The Big Point About The Prisoners Dilemma - Page 7

tomdemaine · #61 09-30-2006, 06:50 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

you're "allowed" to do whatever you want as long as you don't enact unconsented force on others or their property.

GMontag · #62 09-30-2006, 07:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there's only one road owner that matters, namely the owner of the road that your house is on.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would depend on the size of the business. Anyway, what happened to "I don't have to move if I don't like the lawn mowing service"? I thought love it or leave it was a statist argument, not an AC one.

Darryl_P · #63 09-30-2006, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not if it's a one-time deal, but what if it's iterated, and all participants know it will be iterated?

Don't you think iterated PD is more applicable to real life than one-time PD?

Darryl_P · #64 09-30-2006, 08:35 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You can, but it can only cover people who voluntarily subscribe to it. If you are a young budding athlete who wants to break world records and want no part of such a Big Brother, then in ACland it would be wrong for anyone to force even such a one-issue BB on you.

Darryl_P · #65 09-30-2006, 08:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of PD problems is that in any attempt to cooperate each individual has an incentive to cheat on the agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all people are perfectly logical, and the PD problem gets repeated many, many times, then they should know that any advantage they get by cheating is only temporary, because after a while everyone will cheat and everyone will be worse off than if nobody cheated. So having such foresight, and knowing everyone else has similar foresight, the correct move becomes to not cheat.

pvn · #66 09-30-2006, 08:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there's only one road owner that matters, namely the owner of the road that your house is on.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you might own that road yourself. Or you might form a corporation with some neighbors and have the corporation own the road. Your neighborhood could easily connect to multiple outside roads. Or there might be some other arrangement we haven't even thought of.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would depend on the size of the business. Anyway, what happened to "I don't have to move if I don't like the lawn mowing service"? I thought love it or leave it was a statist argument, not an AC one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing a big piece here.

Borodog · #67 09-30-2006, 09:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP · #68 09-30-2006, 09:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you are a young budding athlete who wants to break world records and want no part of such a Big Brother, then in ACland it would be wrong for anyone to force even such a one-issue BB on you.

[/ QUOTE ]
But not wrong to exclude you from their events.

Borodog · #69 09-30-2006, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are neglecting the almost universal multi-game nature of PD type problems in the real world. The correct strategy then becomes TIT FOR TAT, and cooperating is easily the best solution. Given sufficiently low time preference, most people can realize this regardless of their logical skills.

Borodog · #70 09-30-2006, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of PD problems is that in any attempt to cooperate each individual has an incentive to cheat on the agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all people are perfectly logical, and the PD problem gets repeated many, many times, then they should know that any advantage they get by cheating is only temporary, because after a while everyone will cheat and everyone will be worse off than if nobody cheated. So having such foresight, and knowing everyone else has similar foresight, the correct move becomes to not cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly right; sorry I didn't see this before my last post.