Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market

Fri Nov 29 15:36:03 PST 2013

2013/11/29 Patrick Chkoreff <pc at 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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 11463 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131130/d1f0260c/attachment-0001.txt>