Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Price of Anarchy

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 140 posts

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#31

Post by RodericDay »

jessaustin wrote: post #27
pron wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the possibility for non-coercive collective forms of decision making. Can you define "non-coercive"? If you want to disallow coercion you must study how coercion actually works on humans rather than decide a priori what constitutes coercion. It is therefore possible that a "non-coercive collective forms of decision making" does not exist (or can only exist under certain unrealistic parameters).

Alternatively, one could simply pay attention to how life is lived. Most things humans do are done out of habit. One might suspect that all our beneficial habits would break down if there weren't an almighty parental figure lying in wait to punish us, but that also contradicts lived experience: humans in more permissive societies habitually live in relative harmony even more than those in less permissive ones.

Any socialist etc. who studies history will point out that our permissive peaceful society exists with a lot of implied violence that is just made invisible or normalized.

American incarceration rates and health care tied to employer come to mind.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#32

Post by snrplfth »

RodericDay wrote: post #31
jessaustin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, one could simply pay attention to how life is lived. Most things humans do are done out of habit. One might suspect that all our beneficial habits would break down if there weren't an almighty parental figure lying in wait to punish us, but that also contradicts lived experience: humans in more permissive societies habitually live in relative harmony even more than those in less permissive ones.

Any socialist etc. who studies history will point out that our permissive peaceful society exists with a lot of implied violence that is just made invisible or normalized. American incarceration rates and health care tied to employer come to mind.

Not sure that "too many people in prisons for victimless crimes" and "tax law that makes employer-tied healthcare almost inevitable" are aspects of society's permissiveness.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#33

Post by jessaustin »

clydethefrog wrote: post #4

Already in the first line it claims that anarchy is a system wherein >a system degrades due to selfish behavior of its agents To my point of view, most game theory is just capitalistic ideology disguised in mathematical models.

There is a bit of ideology here, in that there's no particular reason that this tiny little observation about network routing had to be called "The Price of Anarchy". Just the same, it's a mistake to think this topic itself has anything to do with politics or economics. A mistake made intentionally, perhaps, by those with particular political motives.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#34

Post by justinmk »

ue_ wrote: post #30
Proven wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think ancaps are all like that. You can't run business if you don't serve your customers well. Does that translate into pathological selfishness and other extreme behavior that goes in customers' nerves? I don't think so, because such business wouldn't last long. I agree with the GP post above, and I'd also like to point out the idiocy of the "scientific" assumption from Wikipedia that "central planners" have…

>You can't run business if you don't serve your customers well. Serving your customers well is entirely out of self interest, especially in large corporations; in fact, this is the easiest example of "every man for himself". You serve your customers well because ultimately it brings you more profit. Sure, it's not as sure sighted as screwing over every customer, but people who are selfish aren't necessarily stupid. I…

> Serving your customers well is entirely out of self interest,

Right, just like "altruism" is also rooted in self-interest. It turns out that people are motivated by all kinds of things.

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

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#35

Post by AimHere »

snrplfth wrote: post #32
RodericDay wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any socialist etc. who studies history will point out that our permissive peaceful society exists with a lot of implied violence that is just made invisible or normalized. American incarceration rates and health care tied to employer come to mind.

Not sure that "too many people in prisons for victimless crimes" and "tax law that makes employer-tied healthcare almost inevitable" are aspects of society's permissiveness .

His point is that the society might be apparently permissive, at least to those who live in it, but there are parts that aren't (such as those two examples), and people don't generally recognize them as such.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#36

Post by antocv »

dunslandsboo wrote: post #24
ue_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talk with a lot of anarchists and perhaps the only ones of them who are truly in the spirit of "every man for himself" are an-caps and Stirnerists.

Most anarcho-capitalists that I know and from who I learn are absolutely not about "every man for himself" at all. Charity and voluntary cooperation are major parts of the society as they would like it to become. See https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Friendly_society and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organizatio...

Doesnt that seem like an oxymoron, anarcho-capitalist?

Like up-down?

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#37

Post by snrplfth »

AimHere wrote: post #35
snrplfth wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that "too many people in prisons for victimless crimes" and "tax law that makes employer-tied healthcare almost inevitable" are aspects of society's permissiveness .

His point is that the society might be apparently permissive, at least to those who live in it, but there are parts that aren't (such as those two examples), and people don't generally recognize them as such.

But the comment he was responding to said "humans in more permissive societies habitually live in relative harmony even more than those in less permissive ones."

So the fact that, upon trivial examination, a society is revealed to not actually be that permissive, is not evidence against the assertion that permissive societies are harmonious. I mean, I don't think RodericDay was saying that those two examples were impermissiveness that actually increases harmony.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#38

Post by bo1024 »

I just want to mention that many commenters here are reading much more into the name politically than do the game theorists/computer scientists who actually do research on it. The research is focused on the game theory and not meant to make any sort of political points or value judgement. The main question asked is how to design systems so that even in a game-theoretic equilibrium, the total "welfare" is close to the best possible.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#39

Post by grive »

madmaniak wrote: post #28
grive wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume the central planner to be the same as a single unit (as in, of the same kind, the same species). Who is to say that the central planner must be the ontological equal of a single unit? Why not a more complex system? You could have for example a quorum of single-unit who will need to reach a consensus concerning their diverging self-beneficial impetus. You can also imagine, if you represent the interest of e…

Thank you for your reply. "Who is to say that the central planner must be the ontological equal of a single unit" My impression is that's what most people here are discussing. I can see a definition of an anarchy in your quorum example, can't you? But you say we could have AI which will find a balance. Interesting concept. Does it imply obeying AI obeying the law?

Well, the quorum could be organized in any matter of way. Expected a consensus for a decision would be akin to anarchy indeed, however there could always be some kind of recursive hierarchy, with another sub-committee of higher authority that would make other units diverge. (Parties within an assembly, with deputies having to follow their party lines). This quorum could also be tied to following the interest of the masses outside or lose substantial advantages, thus tying their own selfishness to the common good.

It could be anarchy. It could be anything else.

The AI could simply do whatever its specialization is. It could be trying to direct the single-units or to disorganize them and try to keep some level of entropy. Maybe its own benefit would be a generalized state of chaos. Whatever.

The system itself could be considered the legal framework. The relationship between any supervisor and its units could be the metaphor for any subservient relationship in the real world, going from managed teams to parenting to politics to social dynamics between friends. It does not mean anything as long as the specifics of the system itself are not defined to permit the dynamics to be correctly mapped on some real-world dynamics.

Obeying the law? Are you obeying the law of gravity? Is it from your own will that you agree to stay on the ground?

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#40

Post by boona »

antocv wrote: post #36
dunslandsboo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most anarcho-capitalists that I know and from who I learn are absolutely not about "every man for himself" at all. Charity and voluntary cooperation are major parts of the society as they would like it to become. See https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Friendly_society and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organizatio...

Doesnt that seem like an oxymoron, anarcho-capitalist? Like up-down?

As far as I can tell it's the only consistent form of anarchy. For instance in discussions with anarchy-communists, if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of production. The communists I've talked to believe that there would be some public police force. When asked how any decision would be made by the collective, since it is a system run by "society" not by any individuals, the answer often hear is through democratic means (i.e. not anarchy). Considering only those two aspects, you already moved from anarchy to a form of democratic socialism.

Edit: If you have a different point of view, please tell me where I err. The view point I've developed is based on my discussions with the communists, but it obviously doesn't mean that I've gotten the full story.

Post reply on HN