At 2:18 PM -0400 8/2/01, Faustine wrote:

Interesting article, actually.

I think game theory has the potential to be a powerful tool for any cypherpunk to have in his or her mental arsenal, (so to speak.)

Yes, discussed many times since 1992. Here's but one article on game theory and evolutionary game theory: To: cypherpunks@toad.com * Subject: Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II * From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) * Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:33:12 -0700 * Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As promised in Part I, here is more on the application of Schelling points to the discussion of "rights" (property rights, rights of parents to tell their children what to do, etc.). We saw that Schelling points, as developed by Richard Schelling and others, are essentially "lower entropy" points. (In fact, I suspect there are formulations which involve so-called "maxiumum entropy" methods which would reproduce the theory of Schelling points; Cover and Thomas hint at this in their "Information Theory" book.) How does this apply to rights? Let us take as an example the contentious issue of "parent's rights," "children's rights," and societal issues involving schooling, child abuse, indoctrination into the body politic, citizenship, etc. * Viewpoint #1: Parents have absolute control of what their minor (under some age, usually 18 and/or resident in their homes) children read, watch on t.v., listen to on the radio, etc. They can control the comings and goings of their minor children, whom they may associate with, etc. * Viewpoint #2: Children, even minor children, have certain basic rights to access to information, access to t.v., radio, music, and books. Even access to crypto! * Viewpoint #3: The State and/or Community has an interest in the upbringing of a child and may take steps to direct the education and exposure to information of children, even in contravention of the wishes of parents. There are of course various shadings of these viewpoints. And examples can be found to defend each of these viewpoints, and also to attack them. (For example, what of the Christian Scientist who lets his 5-year-old die of an easily-curable disease because he believes injections are unGodly? What of the 10-year-old who is taught in public schools how to use condoms (or how to clean dirty needles), in contravention of the wishes of the parent?) Cutting to the chase, I submit that nearly all societies have "evolved" an approach that says: -- "While I may think you are raising your child in a way different from how I would raise him, I cannot take over the raising of your child, and I cannot be in your house/tent/cave/yurt at all times, or even at _any_times, so I will basically not interfere unless something really egregious happens." This is a "Schelling point" in the same way that territorial boundaries develop and are mutually adhered to, for the most part. The _costs_ of extending beyond the Schelling point boundaries is deemed to be too high, and the boundary persists. (Boundaries may jump around, as conditions change. And wars still exist to try to imbalance or move the boundaries. Nothing says the Schelling points are fixed in stone, only that the points are not completely random, and that there is a kind of order out of the chaos.) This is summarized in the most important of all Schelling points: "Live and let live." In the absence of a direct threat to one's self or family, and in the absence of other compelling evidence of a need to intervene, much energy and grief is saved by not trying to intervene in the lives of others. (I believe many of the themes we talk about, here and in libertarian circles, come together in this way. The view of John Rawls, that "justice" is that which an ensemble of people of people would pick, even if they did not what station in life they would be born into, closely fits with this Schelling point model.) ObCrypto Sidebar: The "fair" method for dividing a pie between two people is well-known: "You cut, I choose." This *game theory* result is central to many cryptographic protocols (though it may not always be apparent at first). And the protocol can be extended to 3 parties, and proabably to N. Research is ongoing on this, including Cypherpunk Robin Hanson's work at Caltech. My essay here is not a formal, footnoted proof of my claims, naturally. But I believe my claims to be basically correct, and to offer insights into the debate about "rights"...certainly a Schelling point or evolutionary game theory interpretation of what we call "rights" is superior to an appeal-to-God or "natural rights" interpretation. To get back to the issue of children's rights: I will not expend my energies and risk my life to forcibly gain entry to my neighbor's "castle" to make sure his 7-year-old son is able to view "Power Rangers" when his "rights" to do so are denied by his father. Nor will I pay for cops, Child Protective Services, and a powerful bureaucracy to enforce these "rights." Nor will I demand that this parent send his child to the church I deem most appropriate, nor the school I deem most appropriate, etc. That is, "practical and economic" issues lead me to the conclusion that parents basically can tell their minor children what to do, and that only truly egregious cases, such as clear cases of severe beatings, warrant the interference by the State. The same applies to cryptography. While there are dangers with any technology, including cryptographers, most societies have eventually evolved a system in which one is secure in one's home and papers. Orwell's vision of video cameras in all homes (actually, only of the elites, as the "proles" were unmonitored) has not come to pass, and even in nominally totalitarian states like the U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. there was considerable privacy in the home, at least after the worst of the terrors in the 1930-70 period. (I am not endorsing these states, naturally, just noting that even these states had to recognize the Schelling points of (mostly) not trying to send cops into private residences to enforce marginally-important rules.) Forceful advocates of children's rights, such as Mike Duvos, will no doubt find many points to use to argue for intervention on behalf of children. And in some case, I would even agree. But the basic principle, the "right" of a man to control his own castle, and the "right" not to have people nosing around inside his home, and the very real economic point that a parent pays for services and good consumed in his house, means that the balance of rights _must_ be in the direction of Viewpoint #1 above. Parents are free to raise their children as they see fit. They feed and clothe them, they talk to them about ideas and beliefs, they control the television set and the radio channel tuned to, and so forth. This is basic reality. To change this basic reality would require intervention from outside. And this is too high a price to pay for illusory gains. (I say "illusory" because I don't think intervention from outside would produce better-educated children, though it might produce more controllable citizen-units.) This essay has concentrated perhaps too much on "parent's vs. children's rights," but this is what sparked my desire to write an essay on Schelling points and why certain so-called rights appear to have evolved. I believe the game-theoretic and evolutionary approaches, mixed in with economics, offer the most solid grounding for the discussion of rights. Comments, as always, are welcome. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."