Interesting how Tit for Tat is often equated with Mutually Assured
Distruction (though we thankfully have not had an iterated nuclear war
to put the theory to the test..). Can we look to colluders for some
example of current strategies in foreign policy? Perhaps we could look
to enforcement of UN resolutions for examples of this strategy in
action? Or perhaps the theorized gaming of energy markets through
determination of market power in which collusion can occur without
direct communication between players? Or probably most pressing, how
about terrorism?
The colluders make a few winners through self sacrifice of many
players. That is when two colluders play with each other one chooses
to lose every time thus giving the other many wins. When colluders are
playing non-colluders they simply defect to draw down the wins of
non-colluding opponents. Sort of outside "homo economic-us" rules,
unless the losers are being paid under the table as it were, but right
up the alley of so called ideological fighters who are willing to
sacrifice for the "good of the many" or idea...
That is tit for tat works in the domain of sovereign states who have to
remain in the same neighborhood after each iterated game... But the
ideologues who want to change the very structure of the neighborhood
might find collusion a useful strategy. Which then takes us to the
dangerous territory of the shared goals of such seeming foes as Osama
Bin Laden and George W. Bush.
--Joshua
On Oct 14, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
Locked
