4 ms·

I'm also pretty convinced you either don't know or don't care what game theory is. You seem to be claiming convenient assumptions about human behavior and then

by nmrm 12y ago

I'm also pretty convinced you either don't know or don't care what game theory is. You seem to be claiming convenient assumptions about human behavior and then claiming that game theory somehow validates your opinions beyond empirical inquiry. This is a decidedly anti-scientific way of using a theory. > that's a large part of the reason for discarding the concept of political authority. No, it's a reason for grounding political theories in empirical, scientific evidence instead of extrapolating from misapplications of theory. I don't think these are even misapplications; they're just random useful conjectures you then claim to be substantiated by some unnamed game-theoretic framework. Your entire post is a litany of claimed theorems about an unstated axiom system that doesn't mirror reality anyways. The one piece of evidence for ground truth you've actually provided -- historical precedence -- is so flawed in the wider context of your argument that you're not even defending it anymore.

etherael 12y ago
To collapse the discussion to genesis, your words; Let me remind us of the original claim I was refuting: "If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it." zo1 and I claimed that anarchocapitalist systems are not vulnerable to this criticism by virtue of not actually being political systems and violently forcing people to abide by the rulings of the political authority in that system. Whether or not they work, this is simply true. It is not an effective defense of political authority to point out "All social organisation systems use political authority and are thus vulnerable to the same criticisms as our current system with its dangerously wielded political authority". You've then gone on a very long back and forward with me over the various ways in which you think it might fail until terminating at this conclusion, that being; "I don't believe that the common responses to these questions which have already been raised are valid from a game theory perspective" with some ad hominem about my understanding of what game theory actually is thrown in for good measure. And a restatement of the frequently proven wrong point that I am utterly convinced that this is the way that things would turn out in reality. To rebuke that, again, and thoroughly this time because I think we've reached the point at which continuing this discussion is pointless; Merely being completely convinced that political authority in any system is an achilles heel does not carry over into believing that one potential post political system is definitely the one true path forward. When a religious narrative for the origin of the species is discarded on scientific grounds, and one believes that the most promising current theory is the scientific theory of evolution, even in the event that they turn out to be wrong about the latter does not automatically make them wrong about the former. Succinctly, that is to say that I am utterly certain that the politicians are wrong, but not utterly certain that I and those who think as I do are right. With regards to the fact that you don't accept the common rebuttals to one of the commonly raised objections within anarchocapitalism, that's your prerogative. I can't say that I find your handwaving over "you're getting game theory wrong" a particularly convincing argument that you are right, but I have no real desire to try and sway you from your position. What we think largely doesn't matter, it is likely it will be tried in reality and at this point all the game theory handwaving in the world will not make a difference, one of us will be wrong, and one of us will be right. Until then, we have our positions.

by nmrm 12y ago

etherael 12y ago

To collapse the discussion to genesis, your words; Let me remind us of the original claim I was refuting: "If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it." zo1 and I claimed that anarchocapitalist systems are not vulnerable to this criticism by virtue of not actually being political systems and violently forcing people to abide by the rulings of the political authority in that system. Whether or not they work, this is simply true. It is not an effective defense of political authority to point out "All social organisation systems use political authority and are thus vulnerable to the same criticisms as our current system with its dangerously wielded political authority". You've then gone on a very long back and forward with me over the various ways in which you think it might fail until terminating at this conclusion, that being; "I don't believe that the common responses to these questions which have already been raised are valid from a game theory perspective" with some ad hominem about my understanding of what game theory actually is thrown in for good measure. And a restatement of the frequently proven wrong point that I am utterly convinced that this is the way that things would turn out in reality. To rebuke that, again, and thoroughly this time because I think we've reached the point at which continuing this discussion is pointless; Merely being completely convinced that political authority in any system is an achilles heel does not carry over into believing that one potential post political system is definitely the one true path forward. When a religious narrative for the origin of the species is discarded on scientific grounds, and one believes that the most promising current theory is the scientific theory of evolution, even in the event that they turn out to be wrong about the latter does not automatically make them wrong about the former. Succinctly, that is to say that I am utterly certain that the politicians are wrong, but not utterly certain that I and those who think as I do are right. With regards to the fact that you don't accept the common rebuttals to one of the commonly raised objections within anarchocapitalism, that's your prerogative. I can't say that I find your handwaving over "you're getting game theory wrong" a particularly convincing argument that you are right, but I have no real desire to try and sway you from your position. What we think largely doesn't matter, it is likely it will be tried in reality and at this point all the game theory handwaving in the world will not make a difference, one of us will be wrong, and one of us will be right. Until then, we have our positions.