral position, but there are always cases that society makes exceptions for. It would be like if on earth only helium doesn't respond to a gravitational force, yet on mars only hydrogen doesn't.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a common debate tactic is to see who can yell the loudest. I'd rather get at the correct answer by figuring out who is using the correct axioms and appling them logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Humans Own their own bodies and by extension the things produced by/traded for their bodies. (If I trade my body to a widget maker for 8 hours a day for wages I own those wages)

2. ALL Humans act in their own percieved best interests (in terms of utility) at all times. (if it wasn't in your percieved best interests you wouldn't do it)

3. All universally prefered moral theories must be applied consistantly. (this one isn't neccesary but it makes the next steps easier.)

Any problems so far?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. The first part of one I agree with, the second part doesn't necessarily follow as it's neither eniterly correct or entirely complete. When we say self-ownership, we are speaking clearly of ethics. We must ask to whom and for what is self-ownership good for. The reason for self-ownership, is because to deny it means that someone else has a higher claim on our life then we do. In the grand sceme of things the universe will swallow you up. Does this mean that the universe owns us? Or course not, the reason why is the part about "for what?". Self-ownership is unconcered with this aspect, the princple is good for humans interacting with other humans. It doesn't pertain to humans interaction with animals, or nature, or markets. A market has no more ability or reason to recognize a principle of self-ownership any more than a animal does.

2. Percieved best interests is in terms of value, not utility, and it is often incorrect. Lets say you go to buy a car. As you are looking at the car, another possible buyer shows up. The utility does not increase, yet the value does. Supply and Demand is a major market force, utility is not increased by it, only value.

3. I'm not sure what universally prefered moral theory means. But if it means what I think it does, I'm not sure it's possible to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Humans are moral agents, we can deal with animal rights once we've sorted the important stuff out. Why, if I own my body, is it possible that I don't own the things that I trade my body (in terms of my time/human capital) for?

2. But if I choose to buy the car I'm still acting in my own percieved best interests. I'm ascribing to the car a utility value higher than the money I'm using to buy it as well as all the other things I could be doing with that money.

3. If "things fall due to gravity" is a universal physical law it must apply not only to rocks and trees but to people pigs and fish too. Similarly if "Stealing is wrong" is a universal moral law it must apply to both private individuals and the mafia and governments.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Cerntianly we are capable of moral agency, but does not mean that all of our actions are best described in a moral agent pardigm. The bahaviors we exhibit are more often a function of behavioral reinforcement than moral agency. But that's really a side dicussion, unless there is some reason to expand on that in this framework that I'm missing.

In order to go from the principle of self-ownership, we can go to responsiblity in one step. But we can't go to the ownership of things without a 2nd principle. Self-ownership is as valid in a socialistic construct as a capitalistic one.

2. Are you saying the cars utility has increased becuase there are more buyers for it, or merely that you are willing to exhange more promises of utility(i.e cash) for it?

3.Yes, I don't really think there are any universally prefered moral theories. Expanding on that, yes "stealing is wrong" is a widespread moral position, but there are always cases that society makes exceptions for. It would be like if on earth only helium doesn't respond to a gravitational force, yet on mars only hydrogen doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. If you truly don't believe people own (or "can make the highest claim on") the things they trade their time/capital for then send me your money your computer and your watch. PM me for my address.

2. The cars utility may not have changed for you but even at the increased price buying it is still the highest utilitly gaining activity you could be doing or you wouldn't be doing it. Humans always maximise +EUV as they percieve it in all actions they take. ie for some weird reason writing this response to you has more utility for me than going and getting laid. Probably psychological scarring [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

3. Like I say we probably don't need it and the proof is complex for a mesage board so lets try to agree on the first 2 first.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the steriod use in the NFL effect your health, what if it did? If it did we are back to the love it or leave it mentality that got me started in this whole thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could it possibly effect my health? I just told you that I don't participate in the NFL. Even if I *did* participate in the NFL, I do so *voluntarily*. Are there people in the NFL against their will? I know they have a "draft" but that's just a figure of speech (despite any nutjob claims that Ricky or TO might make).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't wish to make the case that governments have the sole abilty to fix ailments, at all. There are many solutions to problems regarding social and economic injustices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. So what's all this business about "pd type problems" and forcing people to do things they don't want to do?

[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't matter if you call the "big brother" government, insurance companies, leagues, or social contracts. The "authority" that government currently holds makes it the better vechicle for influencing people than the other ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

If "influencing" people is your goal, then sure, a gun is a lot "better" for influencing people than a "please".

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
How could it possibly effect my health?

[/ QUOTE ]

Directly and indirectly. Two situations that might apply:

First, say you live in a NFL town, a decent upper-class neighborhood. Go to the market one day. Shopping along, you run your cart into a offensive lineman's without knowing who he is. Say this OL has had years of habitual steroid use in his system. The long-term effects include very poor impluse control, a snap temper, the ability to minimize the rage-induced reaction times for action. Benefits of steroid use, funnily enough, for the sport.
He grabs you by the neck, throws you across the aisle. Causes damage to you, presumably. That is an indirect result of his steroid use and you being unlucky enough on the wrong day in the wrong place.

Say you have a teenage son. He gets into football, learns in the weight rooms about speed, steroids, diuretics. So he bulks up. Proud red-blooded American father that you are (example case, not assuming you fulfill the conditions, but it's common enough) the son goes through the 4-year program. Has every advantage. But the years of all those drugs to keep him at peak performance because of a dream that has a very low probability of completion. One morning, your wife goes to wake him up. He doesn't wake up. Coroner's report lists heart failure as the cause of death.

Two examples of where even if you didn't participate in the NFL and the whole steroid culture, where you would be affected with a non-zero % of probability by the individual's steroid use.

First example is almost silly because it very rarely happens. But athletes go nuts, it seems, monthly, and make waves in sports and general media because of their acts.

Second example is an extreme case of what can happen within your own family. And has a more frequent chance of occurring, but perhaps not the death itself.

Does that make the NFL wrong? No. It, across a large scale, brings happiness and a sense of belonging to large numbers of people. But how the NFL conducts itself and how the actions of individuals within the system, because of their status in society, cannot help but affect the observers indirectly, causing direct effects.

The same is true of any large organized system that either has influence or is in a position of power over a larger number of people.

Social Archimedes' Lever.

To say that a single gun has more of an effect on a person than words isn't an all-encompassing axiom. Words can perpeutate and be spread virally, in the form of concepts that influence. Religious dogma, how to cook pasta properly, whether you should drink Pepsi or Coke.

Point a gun at somebody that's at terms with his own death, it's not going to make a bit of difference to him. Take a terminal patient who's in his last days. Point the gun at his forehead, try to scare him? He, if he's intelligent and rational, will just look back at you with contempt. He has had time to confront his own death and finds your action amusing in retrorespect.

However, he can be swayed by verbal arguments convincing him that if he doesn't "repent his sins", he's going to Hades. that's the last-ditch attempt to save oneself from something that may or may not exist. At the very least, you get an inner peace out of it. And if you've done that, his cycle of progression from birth to death, including acceptance, is complete.

So whether God exists or not, whether he needs to exist to bring peace to a large number of people is redundant. The possibility of him existing and the effects this belief has on a large number of people cannot be fought against rationally.

Gandhi could afford to be confidently smug in his pacifist approach when he was confronted. He could stare down his opposition, knowing this: If he failed, there were going to be millions of Indians with less disclipine over their tempers who would have taken up the fight for him.

Following along these lines, is it no wonder that religions carrying such symbolic power in a single man that walked and said those things and carried belief in others are dominant today? And as a rule, those prophets and marytrs were non-violent people.

Morality? Meaning? It may be appropiate to look at humanity as a mass organism and to see religions and other mass-shared assumptions as viral memes that spread and end up combating each other and immunizing each other. As for what is right or wrong? Hmm. Even that is simply a matter of opinion depending on who you agree with. No single value system is supposed to win. That's not the point of any kind of evolution, be it moral or physical. Homogenity is not the aim.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How could it possibly effect my health?

[/ QUOTE ]

Directly and indirectly. Two situations that might apply:

First, say you live in a NFL town, a decent upper-class neighborhood. Go to the market one day. Shopping along, you run your cart into a offensive lineman's without knowing who he is. Say this OL has had years of habitual steroid use in his system. The long-term effects include very poor impluse control, a snap temper, the ability to minimize the rage-induced reaction times for action. Benefits of steroid use, funnily enough, for the sport.
He grabs you by the neck, throws you across the aisle. Causes damage to you, presumably. That is an indirect result of his steroid use and you being unlucky enough on the wrong day in the wrong place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. It's also "non-zero probability" that I will be walking down the street and a huge piano falls on me and pins my legs. A steamroller is out of control rolling straight for me. Luckily, a roid-laden NFL lineman sees the accident, casually tosses the piano aside, and carries me to the hospital.

Were you one of the people David Sklansky was referring to when he talked about "nitpicking ballbusters"?

[FortunaMaximus]

Oh, good, you got the point of that argument then.

Anyway, I doubt DS was referring to me, as I'm fairly new to the goings-on around this particular forum.

That excessive word count is what happens when you open a thread looking for logical discussion and get a whole page of Scripture instead.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
1. If you truly don't believe people own (or "can make the highest claim on") the things they trade their time/capital for then send me your money your computer and your watch. PM me for my address.

2. The cars utility may not have changed for you but even at the increased price buying it is still the highest utilitly gaining activity you could be doing or you wouldn't be doing it. Humans always maximise +EUV as they percieve it in all actions they take. ie for some weird reason writing this response to you has more utility for me than going and getting laid. Probably psychological scarring

[/ QUOTE ]
1. What claim do you have to my computer and my watch? My claim is that I am in possesion of them. With that I can establish the existance of possesion proprety. Please establish the existance of private property. I'm pretty sure you can but after debating for awhile the best way to proceed and not figuring it out I'd like to hear your claim for private property.

2. I'm gonna switch it up this time. I thought this fit in better later but I can see it belongs here. Humans act in the way that the have been behavioraly reinforced to behave. Even when it's not in their most +EUV action.

Lets take the milgram experiments. I can't help but laugh whenever I see it. Because the main point everyone seems to get out of it is that the milgram experiments are unethical. Is excessive obediance what yields the greatest positve EUV? I don't believe it is, but one possible reason for its permeantation into the core of society is
The norm for excessive obedience is much easier to maintain than the norm against. It is difficult to identify a person who excessively obeys since he typically does not stand out from the crowd. A dissenter, on the other hand stands out clearly and can be easily penalized. Often those who dissent are wrong, and are chastized for their presumution. People learn very quickly not to disobey authority, even at times where their EUV is clearly positive to do so.

Here is a transcript of a plane crash
First Officer: just .. you just gonna stay up here as long as you can?

Captain: yes. guard the hor- I mean an speeds one hundred.

At the point the plane is scraping the trees, the following dialogue occurs:

Captain: did you ah click the ah airport lights .. make sure the co-common traffic advisory frequency is set. [sound of seven microphone clicks]. click it seven times?

First Officer: yup yeah I got it now. [momentary sound of scrape lasting for .1 secs]

The pilot made several errors during the flight and the first Officer only spoke up once.

It's good that you get something out of this, I know that I do.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does the steriod use in the NFL effect your health, what if it did? If it did we are back to the love it or leave it mentality that got me started in this whole thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could it possibly effect my health? I just told you that I don't participate in the NFL. Even if I *did* participate in the NFL, I do so *voluntarily*. Are there people in the NFL against their will? I know they have a "draft" but that's just a figure of speech (despite any nutjob claims that Ricky or TO might make).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't wish to make the case that governments have the sole abilty to fix ailments, at all. There are many solutions to problems regarding social and economic injustices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. So what's all this business about "pd type problems" and forcing people to do things they don't want to do?

[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't matter if you call the "big brother" government, insurance companies, leagues, or social contracts. The "authority" that government currently holds makes it the better vechicle for influencing people than the other ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

If "influencing" people is your goal, then sure, a gun is a lot "better" for influencing people than a "please".

[/ QUOTE ]I moved this, you will be disheartened to see that I didn't answer the part about government using guns. Governments will soon enough use stun-guns, and you will need a better arguement. What do you do? Since you continuely give me a hard time about not being in the NFL. It makes it hard for me to say if you were in the NFL, and the Leagues Rules are bad for you, and bad for everyone, and you responding "I'm not in the NFL", I need something that I might be able to make an arguement out of. But the topic in the OP, that PD are a delima for AC isn't really my objection. It's the love it or leave it.