Re: Tolerance strategies (was: Two Essays on the violence...)

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Fri Oct 26 2001 - 00:35:55 MDT

Mike Lorrey wrote:
> "Alex F. Bokov" wrote:
> >
> > ZeroPowers suggested what amounts to tit-for-tat. That creates three
> > types of players-- cooperators, defectors, and tit-for-tatters. There
> > is still instability (oddly enough, conflict between cooperators and
> > tit-for-tatters) but perhaps a better scenario overall.
> >
> > In fact if our state department, military, and spies functioned as
> > intended, we would be a tit-for-tat entity. As you've amply pointed
> > out, this is not happening. I wonder, what sorts of changes we need to
> > make to keep our defenses in line with a tit-for-tat strategy without
> > becoming either cooperators or defectors?
> Well, we could start by renaming the DoD as the Department of
> Retaliation.
> Next, adjust our military Code of Conduct to allow flexibility in action
> that is determined by the action of those who attack us. If you obey the
> Classical Laws of War, we operate in similar fashion. If you obey
> ComIntern tactics of Insurgency, Infiltration, Subversion, AgitProp, and
> Terrorism, we use the same tactics against your own home front. Under no
> conditions do we initiate force using the lowest common denominator, we
> always initiate at the highest standard of behavior until the enemy
> proves otherwise inclined.
> On that line, we get rid of pollyannish restrictions on doing dirty
> deeds in the dark in all circumstances. We let the circumstances
> determine the tactics. By operating externally in such a fashion, we
> create an incentive for others to operate at the highest standard of
> conduct.

Excuse me but part of what got us into this mess is considering
such restrictions "pollyannish" in practice and doing more than
a few dirty deeds around the world. We have not been above
initiating the dirty deed either.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT