The Big Point About The Prisoners Dilemma

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They wouldn't, and if a burglar actually broke into the house of a non-paying resident, the police wouldn't come. But the mere fact there are houses that subscribe to the police service in the area means that the burglars are less likely to be coming around in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok....?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was there something I needed to clarify?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Solved by instituting a local monopoly. How is this different than a state taxing and providing the services?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) It's not a monopoly.
2) Road owners have a large incentive to provide good service at low cost while the gov't has no such incentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your house can only be on one road. One provider = monopoly.

[TuNeCedeMalis]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

DS' point is directed at ACers who say that Big Brother always makes things worse.

He points to examples of PD type situations in which people acting individually will have incentives to act in ways that yield worse aggregate results than if there were a Big Brother forcing them all to act a certain way.

Without Big Brother, all athletes will eventually use steroids. With a BB that can somehow force them all not to use steroids, they won't. Nevermind the practicalities, ie. it's impossible to effectively enforce steroid rules etc. The point is that, IN THEORY, everyone's better off with a Big Brother in SOME situations.

If true, this point is a lethal blow to AC theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, no.

AC does not promise to make everyone happy. It promises to maximize the productive output of the scarce resources of the Earth.

There are many situations where individuals make decisions which they eventually regret. Choosing to use steroids when cooperating with your fellow athletes could have allowed you to avoid jeopardizing your health might be an example. Of course, one can never know for sure whether an indivdual enjoyed taking steroids more or less than the alternative. This always involves speculation about the subjective preferences of another.

The problem is a practical one. It is impossible to have a Big Brother that intervenes precisley in those cirucumstances where the relevant individuals would prefer the intervention. These cases are know only to the individuals, and only in hindsight (otherwise they surely would have chosen the alternative!). The only possibility is to beleive in the fairy tale god that would watch out for people in such a manner, but this god clearly does not exist.

[David Sklansky]

"You still haven't address the point is that if they would all be better if none of them took steroids then they should cooperate and act as if the big brother was forcing their hand."

What you are missing here is the fact that an individual is better off TAKING steroids if no one else did. The health risks are worth it then. I'm talking of course only about those who make the top with steroid's help.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They wouldn't, and if a burglar actually broke into the house of a non-paying resident, the police wouldn't come. But the mere fact there are houses
that subscribe to the police service in the area means that the burglars are less likely to be coming around in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok....?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was there something I needed to clarify?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, since I already provided an example of how police protection could be provided by the road owner to the entire neighborhood, how does this help your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Solved by instituting a local monopoly. How is this different than a state taxing and providing the services?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) It's not a monopoly.
2) Road owners have a large incentive to provide good service at low cost while the gov't has no such incentive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your house can only be on one road. One provider = monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]
But there's not only one road owner (the State) under AC.

Sounds like someone needs to look up the definition of a monopoly. Especially with regards to a state (ie a monopoly on force). There is no such monopoly in AC.

The threat of moving to another neighborhood would have a much greater impact on a business then moving to another country would have to the state.

[David Sklansky]

"To determine whether something is theoretically correct or not, I suppose it's correct to assume perfect logical abilities for the participants. In this case DS' example didn't assume that, since perfect logic would lead to them all co-operating.

Good point.

What say you, DS?"

Same answer. Prisoner dilemma problems involve situations where the best solution for you is if are able to be the one exception. Perfect logic does not lead them to all cooperating.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"You still haven't address the point is that if they would all be better if none of them took steroids then they should cooperate and act as if the big brother was forcing their hand."

What you are missing here is the fact that an individual is better off TAKING steroids if no one else did. The health risks are worth it then. I'm talking of course only about those who make the top with steroid's help.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not missing that at all (mabe missing something else). the trust based cooperation is exactly equivalent to the big brother existing, so if they should all hope for the big brother then they should all wish to cooperate on a trust basis.

unless you can show that the wish for trust based cooperation is impossible to realise then there's a problem with your argument.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"But they also have a reason not to cheat which is they everyone benefit most from a trust based cooperations."

The assumption is that the cheating isn't caught. And that people are trying only to maximize their self interest without regard to feelings of wrongness or rightness.

Meanwhile I have no idea whether ACers object to the concept of medium size groups like elite bodybuilders, getting together to elect somebody to test all of them, but having no authority about any other aspect of their lives.

A simple solution unless they are such fruitcakes that they can't abide by any exceptions.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I have no idea whether ACers object to the concept of medium size groups like elite bodybuilders, getting together to elect somebody to test all of them, but having no authority about any other aspect of their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perfectly fine under AC theory.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The assumption is that the cheating isn't caught.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best your argument only applies if the bodybuilders who take steroids have no chance of being caught?

Sorry, I missed that assumption. Given some chance of being caught do you see that trust based cooperation can resolve your PD problem.

chez

[David Sklansky]

This whole conversation is irrelevant if you are allowed to elect one issue Big Brothers.