[ExI] General comment about all this quasi-libertarianism discussion

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:10:03AM -0500, Richard Loosemore wrote:
>
>> And having said all of that, we do have something like the required
>> simulations already:  game theory.  Libertarianism is something close to
>> an "all defection, all the time" strategy ;-), and I believe those don't
>> do very well....
>
> That's unfair, I'd grant that it's more like Tit For Tat.  The problem
> is that while TfT largely solves the iterated two-person Prisoner's
> Dilemma given certain population assumptions, the multiplayer game is
> less amenable to solution and the real population is less ideal.  There
> is a non-governmental solution, but it's a second-order norm of such
> strength as to make a democratic governemnt seem lax, where you punish
> defectors and anyone who isn't punishing a defector.  The coercion to
> cooperate is distributed, but still coercive.  When I was libertarian,
> it was for the sake of real freedom, not replacing government with
> social oppression.
>
### But this second-order norm needed to achieve an efficient
allocation of resources (most likely an injunction against formation
of overpowering coalitions) is likely to be immensely less burdensome
than a monopolistic agency run mostly by your enemies. I really don't
understand how it's possible for you to reject what appears to be an
efficient solution, despite apparently being able to think your way
through it (which already puts you light-years ahead of 99.99% of the
population, AFAIK).

Rafal