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

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#131

Post by danharaj »

logfromblammo wrote: post #128
danharaj wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am talking about capitalism in material terms as it happens because that's what the post I replied to was doing, not an ideal, hypothetical form of capitalism. likewise if we were having a discussion about the real life consequences about Marxism-Leninsim (like a productive discussion on that topic can actually happen on HN) I would be criticizing the USSR as it actually developed and not, say, as it was described…

This is exactly why no one who wishes to have a serious discussion should ever say the word "capitalism"-- never, not ever --because you will either waste time up front in defining terms, or later on, when different people are using different meanings for the same words. "Anarcho-capitalism" will never be realized, because it combines two such words into one brand that virtually guarantees that no two people will be…

The word capitalism has a fairly well established meaning in most academically rigorous settings.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#133

Post by pyrale »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #127
pyrale wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anar-caps permit any other form of anarchism - provided you own land. Statism permits any other form of government - provided you pay taxes and respect the law.

You don't actually have to own the land...You could rent the land or hold the land as a collective.

Yeah, if someone is willing to enter a contract with you, which they are free to decline.

Anyhow, beyond the mere principle of having to be part of a system you reject, it is quite weird to say that any anarchist could live in an anar-cap utopia, when there are such differences between them ; just like it would be weird to say that any anarchy can fully develop as a community within a statist society.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#134

Post by nickik »

VLM wrote: post #116
nickik wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its all that Utopian. An-Caps take a lot of care to make there institution prove against human weakness. There is also a lot of study into historical examples that explain part of how a An-Cap society would work. I don't one can expect more from any group. An-Capism is as un-utipian as you can get while still having some vauge definition of an ideal system. Most AnCaps happily admit that the assumed soc…

"prove against human weakness." You were likely thinking of moral and ethical lapses, but there's also the crucial problem of IQ and disability. Could a ancap community of PHD students work? Probably. Elsewhere? Well...

Actually no.

Humans as they are now, not some PhD. Again, its that same analysis used when talking about democracy or any other system.

You can go back to David Hume. How can we design democracy so that we can limit what the worst people can do.

This exact same way I approach any system. The reason why I think AnCapism might work, is exactly because I don't think it needs any change in human psychology, IQ or whatever else.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#135

Post by nickik »

throwaway729 wrote: post #101
nickik wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its all that Utopian. An-Caps take a lot of care to make there institution prove against human weakness. There is also a lot of study into historical examples that explain part of how a An-Cap society would work. I don't one can expect more from any group. An-Capism is as un-utipian as you can get while still having some vauge definition of an ideal system. Most AnCaps happily admit that the assumed soc…

> An-Capism is as un-utipian as you can get while still having some vauge definition of an ideal system... Most AnCaps happily admit that the assumed society would not be near perfect. Perhaps. That doesn't make it any less Utopian in my book. > I don't think the axioms are that special, its basic rational choice political science/economics that is applied in most AnCap arguments. Depends on the writer. There certain…

Then I don't understand your definition of Utopian or how it is useful.

Molyneux is no longer an AnCap, he has gone of and is basically something on its own now.

There are actual economics/poetical science PhD working on this stuff, see for example Peter Leeson, Bryan Caplan.

> Of course, rational choice is not special, but it is an enormous assumption that we're pretty sure is not a realistic description of how people actually behave...

Rational choice in this context means not Homo Economicus (as in mathematical maximisation of expected outcome) but rather rational choice limited by information and so on. This assumtion is much weaker and applies to enough people as to make it useful.

Its basically what much micro economics and political science already does. I don't know what better scientific disciplines we have to make better evaluation of theoretical system of humans.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#136

Post by nickik »

dragonwriter wrote: post #89
nickik wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO that includes anarcho-capitalism. No it does not. (Most) Anarcho-Capitalism assumes humans as they are now. It uses the same analysis as do political scientists and economics use now to model systems. Most AnCap explicitly reject "Socialist Man"-type stuff.

> (Most) Anarcho-Capitalism assumes humans as they are now. No, most anarcho-capitalism that is analytical (rather than holding anarcho-capitalism directly as a first principal) relies on outdated idealistic models of humanity. > It uses the same analysis as do political scientists and economics use now to model systems. In that, despite its well known flaws, the rational choice model is still frequently used (either…

Your argument has nothing to do with Anarcho-Capitlaism.

You are simply arguing against most political science and micro economics. I use those disciplines to explain why I think Anarcho-Capitalism makes sense.

If you don't except these then I can not convince you of anything, not even that dictatorship is bad or anything else. There is no point arguing.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#137

Post by AstralStorm »

nickik wrote: post #134
VLM wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"prove against human weakness." You were likely thinking of moral and ethical lapses, but there's also the crucial problem of IQ and disability. Could a ancap community of PHD students work? Probably. Elsewhere? Well...

Actually no. Humans as they are now, not some PhD. Again, its that same analysis used when talking about democracy or any other system. You can go back to David Hume. How can we design democracy so that we can limit what the worst people can do. This exact same way I approach any system. The reason why I think AnCapism might work, is exactly because I don't think it needs any change in human psychology, IQ or whateve…

In other words, solve a minimax problem over human behaviour. Good luck with that - we do not even have strong scientific notion of how people make decisions in various conditions on micro level.

AnCap likewise does not work, because we do not know when people would renege on their contracts (essentially steal, injecting accumulation of wealth due to lack of information about what was stolen). Not to mention it does not start from zero and accumulation of wealth is obviously easier when you already have it and becomes easier.

Result is a state = a monopoly, oligopoly or a cartel.

Such a result is only avoidable if somehow economics is not a zero sum game and individual progress/gain is quick enough to outweigh all such initial tendencies, which would only happen in the singularity.

An alternative would be an utopian uncorruptible oracular jury with unlimited power = God.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#138

Post by nickik »

AstralStorm wrote: post #137
nickik wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no. Humans as they are now, not some PhD. Again, its that same analysis used when talking about democracy or any other system. You can go back to David Hume. How can we design democracy so that we can limit what the worst people can do. This exact same way I approach any system. The reason why I think AnCapism might work, is exactly because I don't think it needs any change in human psychology, IQ or whateve…

In other words, solve a minimax problem over human behaviour. Good luck with that - we do not even have strong scientific notion of how people make decisions in various conditions on micro level. AnCap likewise does not work, because we do not know when people would renege on their contracts (essentially steal, injecting accumulation of wealth due to lack of information about what was stolen). Not to mention it does…

Hacker News is not the right place for such a discussion.

We do not have perfect information on everything, but we still need to do the best we can to make informed choices. So I use the same we use in standard Science.

There is a ton of literature on law in non-state situation, from legal, political and economic scholars. I suggest you look at it. Its the basis of AnCapism.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#139

Post by Jarwain »

sebastos wrote: post #112
throwaway729 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's kind of hilarious seeing all of these people commenting about how this is "utopian" thinking... I suppose you're referring to me, since I'm the only one who has used that word. To clarify, I was replying to a comment , not making any comment directly relevant to the paper or PoA. That said, if someone applied this paper's results directly to a defense of anarchy, I would call that application Utopian because I…

Nothing personal about your comment particularly - I agree with how you're characterizing it. I was reacting to the instant jump to political thought people were making when the PoA has plenty of interesting implications in the merely technological realm :) > By "standard", do you mean "every mile is taxed equally"? Or "according to construction/upkeep cost"? Perhaps confusing wording on my part - by standard I meant…

This reminds me of the sunpass/turnpike system in South Florida. A toll is charged to your account by driving through toll booths located at entrance and exit ramps (done through an RFID chip or something similar appended to the windshield). The tolls generated are used towards maintaining that highway. It tends to be much less congested with more considerate drivers, compared to 95.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#140

Post by grive »

madmaniak wrote: post #60
grive wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Well yes, I am obeying the law of gravity :D Is your point, that AI could replace human will?

No, sorry it was somewhat tongue in cheek. It's just that within the simulation, the way a single unit obeys a central planner (not at all, partially, entirely) is defined by the rules of the simulation, so the rules of the world.

So asking if that rule, that authority of the AI over the units is similar to human law, is I think a bit beside the point. It's more akin to the law of physics. It's simply the fabric of that reality.

Of course, you could then create a simulation that would try to recreate the same kind of domination as within a human society, but that would be only one kind of simulation, one kind of system, with specific parameters. It would not give much about the very essence of the system itself, only of it within constraints.

Post reply on HN