> You're assuming a static agent model. Iterative interactions of smart > mutually identifyable agents would trend towards increasingly benign > cooperation.
That in turn assumes that the population is homogeneous. There is overwhelming probability that a group will form around some people, who have charisma, or who can give others something, whether it is power, money (or ability to "get" stuff), or just about anything people would want. Some of these groups will want power. I'm not sure what you mean by "mutually identifyable" agents. If you mean that people seeking power by reducing other's freedoms, would be known, and others could react to that, then I'm not so sure it would work. Trouble is, even a very small amount of power grabbing people will fuck it all up. It's very nice to say that those who are ready to relinquish freedom for safety deserve neither, but a life of never ending combat against those who want to grab power is not something I strive for. If you mean, OTOH, that people would recognize "honest" people, as in a kind of reputation system, then it might have some merit to it, but would require these people to build a structure to be able to react. This structure would be, as I see it, kind of a distributed democracy. Is that what you had in mind ? Or am I completely off :) -- Vincent Penquerc'h
