2013/11/29 Patrick Chkoreff <pc@loom.cc>
Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote, On 11/29/2013 10:38 AM:

>     That doesn't matter.  All that matters is that the benefit of solving
>     the crime exceeds the cost of solving it.

> I think we disagree here. Game theory doesn't support this standpoint.

Chuck game theory.  I'm not talking about an intricate prisoner's
dilemma with layers of feedback here, just a simple matter of benefit
versus cost.

This deserves further explanation. I do think game theory is extremely present in all of our society. We'd be more happy to have other pay tax and not us, than to also pay taxes ourselves.
 
> ... it's good for society if everyone just pays their taxes ...

I disagree, but it's irrelevant anyway.  I'm not talking about big chewy
abstractions like "society", just individual interest.

Arguing against "taxes" in the broad sense of the word (contribution to society as a whole, government is less often the right word) is very challenging indeed if you ask me. Some things only work when everyone pitches in. Reducing climate destruction will not be possible without universally agreed upon rules or very aggressive resistance by ... pretty much all buying power. The latter hasn't happened ever, not without a governing organ explicitly "boycotting" something. We're entering a very murky discussion here which I think shouldn't be required.

Let's say "do something for the good of all of *cared-for-group-name* that will cost the individual more than the individual will profit from it". Becoming vegetarian is an example. It doesn't work if just that one person does it, but it does cost that person something.
 
>     Forget retribution.  The primary benefit of an investigation is the
>     insight which enables you to prevent future crimes.  That can be
>     enormously valuable in terms of life and property.
>
>
> Then why didn't you spend 10% of your wealth/income last year on
> investigating crime prevention?

Because the benefit to me did not exceed that particular cost.  I did
however spend some amount of money and time on computer and physical
security.  Some of the benefits of my efforts are shared by others.

You're right in that 10% is pretty darn high. Only Israel gets to that number. About 5% of gov' taxes goes to defense though. With developed countries' tax pressure at ~35% (US only ~25%) that makes 0.35 * 0.05 = 0.0175 or about 2% of your money. Only a fifth of what I asked you for. Then you say you did additional things to secure yourself. Let's say 2% is about right for a personal defense budget.

Knowing that committing a murder is cheaper than preventing one, by a factor I'm not aware of, and that murder can sometimes have an economic advantage you will find that murder will exist. (see also estimated victims and cost of prevention of terrorism. Now see the costs of hitmen (find a cheap one).)

Having a public market for hitmen will make it cheaper. Having a crowdfunding posibility will enable a new class of people, those with lesser profit from it, to still contribute to a kill. This model doesn't show failures and thus misguides hitmen into thinking it is easy money, distorting the market in the unpreferred direction. Observe how "no retribution" significantly reduces the estimated cost of a murdering someone.

I simply think you wouldn't get the type of civilization where you could focus on development of the race as a whole. A way to live more than just for your own little life, but for that of your family and "comrades".

If you don't do that you choose the most painful way to die; to live.
 
> I truly think a community cannot be expected to behave in a way good for
> the community but bad for the individual.

Thank goodness.  I can't imagine what such a horror could even mean in
the first place.

For real, right? Frikkin' goody two shoeses. Can't understand their insanity.
 
>     The advantage is the same when your problems are the same, which is
>     often the case.
>
> I don't quite see this argument. A murderer and a police officer have
> opposing motives. A person in the street will back away from both to
> prevent getting hurt, even if he might help either achieve his/her goal.

It is generally wise for that person to back away, though in specific
instances people do find it mutually advantageous to look out for each
other.  As a small example, people in my neighborhood have alerted each
other to the presence of suspicious characters.
People in your neighborhood have a (perhaps unspoken) currency of reputation. Their warning to others would be reciprocated. That idea makes them do it. You don't have to consider this rational or good for the individual, evolution made sure that it increases the size of the population. This is not personally advantageous, it's popularly advantageous. Evolution made you a less rational being to cause your existence. Very philosophical standpoint. "Humans aren't rational, therefore they can exist". Anyway.

There might very well be examples of true mutually beneficial cases. For example if a wallet's finder may keep a percentage of the wallet's contents. The finder has this dilemma:

Max( wallet.content * captureRiskFactor, wallet.content * rewardFactor + emotionalBonus)
If the wallet's finder is found out (the owner found him) he will lose the reward. The risk factor is 0 to 1. 10% chance of getting caught makes content * 0.1. This is the expected profit. Everyone on this list really should know about expected returns and all. Only when the rewardFactor is bigger than his riskfactor will he give the wallet back. You'll find that even this is not actually mutually beneficial, lets the wallet has different values for both people. This is generally true, maybe a family picture, ID's that have to be rerequested at a cost, etc. While the cash is all that's good to the finder.

The emotional bonus is the thing that causes people to be vegetarian and is also the typical reason people obey the law. It's part of the unlikely risk-adverseness common in people nowadays. I guess safely living worse is better than maybe living better in terms of survival.

Anyway again. Given such proper gametheory you'll find it hard to find situations where one would be interested in protecting another unrelated human being.

At some point crime will stabilize at a certain level. That level is where people are so generally scared of a crime against them, yet not scared of retribution for their protests against crime, that they'll put efforts (in financial or other form) into reducing the level of criminality.

You'll find their first move is closing assassination markets to increase the effective cost and risk of finding a murderer to do one's bidding. It's by far the cheapest way to reduce murder.
 
It amazes me that some glibly assert that people will voluntarily fund
the assassination of a politician, but would not voluntarily fund the
investigation of a string of crimes which cost money and lives. --
especially given that "crowdfunding" is all the rage these days.  The
view strikes me as excessively dismal and eeyorish.

Once there's a string of crimes you'd rather barricade your home than collectively hire a detective. Maybe you'll have a guard on your street. But you wouldn't donate to a crime lab doing experimental research. That's just too little directly visible return. Ad-hoc patchwork solutions. (Paying safety money for example)

An assassination pool however has very direct and clear payoffs if it ever happens. Easy to put money towards out of a simple grudge.



Excuses for the subpar use of language. My End Of Day has been reached.

Could you try to summarize the arguments we've been throwing at each other? I'd like to reach some sort of satisfying answer.

I think you estimate the cost of protection to be comparable to the cost of attacks. I think protection is far more expensive and although likely a more popular expense (let's say people are generally good, witchhunts and discrimination would suggest otherwise but w/e) also more frequently a smaller expense, as the profit derived from it is very hard to determine and the profit would hardly alter by a personal contribution. Therewith creating a game theory scenario (a simple one!) where general safety will dwindle as to alter our society significantly and make crime an auctioned commodity. Subverting any way of life not strictly egoistical. (What was the last time you donated to your police station?)

As you see my summary turned into another piece of argument. Excuses excuses.

Eeyorish is a nice word btw. And after a string of crimes is a tad late. And who'd notice it's a string of crimes?