Basic rules are like this....
- there are 100 players in the game in 2 teams (red/Green),
- and a roulette wheel, with 1000 numbers.
- 1/3 are red, 1/3 are green, and 1/3 are black. As per roulette...black pays the house.
- Players can enter and leave the game...and players can switch teams.
- Each turn everyone gets a choice
- Bet your team color for $1.
- Bet on a specific number...if it comes up, you personally get $1 extra, and $2 extra is added to the pot every turn from now on.
- Switch teams
- Side deals.
- And, you can add rules to the game, if 60 players can agree to the rule.
- Trade two wedges of one color, for one wedge of the other color, and one black wedge.
- "13s don't pay out."
In all non-libertarians' eyes...the goal is to make sure that our team is getting less screwed...which is best done by changing the rules so the other guys lose.
Note: in the Aretaevian metaphor, there's no way to decrease the number of black wedges. Mancur Olson agrees, as do most of the Public Choice folks. So...folks like Jehu argue that it's crazy to NOT be spending your $1 trying to make sure your team wins. Hard to disagree inside the system...except that the long term effect of playing is to screw everyone.
Bad systems are ones that encourage betting your team color, and trying to change the rules.
An almost livable system is one wherein the value to betting on a specific number, with payout to everyone, is improved.
A fabulous system is one where the casino next door can open up a better game.
In Aretae's vision...there are no wins apart from the casino next door. There's only who loses most, and who loses least. Because the house is screwing everyone so long as it's the only game in town.
Someone with decent writing skills is free to take this post, and make it clear.
Posts
6 comments:
I checked the house next door. It was worse than what we have.
RSF,
Dude...you're absolutely right. Unless maybe you live next to Singapore, Switzerland, Denmark, or maybe Canada/New Zealand. And there's a lot of houses with 90% black wedges. But the ONLY good way out is still to get someone to open a new, better one.
Who are the black wedges?
I think I have an explanation.
If you value political, especially coercive power above everything else, it's very easy to win against anyone who doesn't.
To win against a liberal, put them into a dilemma where they have to betray the poor to win the power struggle. Either they join you in valuing power utmost, or they lose the ability to betray the poor at all.
As such, anyone wanting to increase a good or change the rules first has to pay off the power-hungry. There's a tax inherent in just about every system.
And that's kind of the essence of the kind of culture I want. One where paying off the power-hungry is known to be illegitimate, so that if you want to help someone, you can fend of parasites just by pointing out they're trying to suck your blood.
Alrenous,
I'm afraid you're reinventing public choice.
On the other hand...I approve wholeheartedly of reinvention. Independent discovery (construction) is a MUCH better way to learn than acceptance of others' models.
I agree that reinventing the wheel is a great idea.
I blame public choice theorists for failing to tell me the simple explanation of public choice. I had to reinvent it to understand it.
It's nice to know I don't have to extend it, though. I find that part boring. Prefer to just look it up.
Also it's good practice. When I reinvent the wheel, it means I have a right answer available to check my epistemology against.
Technically, I think they backwardize things for precision...
IF you have goals that aren't power, then you lose power in negotiations with folks whose goals are only power. Iterate. Therefore the only folks with appreciable power have no goals but power.
Post a Comment