I'm not saying anything beyond the plain meaning of my words. You said "If I read this correctly there actually is a case to be made for anarchic situations working." I was pointing out the major issues which such a case will have to address. I made no comment regarding the validity of the case.
Chris > I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Real life is not a computer > model. It isn't perfect. There are numerous outcomes to a choice. > There are no guarantees of perfect operation of the rules in any > situation whether you have a government or an anarchy. I just thought > it was interesting to contemplate the principles exposed by the simple > experiment. In fact, when the experiment was extended to multiple > rounds, a player could "lose" a round but might still end up winning > in the end. Even there, perfection is not expected. > > Ed$ > > --- In [email protected], Chris Edes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In the computer model, people could only lose money by cooperating and >> getting cheated. If they chose not to participate, their monetary >> balance remained stable. In real life, "agents" have to spend money on >> food and other necessities. They can't choose not to participate for >> long periods. So, in fact, participation is mandatory and cannot be >> otherwise. >> >> Also, in the simulation, the punishers always beat the cheaters, >> although the incurred a small penalty. In real life, the good guys >> don't always win. >> >> Chris >> >> >>> Ooo! Cool! This struck a chord. Here's some links. >>> >>> >>> > http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/8706/title/Math_Trek__Free_Choice_%2B_Punishment_%3D_Cooperation > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma >>> >>> This is sort of like what you are discussing. If I read this correctly >>> there actually is a case to be made for anarchic situations working >>> (Science News). Note the article title. "Free Choice + Punishment = >>> Cooperation". Cool. >>> >>> Also, note the Wiki article (and I think there was an SN article about >>> this as well but I can't find it). Basically, the "tit for tat" with >>> modest "forgiveness" seems to work really well. I don't know game >>> theory but this is really interesting. And compelling. >>> >>> Ed$ >>> >>> >>> --- In [email protected], Jon Roland <jon.roland@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> In the computer simulations done so far there are no "organizations" >>>> among the "agents" whereby they coordinate their efforts and >>>> > pursue a > >>>> joint strategy. It is just a bunch of unorganized individuals each >>>> responding to each other individual based on his memory of the move >>>> >>>> >>> made >>> >>> >>>> by the other in their last encounter, or last few encounters. So the >>>> enforcement responses are also individual, and uncoordinated. In >>>> > that > >>>> sense it is very much like the anarchic models being advocated >>>> > by some > >>>> on this forum. The point is that such models exhibit a >>>> > vulnerability of > >>>> cooperators to defectors that resists most individual corrective >>>> >>>> >>> responses. >>> >>> >>>> Such simulation modeling actually does demonstrate why anarchy won't >>>> "work", and how historic attempts at maintaining it have failed >>>> > to do > >>>> so. It is not a defect of human nature, but an unpleasant result of >>>> mathematics itself, if we include game theory. >>>> >>>> The Universe is not organized for our comfort and convenience. >>>> > The laws > >>>> of physics and mathematics allow us to (barely) exist for a time, >>>> > but > >>>> ultimately defeat our dreams of a perfect social or political order. >>>> >>>> The three laws of thermodynamics (paraphrased): >>>> 1. You can't win. >>>> 2. You can't even break even. >>>> 3. Don't even try. >>>> >>>> >>>> ma ni wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jon, >>>>> >>>>> I like your comparison to other social animals, but what part of >>>>> it comprises "government": the "defectors/cheaters/criminals" or >>>>> "others [who] take action to punish them"? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- Jon >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757 >>>> 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org jon.roland@ >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! >>> > Groups Links > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
