From: jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:41:13 +0800
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: RE: A Libertine Question
Message-ID: <9606298386.AA838698411@smtplink.alis.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> wrote:
>But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether
>right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the
>process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force.  

Basically, I agree. But as earlier essays have suggested, our current government
may just be a Schelling point of sorts among the possible social organizations
that can exist. Thus, technology is mearly a different lens to view the same
basic interaction among players. The players may move into different equivalence
classes, but the basic roles are the same.

In other times, alphabets, industrialization, and nuclear weapons could have
played similar roles in the upsetting of the status quo.

In this context, right and wrong do not need to enter the discussion.

However, optimizing each individual's situation does not necessarily result in
an optimal situation for the group. This is the basis of the classic prisoner's
dilemna from game theory. I understand that for the iterated version,
Tit-for-Tat is a stable strategy in that no other strategy will do better and
thereby displace it over time in a large population.

Tit-for-Tat: Start co-operating. Co-operate if the other party co-operated on
the last round. Defect if they defected on the last round.

So, how do *we* get crypto widespread?

James