Re: Business [WAR] Plan (was: Re:Libertarian theory breaking down)

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Fri Mar 21 2003 - 11:52:35 MST

  • Next message: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: MEME: Leaderless Resistance"

    alexboko@umich.edu wrote:
    >
    > Without prejudice, any individual is allowed order an airstrike on any
    > set of coordinates (except the airfield itself, duh!). The cost of an
    > airstrike reflects the actual expenses incurred in launching it plus whatever
    > profit margin the market will bear. Since it's likely that even a light
    > airstrike will be far beyond the budget of any but the richest citizens,
    > the company will maintain an "Airstrike Fund" for every possible set of
    > coordinates in the service area. Once the fund for a given set of coordinates
    > surpasses the price for a particular type of airstrike, that airstrike is
    > launched. There are separate funds for different categories of airstrike,
    > and a fund that will automatically empty out into the airstrike fund that's
    > closest to its set-point. There is also an anti-airstrike fund which is used
    > to raise the bar on the airstrike funds that it specifies. Finally, there is
    > MAD-insurance. It's an arrangement that if coordinates of your choosing are
    > subjected to an airstrike, an amount of money you pre-specify is automatically
    > transferred into the airstrike fund or funds of your choosing. This means that
    > areas with an economic value will be better defended than areas whose value is
    > purely tactical... fortresses don't pay for themselves; factories do.

    > The most violent players in the region spend the most money, and make the
    > most enemies, and effectively make it impossible for themselves to rely on
    > any large, permanent structures. True, perpetrators of violence can choose
    > not to do business with the most effective violence-management agent in the
    > region, but then there's the fear that their competitors will do business
    > and have that advantage. The common people still have means of defending
    > themselves, by chipping into airstrike funds and/or anti-airstrike funds
    > and/or MAD-insurance. Furthermore, loss of human life will decrease, since
    > the status of airstrike funds for all coordinates will be public knowledge,
    > and freely available in a convenient graphical form at all locations where
    > airstrike fund deposits are accepted.

    Hm. I foresee the richest individual(s) in the region making threats of
    airstrikes against all parties too poor to launch a retaliatory airstrike.
      Since the airstrike doesn't need to be carried out, except perhaps for
    one or two examples, this should provide a steady revenue stream for the
    individuals rich enough to afford airstrikes, but the airstrike company
    itself will eventually go bankrupt, perhaps being bought out by the
    violence monopolists. Similarly, the rich individual could launch a
    preemptive strike at any poor individuals who showed signs of clubbing up
    to buy a strike at the rich individual.

    Looks just like our same old world to me.

    -- 
    Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
    Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 21 2003 - 12:02:19 MST