On 7/1/20 11:51 AM, Jon Zingale wrote: > To the extent we believe *selfishly first* to be the rule, we probably > shouldn't bother with that argument for masks either.
Agreed. I argue for mandates or nothing, recommendations are only heeded by those of us who give a sh¡t about other people. And the majority of the people I run into do not. And even mandates are susceptible. Our governor put a mask mandate in place, but several of our sheriffs are refusing to enforce it. > Must it always be the case that to the most exploitative goes the spoils? No, I don't think so. I can't back it up with air-tight evidence. But I'm inclined to correlate an increase in spoil distribution with the rule of law. To the extent that the rules of the game are written down and the codex is the ultimate referent, the exploiters have a more complex game to play. Granted, the rule-followers *also* have a more complex game to play. (Shout out to all the small business owners out there!) But we can encode a little universality into the codex by writing laws that help the lawful follow the law. And, again granted, this opens the door to systemic/algorithmic prejudice. Get your prejudice written into the codex and it'll last longer and "cement" your advantage far and wide. But, again, we can codify self-editing features into the codex. The only deep problem left to solve is the meta-game problem (e.g. SLAPP suits). -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
