You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Daily post #43 in a 50 part series leading up to April 1, 2017
Dude - I'm not sure you can use a principle of pledge to seduce the IRS into a negligiability of reduction, but hey!
The prisoner's dilemma is subtle, it is our prison. The dilemma in non-aggresion assumes the other also assumes. I espouse the principle to you, the more so if you subscribe, but am I really in for it? What coin did we spend, what blood did we share?
As I know you're a believer, in your prison, a true believer, I have you, in my prison. Is that what you wanted with your principle?
Thanks for the reply. Not sure how to parse it. Are you a Supporter of the Aggression Principle (a SAP)?
Edit -- I guess you're saying how do we know pledgers aren't cheaters. This is a valid concern and trust does need to be earned. Steem with a different portal, and reputation scoring formula based on public commitments kept, balances perhaps held as a bond, others willing to vouch for you, etc. will help with this. Earlier posts in this series have addressed this.
Yes. The prisoner's dilemma is a dilemma because there is no solution without external context. There are in general two solutions.
In terms of any particular community, they generally appeal to both solutions: the ability to fine and the continuation into the future.
I'm not saying I'm against a pledge - just that it is unlikely to work unless your pledgers have skin in the game, and can lose that value, or they are in it forever, and so is everyone else.