> steve wrote:
> >
> > It's worth thinking about this from the viewpoint of
> > realpolitik/raison d'etat. If people attack you you need to know what
their
> > beef is so you can calculate the relative cost of 1. Killing them, 2.
giving
> > them what they want 3. giving them some of what they want but making it
> > clear that's all they're going to get. If giving your enemy what they
want
> > is too costly (a threat to some vital interest or the existence of the
> > state) then you accept the cost of killing them. If the cost balance
works
> > out the other way you make a deal - this is what the British government
has
> > done with IRA/Sinn Fein.
Eliezer wrote
> "Realpolitik" is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Not so. There is a strong case for saying that it's a lack of realpolitik
that has led to present problems.
> "Realpolitik" is what people call shortsightedness when they wish to think
of themselves as being clever.
I would argue that it is exactly the opposite - see below.
>
> If you give terrorists what they want, you end up with more terrorists.
> Appeasement. Danegeld. Basic rule of supply and demand.
Not always. That depends on what it is the terrorists want. If what they
want can be conceded without injury to a vital state interest it may well
pay to do that. I understand, you are saying this will spread the idea that
you are a patsy and other terrorist groups will spring up. This will happen,
but not if you make it clear that the reason for the original move was
calculated self interest.
>
> You can't calculate for the single, local, present issue, without taking
> into account the effect on future issues. "Realpolitik" means not taking
> into account what happens on the next pass; the effect that your violation
> of principle (for realpolitik is never invoked except where principles are
> being violated) will have on future dealings with the other nations who
> stood by and watched you betray, meddle, appease, or whatever it is you
> were doing under the banner of "realpolitik".
Quite the contrary. You are putting up a straw man here. Realpolitik is not
the absence of principle it *is* a principle, i.e. that governments should
act so as to protect, preserve and extend the interests of the state rather
than on the basis of some ideal such as spreading
socialism/freedom/democracy/the true faith etc etc. Part of this is
precisely to take a long term view, on the Palmerstonian principle that
states have no permanent allies or enemies, only permanent interests. It is
not in the interests of any state to act in a persistently treacherous or
unreliable way and so this is not part of any policy of realpolitik. If
states act on the basis of clearly defined and understood interests
judgement of risks and effects of actions is much easier. Also disputes
arising out of conflicts of interest can more often be settled by
compromise of some kind which is not the case when they are presented as
being about a clash of principles. (This is undoubtedly one of the problems
in the middle east). The *real *problems with realpolitik are 1.It conflates
the interests of populations and ruling elites, 2. it doesn't work so well
(if at all) in a situation where you don't have Westphalian style states.
>
> The foundation of ethics is the iterated Prisoner's Dilemna, and those who
> wish to try and excuse ethical violations will generally analyze only the
> single, local round. They don't argue explicitly that there is just the
> single round, rather they simply don't analyze anything else in their
> argument.
I quite agree. International relations is a kind of iterated PD and
realpolitik is (in part) a form of tit-for-tat strategy.
Steve Davies
> -- -- -- -- --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT