gov't as optimal

[afterzir]

I think gov't is evil,

but I recently came across an argument that gave me some trouble:

 

The optimal game theoretic strategy is cheating

and gov't is just the final consequent of this.

 

How would one address this?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I would say that is not an argument.

 

I would also point out that cheating is only profitable over the long term if your are part of the government (or are protected by the government), because the cheating will be called "justice," "necessary for order" or "national sovereignty" within the territory that the government has claimed. Cheating is profitable within the government, but that is reason to abolish government.

 

To say something is the "final consequent" is not an argument, and neither is it to say something is "the optimal game strategy " If anything, it sounds like a sly way of claiming that government will always exist without actually providing any arguments or evidence. This is called an argument from ignorance, which is used to shift the burden of proof. To quote wiki "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)"

[VolT]

I think gov't is evil,

but I recently came across an argument that gave me some trouble:

 

The optimal game theoretic strategy is cheating

and gov't is just the final consequent of this.

 

How would one address this?

If someone asserts that the government exists because optimal game strategy is cheating, then they have to prove it. Your first question should have been simply, how?

 

1) How does an individual cheating or a group of individuals cheating create the government? (Cheating with force creates a mob not a government)

2) How does the government cheating increase the size and power of the government? 

3) Does reality support your assertion?

 

My perspective is that the government doesn't have to cheat when they have a monopoly of force, you do as they say or they will ultimately kill you.

That is not cheating, it is domination.

[dsayers]

Need to define terms. What is meant by cheating? Does it mean to violate the rules in an environment of competition? If so, then how could this be described as the optimal strategy?

 

I'll give an example. I used to work at a gas station. The rules were you give us money, we give you gas (and candy bars, newspapers, etc). If you took the gas and didn't give us the money, we took down your license plate, called the police, then you had to give us the money anyways, as well as give more money to the city, as well as have a mark on your criminal record. Theft is pretty good at precluding you from many jobs. Compared to just following the rules and paying for the gas, this would be the antithesis of optimal.

[Agalloch]

What game? Game theory doesn't apply to economics or philosophy, so somebody needs to heavily define their terms and prove their axioms apply.

[TheRobin]

What strategy is best, depends entirely on the parameters of the "game". Unless the person can elaborate on this (and proof how this is necessarily true for all parameters) the premise is already flawed.

That being said, I would be curious as to the reasoning behind that premise, so feel free to post it here, should you ever be given the reason.  

[RCali]

Cheating cannot be called a game strategy, because it's playing outside the game. So government is acknowledgement of morality and choosing to not abide by it.

[shirgall]

Cheating is part of the game, and it's based on the odds of getting cost and the benefit of getting away with it.

 

For example, in Scrabble you can put down a word that is not in the dictionary. If challenged you remove the word and lose your turn. If challenged and it *is* a word, the challenger loses their turn. Is it therefore cheating to put down a word that sounds plausible but you know is not a word against a player who might believe it's real?

 

Government cheats by claiming things are wrong therefore only the government may regulate doing them. The game theorists in government look for ways to declare new things "wrong" because it just garners them more power to wield and profit from.

[RCali]

If a game has certain rules, they are to be followed, if you are to say you are participating in said game. If you don't follow the rules it's no longer the described game, and it is something else. If you say you're participating in the game, but are not following the rules, you're lying. It's like if a swordsman used a pistol in a duel where it is clearly against the rules to do such a thing. Maybe he killed the other person, but he didn't so because he was part of the duel. It's because he knew the other person was considering the rules of the duel, and he wouldn't do this thing he did do, using the pistol. It's wrong to say this swordsman won the duel. He didn't participate in it, even if he said he did. It's hypocrisy.

[afterzir]

Cheating cannot be called a game strategy, because it's playing outside the game. So government is acknowledgement of morality and choosing to not abide by it.

That's precisely why it's optimal i.e. it's thinking outside the box when everyone else is thinking inside it.

 

Also, I had trouble with it because I vaguely remember Bastiat saying something about if plunder becomes less costly than labor,

people will do it.  So, if you think of evil as an investment then gov't provides the greatest return.

[TheRobin]

I don't want to sound like a dick here, but it seems to me that half of you don't know what game theory is about and why someone would use it in the argument as it is.

Let me quote from the wiki a bit here: "As a method of applied mathematics, game theory has been used to study a wide variety of human and animal behaviors. It was initially developed in economics to understand a large collection of economic behaviors, including behaviors of firms, markets, and consumers. The first use of game-theoretic analysis was by Antoine Augustin Cournot in 1838 with his solution of the Cournot duopoly. The use of game theory in the social sciences has expanded, and game theory has been applied to political, sociological, and psychological behaviors as well.

Although pre-twentieth century naturalists such as Charles Darwin made game-theoretic kinds of statements, the use of game-theoretic analysis in biology began with Ronald Fisher's studies of animal behavior during the 1930s. This work predates the name "game theory", but it shares many important features with this field. The developments in economics were later applied to biology largely by John Maynard Smith in his book Evolution and the Theory of Games.^{[citation needed]}

In addition to being used to describe, predict, and explain behavior, game theory has also been used to develop theories of ethical or normative behavior and to prescribe such behavior.^[5] In economics and philosophy, scholars have applied game theory to help in the understanding of good or proper behavior. Game-theoretic arguments of this type can be found as far back as Plato.^[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

 

[labmath2]

I don't want to sound like a dick here, but it seems to me that half of you don't know what game theory is about and why someone would use it in the argument as it is.

 

Let me quote from the wiki a bit here: "As a method of applied mathematics, game theory has been used to study a wide variety of human and animal behaviors. It was initially developed in economics to understand a large collection of economic behaviors, including behaviors of firms, markets, and consumers. The first use of game-theoretic analysis was by Antoine Augustin Cournot in 1838 with his solution of the Cournot duopoly. The use of game theory in the social sciences has expanded, and game theory has been applied to political, sociological, and psychological behaviors as well.

Although pre-twentieth century naturalists such as Charles Darwin made game-theoretic kinds of statements, the use of game-theoretic analysis in biology began with Ronald Fisher's studies of animal behavior during the 1930s. This work predates the name "game theory", but it shares many important features with this field. The developments in economics were later applied to biology largely by John Maynard Smith in his book Evolution and the Theory of Games.^{[citation needed]}

In addition to being used to describe, predict, and explain behavior, game theory has also been used to develop theories of ethical or normative behavior and to prescribe such behavior.^[5] In economics and philosophy, scholars have applied game theory to help in the understanding of good or proper behavior. Game-theoretic arguments of this type can be found as far back as Plato.^[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

 

You got here before me. Damn.

[Jer]

That's precisely why it's optimal i.e. it's thinking outside the box when everyone else is thinking inside it.

 

Also, I had trouble with it because I vaguely remember Bastiat saying something about if plunder becomes less costly than labor,

people will do it.  So, if you think of evil as an investment then gov't provides the greatest return.

Do you mean moral = optimal? Could it be moral for everyone to steal? no

[jughead]

I accept the idea that if one starts with the assumption that human beings are inherently aggressive and uncooperative, that having a strong centralized force such as a government could theoretically result in a more peaceful, ordered society. Variations of this type of claim are frequently advanced by statists. However none of this is guaranteed, even if we accept the initial premise, which I do not, and ultimately it is an argument from effect, not from morality.

[dsayers]

I accept the idea that if one starts with the assumption that human beings are inherently aggressive and uncooperative, that having a strong centralized force such as a government could theoretically result in a more peaceful, ordered society. Variations of this type of claim are frequently advanced by statists. However none of this is guaranteed, even if we accept the initial premise, which I do not, and ultimately it is an argument from effect, not from morality.

Even if we accept the initial premise, the espoused conclusion is false. If people are inherently aggressive (initial premise), then creating an imaginary second moral category of superhuman powers/responsibilities would decrease peace and order, not increase them.

 

I think this is the easiest point to make to statists who are looking for a utilitarian explanation for their position. It's the consider our homogeny approach. If all people are bad, then bad people would have more power with a State. If most people are bad, they would use the power of the State to subjugate the remainder. If most people are good, the bad people would gravitate towards State power. If everybody is good, there is no benefit from the State.

 

Though just as you say, the moral argument trumps the utilitarian ones since utility is subjective and nature is objective.

[afterzir]

The argument isn't so much that gov't isn't immoral (if it were, then it would be easy to crush),

rather, the argument is that gov't will reform even after being dismantled

(because cheating is the best way to win [**note: once a gov't forms you are no longer

in the realm of iterative game scenarios where things like tit-for-tat tactics occur] & is the ideal

investment because (if gov't formation is successful) the returns are practically infinite/astronomical).

[dsayers]

First of all, government is a concept. You're talking about the behaviors of people. If everybody understood that government is an unethical proposition, any attempt to "re-form" it would be met with the resistance of everybody. It would be almost impossible.

 

Also, I'm not sure what benefit such a conclusion would have. You don't NOT fight the cancer just because after it's gone, it could come back.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

That's precisely why it's optimal i.e. it's thinking outside the box when everyone else is thinking inside it.

 

Also, I had trouble with it because I vaguely remember Bastiat saying something about if plunder becomes less costly than labor,

people will do it.  So, if you think of evil as an investment then gov't provides the greatest return.

 

It's true you can devise a game in which cheating is the optimal strategy.

 

However, this has nothing to do with anything. An argument must be made if this is more than just some bullshit defensiveness.

 

Government would not exist if plunder were less costly than trade. There would be no profit from trade to confiscate. This would truly be the world of all against all, and I'm  not sure it has ever existed outside some scarce situations in history. Maybe if you're stranded on an island with 8 people. game theory can tell you that cheating the others is optimal. But it's just a bit too comical for this to be taken as an argument against anarchy. 

 

 

I don't want to sound like a dick here, but it seems to me that half of you don't know what game theory is about and why someone would use it in the argument as it is.

 

But he's not making an argument. If you devise a game that has a result where government will always exist, that is not an argument. You have to actually make a case that government won't ever exist in reality, using evidence. I appreciate your concern, and maybe it is a valid thing to point out, but I don't think one necessarily needs an understanding of game theory to spot a fallacy.

 

I accept the idea that if one starts with the assumption that human beings are inherently aggressive and uncooperative, that having a strong centralized force such as a government could theoretically result in a more peaceful, ordered society. Variations of this type of claim are frequently advanced by statists. However none of this is guaranteed, even if we accept the initial premise, which I do not, and ultimately it is an argument from effect, not from morality.

 

 

No, this cannot be true. If people are equally aggressive and uncooperative, then there are only 2 possibilities:

 

1) They will kill each other until they are all dead

 

2) Some will enslave the others

 

If they are equally aggressive and uncooperative, a government will not make the society more peaceful, because aggression becomes unprofitable it interferes with your ability to farm your tax livestock. If I have a blood lust, I can chop some guy up (I'm in the North Africa mind-space here). But that means I lose out on his labor that I could use to wash my feet. 

 

However

 

Government will necessarily increase the amount of initiations of force in society, all things equal. We can deduct this praxeologically by making the case that government subsidizes the initiation of force. To the extent government makes initiating force more profitable, there will be an increased amount of it. "Peace" and "order" are only for the government, not for the victims of its prey.

 

The argument isn't so much that gov't isn't immoral (if it were, then it would be easy to crush),

rather, the argument is that gov't will reform even after being dismantled

 

 

Just going to point out I called this argument from ignorance in the first post, and am now going to casually walk away...