The convergence of gender and politics has been an enduring fixture in public discourse, pre-dating (the women’s suffrage movement). the modern feminist movement. The politics of gender are more opaque than merely debating the gender wage gap. Since the mainstream acceptance of transgender people, the bifurcated distinction between males and females has become murky. This makes social issues related to gender much more complex. In this gust of normative creative destruction, it is possible that feminism in itself is an anachronism that clings onto an outmoded perception of gender.
One issue that has made gender politics more bewildering has been the focus on using the proper gender pronouns. Many American corporations recognize non-binary gender pronouns and encourage their employees to indicate their preferred pronouns in their email signatures. Not everyone has the time (the list is long), interest, or congenial worldview of non-binary people to learn or use the correct pronoun. However, are our social interactions (such as work) doomed to become a prisoner’s dilemma between transgender people and Conservatives? Will the grammar aficionados forever wince at referring to a single person with plural pronouns (they/them)? There is a positive-sum compromise between non-binary individuals and those predisposed to accept the binary model of gender identity; that is, use proper nouns only.
No need to remember a litany of confusing pronouns, use their first name. For example, Jim. Even if Jim looks like a sultry female model in a bikini, still refer to this individual by “Jim”. It doesn’t matter if their name was Tiffany last week, just proceed by calling them “Jim”. This individual cannot take issue with you addressing them by their preferred first name. It enables Canadian residents to circumvent the hideous assault on free speech that is Bill C-16; by not forcing people to use gender pronouns they disagree with for political or social reasons, but concurrently adhering to Canadian law. This suggestion should be considered a pragmatic compromise, not a commentary on non-binary gender identification.
Anyone who has observed the chaos of local politics has seen the Machiavellian dynamics of a municipal committee elected by the town. The best example is seated on the town council. The incentive structure of the council members; is driven by the fact that their position is secured or eliminated by the will of the people. Setting up the classical variables for any Public Choice analysis, as the council members tailor their platforms and rhetoric to the voter preferences. If the same council members are either reelected or run unopposed, there is the incentive to form a coalition with the other recurring council men, formulating an informal agreement to have each other’s back. Effectively creating a cartelization since the other sitting council members have consented to support your policy prescriptions and justify your controversies. Per Katz and Mair (2018):
“…The mainstream parties, and most minor parties as well, have effectively formed a cartel, through which they protect their interests in ways that sap the capacity of their erstwhile principal—the electorate—actually to control the parties that are supposed to be the agents of the electorate. While the appearance of competition is preserved, in terms of political substance it has become spectacle (p.7)…”
By forming tight bonds and backing the rest of the elected officials on the council, each works to consolidate the power within this single unit of governance. Forming an impermeable oligarchy that the voters cannot vote out office due to a lack of policy competition. Analogous to an economic cartel, where consenting producers all fix prices in unison, all politicians “fix policy” to conform to the rest of the representatives on the council. This keeps external influences out of the fold, enabling all to retain their seats if they play ball. Much like all participants in an economic cartel enjoy larger profit margins, if no one reneges.
Hypothetically, let’s say there are four council members; one of the incumbents decides to resign mid-term. The replacement candidate is an insurgent candidate, breaking the unanimity among the colluding council members. This loosens the relational foundation among the incumbents; we start to see instances of defection among them. What was once complete accord among the old boys club quickly devolves into a prisoner’s dilemma. It is important to remember that cartels seldom are sustainable indefinitely. Eventually, the temptation of one party to undercut the rest of the colluding companies will cause them to defect (Tullock, 1985, p. 1076). For example, one particularly narcissistic council member may claim responsibility for policy reforms that his other cohorts co-sponsored. This type of behavior only undercuts the contributions of the others, leading them to undermine this arrogant council member. The cadre of incumbents suffer from the eroded trust. The newer member with innovative policy prescriptions; only proceeds to dimmish the creditability of the old boys club.
For now, President Biden was able to pump the breaks on the railroad strikes. Biden appointed arbitrators to negotiate mutually agreeable recommended revisions to the current labor contracts. This action kept “..115,000 rail workers on the job..” and narrowly side-stepped work stoppages from occurring on Monday (July 18th). In a time of preexisting supply-chain constraints, labor disputes would only exacerbate matters (the best real example would be the situation in the UK).
The dynamics of organized labor have a long history of being contentious, and striking is their secret weapon in gaining leverage at the collective bargaining table. If a policy does not contour to union interests, the relationship between the government and the labor movement devolves into a standoff. Since both factions have competing goals, this negotiation process is a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Lawmakers tailored policies to the preferences of the majority (union members only make up 13% of the US labor force). Also, in the anti-union camp, management possesses a fiduciary responsibility to enforce policies that are advantageous for the firm.
These sets of incentives are opposed to the interests of the unions. Organized labor aims for higher wages, better benefits, more safety measures, and other generous forms of compensating differential. These new desired measures may be more costly for the firm or adversely impact consumers with higher prices or a lower grade of customer service (inefficiency). The demands of the labor unions tend to concentrate the benefitsand impose costs on the rest of the economy. Even in sectors that are only tangentially connected to the industry where the workers are on the brink of striking. When their proposals are ignored or rules they dislike come into play, they defect by halting production and picketing.
How neither party can reach a consensus generates Pareto-inefficient outcomes; should be self-evident. Because employers and policymakers might not want to cooperate or even meet the unions in the middle, they are defecting. In turn, the unions initiate strikes which create product scarcity, production bottlenecks, and higher prices. The ripple effects of the lack of agreement will hurt every economic actor in the market.
Few issues in the current political scene are as divisive as the Second Amendment; as articulated in the SCOTUS case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), an individual right. Anytime a mass shooting occurs or restrictions are purposed, gun rights advocates tend to double down. After all, regulating firearms is a prisoner’s dilemma in which neither side of the aisle is interested in making any concessions. Prima facie, it does seem that guns have become increasingly regulated over the years. Potentially vindicating the slippery slope logic expressed by Second Amendment proponents. The fear of prohibitively strict gun regulations or outright bans weighs on the minds of gun owners. A point substantiated by the fact that 59 % of polled gun owners indicated that gun control advocates desire to outlaw private ownership of firearms. Many gun enthusiasts view this right as sacrosanct and a vital component of living in a free society.
How do the reactionary sentiments of slow and grinding decline to an outright gun grab correlate with patterns in gun sales? There does seem to be a connection between precipitating events and increases in transactions related to procuring firearms (including background checks). Analogous to how macroeconomic events impact trading on the stock market, the prospect of regulation after events such as mass shootings results in abnormally high gun sales. For example, gun sales in California soared by 168 % between 1996-2015. 50 % of all mass shootings within the past 50 years transpired after 2000. 20 % of the mass shootings in this timeframe occurred within the past five years.
Gun control proposals; are often formulated in the wake of a mass shooting; there does seem to be at least a superficial correlation between mass shootings, gun control proposals, and gun sales. But, are politicians and political activists concerned with decreasing the number of guns in the hands of the citizenry shooting themselves in the foot? It is inherently human for people to purchase large quantities of a commodity facing a ban. A clear example of this was before JFK enacted the Cuban Trade Embargo; he stocked up on his favorite brand of Cuban cigars. It isn’t outlandish to believe that gun owners would seek to stock up on accessories, ammunition, and firearms after a mass killing or the announcement of gun control legislation. In effect, this would encourage people to obtain more guns. Rendering the bluster of tough-on-guns rhetoric to being counterproductive. Unwittingly, when politicians like Beto O’Rourke are telling us that he is coming after our AR-15s he’s saying “.. Everyone run to the gun shop now!..”. O’Rourke is blinded by political gamesmanship; he overlooks that his firebrand comments have only created a cobra effect; people panic and buy more guns.
If progressive politicians are inadvertently increasing the number of guns owned by the American public, who benefits from gun-grab-mania? Gun store owners. In applying the logic of Bruce Yandle’s Bootleggers and Baptists (1983) model, it becomes clear that gun control advocates are indirectly helping the proprietors of gun stores. By sending all of their patrons into a frenzy, the moral arguments of the anti-gun crowd end up drumming up more business for gun vendors. While neither party is intentionally working together and does not even share the same goals, they have a synergistic relationship. Beto is waving the flag of the gun shops without even knowing it.
The libertarian party is arguably the most disorganized political party in the United States.
For years, debates have waged over the gulf between the actual political philosophy and the official party’s platform. Many hardcore libertarians feel the party has long since lost its way. For many disillusioned lovers of liberty; the remedy came in the form of the Mises Caucus founded in 2017. The emergence of this faction within the LP has been met with controversy. As more members of the caucus assume leadership roles within the national party, concerns arise regarding the tendinous social views of this strain of libertarianism. Accusations of racism and transphobia have surfaced and put the Mises Caucus in the crosshairs of LP party leadership.
To the casual observer, this tension in the LP may seem like a new development; but the political in-fighting has been a fixture of the party’s institutional dynamics since its inception in the 1970s. The antipathy sowed between the libertarian establishment and Austro-libertarianism dates back to the founding of the Cato Institute. The intellectual father of the political movement sweeping the structure of the LP was none other than economist Murray Rothbard. Rothbard co-founded the institute with the vision of it being an academic nexus between libertarian thought and Austrian economics. Rothbard’s unwillingness to compromise on Cato’s messaging, he was ousted from the institute. He then moved on to establish the Mises Institute in the early 1980s. It is reasonable to this one event as a manifestation of a major schism within libertarianism. A rivalry formed between the moderate libertarian political philosophy and the convictions of full-on anarcho-capitalism. A system of beliefs exalting ideological purity, articulating rhetoric steeped in social conservatism and the mechanism of Austrian economics.
The competing philosophies of Cato and the Mises Institute are the lines between academic establishment and the populist tendencies of the liberty movement. Cato has the ear of the academy, while the Mises orbit has the ear of the people. However, this is not to say there isn’t a deep tradition of scholarly work within the Austro-libertarian tradition; the cadre of academics advancing this political philosophy has to produce voluminous amounts of literature. Cato has not had the same effect on the advancement of libertarianism on the ground level. Aside from the popularity of Rothbard’s polemical pamphlets in the 1970s and 1980s; the movement gained new life in the 2000s with the Presidential campaign of Ron Paul. The Cato Institute attempted to distance itself from Ron Paul for his reluctance to condemn political extremism. Former Senator Paul was an instrumental figure in founding the Mises Institute. He has also had longstanding professional relationships with figures such as Lew Rockwell and Rothbard.
The variety of libertarianism with a hint of social conservatism advocated for by Ron Paul and the Mises Institute cannot disavow extremism as it is part of their political strategy. In contrast to the libertarian establishment, Austro-libertarians have formed alliances with paleo-conservatives, injecting planks of Old Right sensibilities into their platform. Libertarians favoring this hard-right strategy perceive the virtues of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism to be treasonous to individual liberty. Many Rothbardians/Hoppeans believe that policies such as open immigration will erode cultural identity, and private property rights and expand the welfare state.
This is not to insinuate that the Mises Institute nor Ron Paul’s campaign was managed by Klansmen. That would be a bad faith assessment of the political dynamics of Austro-libertarianism, there is not enough evidence to make such a claim. The attempts to annex populous conservatives and the far-right were more pragmatism on Rothbard’s part. The run-of-the-mill country club Reaganite Republican will not have any appetite to “end the fed”; naturally this individual would be a lackluster bedfellow in such an endeavor. On the other hand, a gentleman living in the rural south, raised in an environment of culturally entrenched conservatism and a distaste for centralization, would be a more likely partner in crime.
Rothbard could foresee the logical instability in the Reaganite brand of “fusionism”. The political progeny of National Review editor Frank Meyer; a doctrine suggesting that libertarians and conservatives should make minor compromises and join forces to gain more ground in American politics. Realistically, this approach is shortsighted in a climate of winner-take-allpolitics. Disagreements on core wedge issues will eventually create fault lines that cannot be repaired. Rothbard’s vision of liberty was immoderate and immune from the debasing effects of implicit logrolling.
The strife between the two warring factions of libertarianism is nothing short of a textbook example of a prisoner’s dilemma. Frank Meyer was not off base with such a suggestion of political compromise, but neither party agrees to make any concessions. The very stance of the Mises Caucus and other Austro-libertarian organizations is nothing more than an automatic defection. Their hard-nosed commitment to ideological integrity has already taken the possibility of bargaining off the table. Developing a libertarian with the rigidity of Aristotle’s ethical virtue of “right reason”; which is utterly inflexible. The libertarian insiders in the Washington D.C. belt away may garner more appeal to establishments and academics outside of the movement; due to their ideological moderation. These movers and shakers at the think tanks have made no effort to reach out to the populous wing of the libertarian party. If anything, they have either ignored or condemned Ron Paul supporters as hopeless racists or conspiracy-mongering dingbats. None of this is productive when it comes to advancing a political philosophy. It is as much of defection as the resolute principles of the droves of lay libertarians regularly reading the Mises Wire.
The suboptimal results engendered by this mutual defection should be conspicuous; we have yet to have had a true Libertarian in the oval office since the establishment of the official party. The overall lack of consensus has stymied libertarianism’s influence on American politics. There are always several groups arguing over what libertarianism truly is; instead of working together to make an impact. This gives outsiders the impression that libertarians are politically disorganized. It is not that they are a bunch of lazy hippies, bearded mountain men, or a gaggle of goofy naked men kvetching about drivers’ licenses. The party has been sidetracked by years of internal conflict, making this turmoil the ultimate collective action problem.
The Mises Caucus might be the “Trump moment” for the LP, a populous takeover of the formal structure of the political organization.
2. This is not a defense of the Mises Caucus nor a jab at the libertarian establishment. Rather, it is an expression of how neither subset of the LP is willing to compromise with the other.
In the immediate aftermath of any tragedy, we often struggle to make sense of the situation. The senseless loss of life following a mass shooting is no exception. Various experts and media talking heads list all the potential antecedents that pushed a mentally unstable person to commit such an atrocity. The frequently cited causes of domestic mass murder include bellicose political rhetoric, violent song lyrics, psychiatric drugs, video games, disenfranchisement, mental health issues, and access to firearms (although the effect of gun control on preventing such events is inconclusive).
It would be rash to assume that any one of these purported preconditions for molding a mass murder is the sole reason for these tragedies. It is more likely that various environmental, genetic, and social factors drive a person to perpetrate such heinous acts. One potential cause of violence that often gets overlooked; is media coverage of such incidents .
Even when we take a cursory view of the incentives of media outlets, they are not going to take any responsibility for inspiring new school shooters and other varieties of a deranged shooter. After all, they are the mouthpiece for all the experts touting the evils of Marilyn Manson (I apologize for the dated reference), political extremism, and guns. Fixating on these gruesome stories and participating in conspiratorial conjecture about the impetus was for a demented young man to kill innocent people. Sadly, negativity sells, making it lucrative for business. Human beings are plagued by what is known as the negativity bias; we are more apt to engage with articles or news programming that has a negative tone. News outlets lay into this bias by exaggerating the severity of negative news. Validated by the fact that fifty percent (p.5) of news coverage features stories on crime. Media companies have a lot to gain from obsessively presenting all the gory updates on the Uvalde massacre. Business is good when you have audience captivity by the horror and depravity of a madman.
At its core, the dynamics of how media outlets cover mass shootings is a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The media companies act in their self-interest by bombarding us with all the horrific details of these mass killing events. This is done so with little consideration for the ethical consequence of how the story is framed. Typically, there is more coverage of the perpetrator than on the heroes who intervened and stopped the killing spree or even the victims (p.22). The tight focus on the gunman aggrandizes the image of the killer. In the mind of narcissistic (p.16) or otherwise mentally unstable people, they become the protagonist in the story of a folk anti-hero. The previous mass shooter serves as a template for how to quickly gain notoriety. In the canonical literature, there is a model known as the contagion effect, where essentially publicized shootings beget more publicized shootings. We begin to see copycat shooters. A 1999 study found that “.. of 83 would-be mass killers or assassins, who noted that evidence in their belongings or writings indicated that 38% of them emulated previous killers…”(p.24). A 2013 study, found a positive correlation between tweets about mass shootings and the likelihood of another one occurring (p.27). The shooters end up “defecting” by orchestrating and executing a shooting event, believing they are acting in their self-interest by indulging their angst and narcissism.
The suboptimal results in this situation would be the victims of the shooting. They are merely collateral damage in the pursuits of media outlets and mass shooters. Truly this mutual defection is the story of excesses. Whether it be improperly channeled rage, vanity, and narcissism or profit and callous political opportunism , innocent people had to die to achieve these ends.
1.) The suggestion that the media companies bare some responsibility for mass shootings is not an indictment of capitalism or freedom of the press. This presents an ironic fact; news outlets blame many distal factors for shootings; it never occurs to them to look in the mirror. Especially considering that most mass murders have proclivities towards narcissism.
2.) The incentives structure of media outlets may extend beyond the profit-loss mechanism, as they are generally ideologically driven. Many of the news channels and publications of esteem are politically left-wing, meaning they may also have anti-gun agenda. In effect; driving the obsessive coverage of gun violence.
A tension between privacy and the interests of law enforcement has eroded the Fourth Amendment. Our weathering privacy rights surfaces only continue to crumble every time Americans face a choice between convenience and anonymity. When we install software we encounter this dilemma known as the privacy paradox. Most people are not inclined to read the fine print when we install new software applications on their electronic devices (computers, cell phones, and tablets); it is a bunch of legalese mumbo-jumbo acting as a temporary barrier to the products and services you desire to use. This inconvenient bulwark is penetrated by agreeing to all the terms and services detailed in the previous fifteen paragraphs. Few, if any, consumers read nor understand what they have consented to. The Privacy Paradox is defined as :
“… the dichotomy of information privacy attitude and actual behavior has been coined the term privacy paradox(Brown, 2001; Norberg et al., 2007)”.
Essentially, most people profess to care about privacy but are willing to give it up in the short term to gain access to various digital products and services. The logic of this paradox seems oxymoronic until you realize that people lack patience and an extensive attention span. This contradiction validates the observations of Thomas Schelling’s theory of Egonomics. Individuals often grapple with the competition of present wants and future concerns when making decisions. When the details of the terms and conditions of using a product or service are articulated in opaque language and presented as bottom page afterthought, no wonder people are so readily agreeing to policies that may jeopardize their privacy. This dynamic only fertilizes the substrate for a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The firm producing the product or service acts in their self-interest by wording the terms and conditions in complex language, virtually impermeable to lay readers. If users understood what they agreed to, they would be less apt to use these products. Concurrently, these customers believe they are acting in their self-interest by choosing not to read the terms and conditions page and simply consenting to these requirements.
Neither party (customer or service provider) creates an ideal climate for transparency. It is all too easy for the customer to witlessly use the product without knowing how the service provider is collecting, storing, or even selling their information to third-party companies. The severity of this information asymmetry intensifies when specific forms of data are subject to collection and surveillance by government agencies. As stated in United States v. Miller (1976) banking services carry no reasonable expectation of privacy. The courts could apply this similar logic to data collected by other varieties of service providers, especially when presented under the guise of exigent circumstances. Essentially this contraction exists due to the laziness of consumers and the perverse incentives of service providers.
Trust is one of the guiding principles of any business relationship. It is the proverbial glue that has spurred the interest in decentralized digital currency over the past decade. Most people lack the technical literacy to mine Bitcoin or navigate the complexities of blockchain transactions without a middleman, a cryptocurrency exchange. Hence the surge in the popularity of FTX, Crypto.com, Kraken, etc. One of the earliest entrances to the crypto exchange market, Coinbase, revealed in its first-quarter earnings report that it could hold on to user assets in the event of bankruptcy. Per Fortune:
Coinbase said in its earnings report Tuesday that it holds $256 billion in both fiat currencies and cryptocurrencies on behalf of its customers. Yet the exchange noted that in the event it ever declared bankruptcy, “the crypto assets we hold in custody on behalf of our customers could be subject to bankruptcy proceedings.” Coinbase users would become “general unsecured creditors,” meaning they have no right to claim any specific property from the exchange in proceedings. Their funds would become inaccessible.
Only subverting the property rights of the investors utilizing the exchange, but it also sullies the image of one of the pioneers of this nascent investment market. In the absence of trust and reliability, there is no reason for patrons to continue doing business with Coinbase. With no guarantee that their investments are secure with the exchange, customers will seek alternative service providers. In effect, Coinbase’s own internal bankruptcy policy has created a Prisoner’s Dilemma. By implementing a policy that would not allow the user to claim their assets in the event of the firm’s financial demise, Coinbase is veering away from the interests of its customers. A foolish decision, but a defection. Patrons will reciprocate this defection by transferring their assets to either cold storage or other reputable crypto exchanges. The unfortunate consequence is that trust in the crypto community will be eroded. Cryptocurrency was founded on the principles of permissionless, immutable, and decentralized transactions and this culture will lose traction due to the infidelity of unscrupulous service providers. Especially considering the absence of trustworthy exchanges, the technical literacy required to participate in the crypto sphere is far too high for anyone without a programming or financial background. Effectively puts the whole claim of cryptocurrency being a path to financial inclusion into question.
“..Look at the United States. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain—which is, to secure to everyone his liberty and his property. Therefore, there is no country in the world where social order appears to rest upon a more solid basis. Nevertheless, even in the United States, there are two questions, and only two, that from the beginning have endangered political order. And what are these two questions? That of slavery and that of tariffs; that is, precisely the only two questions in which, contrary to the general spirit of this republic, law has taken the character of a plunderer…” Frédéric Bastiat- The Law(1850).
The tendency for people to favor protectionist policies is an understandable fallacy, but a fallacy, nevertheless. Some Americans are under the erroneous assumption that they have a moral duty to keep domestic jobs from being outsourced. Much of this sentiment; was fostered by campaigns waged by organized labor throughout American history. It is difficult to tell if the buy American fallacy is the byproduct of union propaganda or an intrinsic sense of nationalism and economic jingoism. Regardless of whether the American public is receptive to their pithy buy domestic slogans, the union interests frequently get their way. The best example is the enduring specter of import tariffs that have plagued American economic policy for centuries. The earliest example is the Tariff Act of 1789, which was strongly favored by none other than Alexander Hamilton.
Arguably one of the most notable tariffs on the books is related to the importation of sugar. The tariffs placed on foreign sugar have been upheld through various laws over the years, starting from the nascent period of the republic.
“…On brown sugars, per pound, one cent.
On loaf sugars, per pound, three cents.
On all other sugars, per pound, one and a half cents
From a game-theoretical standpoint, consumers are the first ones to defect. If imported sugar is cheaper American consumers gravitate toward buying the less expensive Caribbean sugar. The lobbyists for the sugar industry work to pressure lawmakers into keeping import taxes on foreign sugar. The collective pressure placed on Congress to place and uphold tariffs can be considered a defection by the domestic sugar producers. Many economists and political scientists assume that the marginal increase in the cost of sugar would be negligible to an individual customer. In turn, fulfilling the enduring axiom of Public Choice theory; concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Few households consume enough sugar to desire to change their baking and coffee flavoring habits. Although, these costs are salient to commercial confectionary producers who purchase mass quantities of sugar for domestic and international retail goods. It has led to firms relocating production facilities to countries without sugar tariffs (Life Savers plant moving to Canada, p. 4). Technically, this could be a defection, but the irony is that it undermines the moral initiative of keeping domestic jobs within the bounds of the United States. But not every company opts to move their factories abroad, another substitute for cheaper inputs. Hence, the rise of soft drink producers using high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar. One noteworthy example would be when Coke and Pepsi switched to using corn syrup in their sodas for the US market in the 1980s (p.5) (Mexican cola still uses real sugar). There has been much debate over whether high fructose corn syrup is more unhealthy than sugar. If it is more injurious to one’s health, then a Prisoner’s Dilemma is afoot, the suboptimal result being the American people doing unnecessary damage to their bodies merely to appease a small subset of the overall constituency.
The decades-long War on Drugs initiated by the Nixon administration could be a Prisoner’s Dilemma itself. Naturally, drug dealers and users will not stop their illicit activities merely because the government is cracking down on controlled substance sales. This fruitless and seemingly perpetual public health intuitive has generated a litany of negative externalities. Beyond fueling profligate government spending, it is also a quagmire that has flooded our prisons and tied up our courts (think of the US court system as commons) with individuals guilty of victimless crimes. However, one detrimental consequence that no one could have foreseen over fifty years ago was the development of gray market drugs, intoxicating compounds that are molecularly altered variants of banned illegal drugs. One particularly infamous example is synthetic cannabinoids. The active chemical of THC; is prohibited under federal law, but a slightly different derivative technically would be legal.
The attempts of eager drug users and innovative chemists to skirt US drug laws have resulted in its own Prisoner’s Dilemma. The government is the original defector by making drugs such as marijuana illegal. Individuals who enjoy the effects of cannabis do not want to stop using it just because it is Schedule I inebriant. Drug users, producers, and vendors defect by finding and creating similar substitutes for their illegal drugs of choice. In most instances, synthetic marijuana may only be a few molecules off from the real thing, but chemists have unwittingly created a more destructive recreational drug. The ingestion of synthetic cannabinoids is associated with serious physical and psychological complications never reported with the consumption of naturally occurring THC. There would have been no appetite for developing fake marijuana if state governments had started legalization and decriminalization efforts years before the “research chemical’ craze of the 2010s; this attempt to exploit legal loopholes only exacerbated the public health issues related to drug use. Fortunately, this was more problematic a decade ago; more states have legalized marijuana.
The fiscal policy of taxation fosters the institutional incentives for a Prisoner’s Dilemma. It is probable that most tax policies and discourses regarding the instrument for collecting public revenue devolve into a myriad of uncooperative games. Fundamentally, it is in the state’s interest to tax its citizens to accumulate funds to finance public goods and services. In contrast, it is the best interest of individual constituents and business organizations to avoid or minimize the number of taxes they are obligated to pay. This dynamic creates the institutional friction between the government and taxpayers; both coalitions generally have few incentives to compromise. Sure, purported conservatives give a tax break here and there, like liberals, they have a litany of public projects that they have a desire to fund, making taxation a necessity for their objectives. The only distinction between the two American political factions is what they prefer to squander money on and whether they provide lip service to the virtue of low taxes.
The tension between the citizenry and the state on the issue of taxation is paradoxical. Why? Because voters demand more public goods from the government (infrastructure, social programs, defense, regulation, etc.) but simultaneously do not want to pay for it. Adding another dimension to the vast series of Prisoner Dilemmas taxation policy engenders. The state’s need to collect more taxes is propelled by the public’s demand for more public services. Public schools, courts, administrative agencies, a standing army, regulators, entitlement programs, and infrastructure are not free! There is no greater fallacy than when a naïve constituent refers to public education as free. If an individual participates in the workforce and owns any property they are paying for this service. This elementary confusion validates the logic behind the concept of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits; if there is a disconnect between taxation and spending (Fiscal Illusion) voters do not tend to consider the cost. Therefore, many people are okay will the government providing goods and services; but irrationally have a distaste for taxation. The negative perception of direct tax collection has led to the development of backdoor taxation. Manifesting in the form of helicopter money, quantitative easing, and deficit spending. Policies that only further obscure the link between government spending and the cost to the voter.
Whether the government provides services due to voter preferences or other ulterior motives is immaterial. At the core of this conflict is contentious incompatible interests. This century-long conflict has resulted in suboptimal results for society as a whole. These consequences extend far beyond the scope of a Fortune 500 CEO’s bank account. After all, a Prisoner’s Dilemma is not complete without adverse ramifications that are avoidable through cooperative behavior. Taxation is the same as another policy prescription implementation will have a nonneutral impact on the decisions made by participants. Altering the rate of taxation does not put the game on pause but influences how various economic agents will adjust their behavior. Raising taxes has myriad adverse outcomes for the citizens of a country or dependent lower level jurisdiction (municipal or state/provincial level).
Tax policy proposals, such as Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax, may sound reasonable for a nanosecond; but are they effective? Why not require Americans with deeper pockets to pay more taxes and take some of the stress off of the little guy? On a superficial level, this policy may appear to be equitable and even tenable; in the words of Bastiat, such a policy does not account for what is “unseen”. A feature of taxation fleshed out by Bastiat’s most proficient interpreter Henry Hazlitt:
“…This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. A particular group of bridge workers may indeed receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge, a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $1,000,000 the taxpayers will lose $1,000,000. They will have that much taken away from them that they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most. Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else..” (Page 19).
Ultimately, Warren’s vision does not consider how taxation could realign the incentives of affluent Americans to invest their money elsewhere. The phenomenon of capital flight occurs when onerous taxes in one jurisdiction drives investors to invest their money in economies with less stringent taxation. Here is where Bastiat’s “unseen’ comes into focus, as what we do not see is all the new jobs firms failed due to the high taxes. The relationship between taxation and job growth is inverse, implying that high corporate taxes have a trickle-down effect that negatively impacts the average hourly employee. Beyond the consequences of employment and overall business growth, inordinately high taxes can rob government programs currently implemented. The logic of the Laffer Curve perfectly embodies the Prisoner’s Dilemma between state officials and the taxed citizens. The fallout from taxation going from an acceptable level to an oppressive one will permeate from the top-down.
The decentralized governance on many cryptocurrency networks can be advantageous. Especially, when compared to the centralized authority of the legacy banking and monetary systems. There is a caveat; blockchains have well-touted advantages outside of crypto circles, but what about the design of the consensus mechanism? How transactions are validated can have a litany of ramifications rippling outside of the bounds of the DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization). For example, the environmental impact of proof-of-work validation, the consensus protocol used most notably by Bitcoin. Because this consensus mechanism requires several crypto miners to utilize large amounts of electricity as they race to validate the transaction on the blockchain and create a new block in the chain, Bitcoin has naturally become a target environmentalist.
One solution to the energy consumption conundrum is to shift the consensus protocol from proof-of-work mining to proof-of-stake validation. Several sources have noted that proof-of-stake consensus reduces energy consumption. In proof-of-stake blockchain operations, validating the new block by the machines of token holders, their holdings function as collateral for the ability to confirm the transaction. The validator is randomly selected based, avoiding the competition to finalize the new block. Even the popular cryptocurrency Ethereum is looking to transition to a proof-of-stake protocol. Are there any potential drawbacks to this governance model? One major issue that can arise from the proof-of-stake method of transaction consensus; is highlighted in the Juno Network’s Proposition 16 controversy.
The incident occurred back in October 2021, when the Cosmos Network launched the new token Juno. Cosmos initiated a stakedrop, similar to a cryptocurrency airdrop where coins of a new digital currency are sent to “.. wallet addresses to promote awareness of the new..” digital assets. Except, a stakedrop entails awarding individuals a sum of new tokens for holding an existing cryptocurrency on the blockchain network. At the time, Cosmos had an original coin offering, ATOM; the network matched an individual’s ATOM holdings with Juno with a ceiling of 50,000 tokens. One of the “whales” or entities that hold a large amount of ATOM on the blockchain contrived a crafty remedy to game the asset drop limitations. The “Whale” portrayed itself as but an investment group, acting as multiple individuals, and divided wallet addresses across several users and funneled it back to a single coin wallet.
By voting yes on this proposal, you agree to reduce the gamed whale address to 50k (Whalecap set per entity before genesis).
Note: The facts are that the Juno genesis stakedrop was gamed by a single entity. Willingly or unwillingly is not relevant to this matter. The whale gamer poses a growing risk to the network and the stakedrop error may be corrected. Gamed funds were consolidated into 1 address right after genesis which proves that 1 entity had custody over all addresses (linked below). This considerably broke the stakedrop rules of having a max 50k ATOM: 50k JUNO per entity. At the time of the genesis stakedrop, there was no way for Core-1 to pro-actively counteract this behavior. If this information would have been known before launch, 51/52 of those addresses would have been removed entirely.
Effectively, the resolution aimed to confiscate all but 50,000 tokens of the Whale’s Juno tokens. The Whale’s holding exceeding the cap has three consequences: a concentration of on-chain voting power (proof-of-stake consensus mechanism the more you hold the decision-making authority you possess), the Whale can bribe other validators on the blockchain, and this entity can wipe out all the liquidity in the exchange. This has resulted in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Instead of negotiating a compromise, both parties acted in their interests by defecting.
The Whale initially defected by attempting to violate the terms of the drop. The network defected by seizing the purported collectives’ coins. The results have been lackluster; this policy transgresses against one of the core pillars of blockchain currencies, the “immutability” of the blockchain. Some pundits have expressed that this move could shake the confidence of prospective investors. There is some fear that other networks adopting similar policies without any impartial due process. Madison’s “tyranny of the majority” problem assumes its most modern incarnation, perhaps? Aside from this issue, what if Whale acted as middleman holding assets for other investors? Is it just for innocent third parties to suffer? If this entity was a consortium or an investment firm, the commandeered funds did not even truly belong to the Whale.
One of the more intriguing features of the Uber rideshare service is that the customers and drivers can rate one another. Between websites such as Yelp, Rate My Professor, and Angie’s List we are accustomed to seeing platforms for customers to review service providers. However, the idea of service providers reviewing patrons is novel. Surely, some companies predated Uber that enabled employees and contractors to assess their business relationships with specific clients, but Uber has made this practice much more salient.
There are benefits and drawbacks to having a two-way rating system. A customer could give a driver a poor review based upon prejudices unrelated to the services provided. The same could also hold for the Uber drivers rating their clients. For example, if both the customer and the driver know each other outside of the rideshare business and have prior bad blood. In effect, both parties use the rating system as a passive-aggressive form of retaliation.
The context of this hypothetical scenario is a clear example of Prisoner’s Dilemma; since both individuals are too stubborn to cooperate. Both individuals insist on retaliating against each other. Even though these transgressions only hurt both the customer and the driver. Aside from both “players” having their reputations sullied, there are other practical concerns. The driver may stand to lose business over the bad reviews he has received and the customer being denied opportunities to use the service because of his bad reviews from the previous driver. Granted, this model is simplified and does not contain all necessary variables to reflect this example in real life. No one should ever underestimate the public forms for rating products and services. This is evident in the Google reviews of the Stamford branch of Merrill Lynch, the former employer of James Iannazzo.
The great classical philosopher ironically exemplified the tensions between the youth and older generations. In his famous quote: “The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.” This observation of one of the greatest minds in western history is ironic for several reasons. For one, Socrates; was convicted on charges of corrupting the youth and was sentenced to death. I guess respecting your elders is worthy of condemnation and execution (sarcasm). The man described by the Oracle of Delphi; as the wisest of all men; displays an abundance of ignorance. How could such an inquisitive and contemplative individual so easily dismiss the intentions and innovations of the younger generation?
As brilliant as Socrates was, he was still a mortal man subject to the same biases afflicting all people. There is something deeply human about assuming laziness or bad faith in young people. Why? Why do people have the unfortunate proclivity for underestimating or assuming the worst of the youth? A bias stems from the fact that youngsters lack experience and responsibility. One modern example would be men in their late teens/early twenties leading a hedonistic lifestyle; filled with alcohol, drugs, and tramps. However, as we all understand this is merely a stereotype; not all young men enjoy these pursuits. The probability is higher, that young men would prefer such excesses. In contrast to an older man who is established and married, would tend to veer away from such vices.
While older generations may believe they have the upper hand, but they may have unwittingly locked themselves into a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Sure, speak ill of all young people, but this only deepens the generation gap. There are many other conflicts where both sides defect does not reach a mutually beneficial compromise. Therefore, fitting the textbook definition of a Prisoner’s Dilemma. All the censure and criticisms of the “old people” become background noise, essentially static. Instead of young people viewing these statements as advice or legitimate concern, they perceive them as baseless complaints. The genuine concern behind the derogatory statements becomes lost in translation as mere noise.
This tendency towards mutual defection is a communication breakdown. The younger generation does not understand the older generation(s) and vice versa. Both parties were raised under drastically different conditions, with varying norms. For example, Baby Boomers remember a world without cable. Conversely, Gen-Z could not fathom a pre-internet world. These factors contribute to the social and cultural development of both generations. Beyond the cultural variations between generations, the older generation has the unfortunate propensity to use younger generations as scapegoats for moral decay. In order to resolve the intergenerational conflict, both generations need to listen to one another. The youth would perhaps stop viewing older generations as ignorant, out-of-touch, and backward. Hopefully, older people would stop viewing the youngsters as reckless and amoral. We interact with an individual outside of our generational cohort there are profound information asymmetries, there is no possible way to completely understand the conditions under which the other individual grew up. The best resolution would be active listening, open communication, and an open mind otherwise both sides will merely continue to disparage the other.
“…To be eligible for DACA, applicants must meet several eligibility requirements such as: have entered the United States before their 16th birthday, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under 31 years of age, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or otherwise pose a threat to national security….”
However, this Obama-era policy has proven to be quite contentious, especially considering the nativist proclivities of the Trump administration. This sentiment is reflected in the Southern District of Texas ruling in State of Texas et al v. United States of America et al ruling DACA to be illegal. There are many arguments for restricting immigration, but it is possible that limiting immigration could produce problematic consequences? Adverse outcomes beyond the lofty ideals of multiculturalism? Currently, in the United States, there is a labor shortage, being dubbed the Great Resignation. More people are declining to participate or return to back to the workforce. Labor force participation was reflected as 61.9 percent as of December 2021.; when compared to December 2019, 63.3 percent.
The discrepancy in workforce participation between 2019 and 2021 may seem minor, but to see the severity of the effect, one only needs to view the lack of staffing at the local grocery store. Combined with global supply chain shortages it becomes apparent that commodities and entry-level labor are in short supply. Does the question become why further decrease the pool of potential workers through cracking down on immigration? Then arises the erroneous myth that immigration, specifically illegal immigration harms American workers. Most Americans polled even admit that immigrants assume job roles that most native-born citizens are unwilling to perform. It should note that deporting DACA-eligible workers would also exacerbate current worker shortages in higher-paid jobs considering nearly a quarter of DACA have attained a college degree (p.2).
If anything, considering the current economic conditions, restricting immigration/ deporting undocumented workers could result in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. A mutual defection between undocumented immigrants that entered the United States as children (DACA Dreamers) and the vigilant “immigration hawks”. By the very fact, the dreams refuse to go back to their country of “origin” this could be seen as an implicit defection against the immigration hawks who seek to deport all illegal immigrations and be strict about who is permitted to assume residency in the United States. Naturally, the incentives structures between the two groups are irreconcilable, the odds of a mutually acceptable compromise are slim-to-none; the immigration debate is a winner-take-all game. Compromise can be achieved in politics but is rendered untenable because of political polarization. Immigration has become a hotly contested wedge issue where making concessions are no longer fashionable. The immigration hawks do not realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot. When labor shortages impact establishments ranging from the drive-thru to the emergency room, it affects everyone. Regardless of their position on immigration, making it asinine to refuse willing labor participation the right to work.
A few years about Tilea West contributed an excellent article to the Foundation for Education website, entitled Coase Theorem, The Prisoner’s Dilemma, and Zero-Sum Games in Modern Dating, an article applying Coase’s Theorem and Game Theory to the modern dating scene. For me, the most engaging section of her essay was the section where West addresses Prisoner’s Dilemmas. After all, this series is devoted to this cooperation-related phenomenon. West describes a scenario where a lack of cooperation can arise from modern technology and dating norms:
“…Both Harry and Sally had a wonderful time on their date, but with modern technology, asymmetric information, and the prisoner’s dilemma, we see a breakdown of communication. We see that both Harry and Sally want to text each other and go on another date, but instead, the asymmetric information and the lack of cooperation in the game result in the prisoner’s dilemma. Instead of being straightforward and communicating punctually and politely, both Harry and Sally feel like they can’t openly communicate because of the asymmetric information about the other person. They don’t have a dominant strategy to play with each other because they do not know how the other person feels…”
Tilea certainly makes some shrewd observations in this paragraph, which inspired me to explore the prospect of additional Prisoner’s Dilemmas in the dating world. For example, could the Battle-of-the-Sexes game devolve into a standoff between mutually defecting players? Invariably this will lead us into the territory of the biological differences between men and women. The physiological, psychological, evolutionary distinctions between the two sexes play a crucial role in determining the mating strategies of heterosexual men and women. Once we strip away all the courtesy, social conventions, and other superficial attributes of dating, it is ultimately an intricate ritual at the center of the mate selection process. Most people can recall from previous anecdotes or even personal experiences the massive gulf between the mating interests of both men and women.
Mutual defection manifests in dating/sex because males and females possess incompatible “mating strategies”. If evaluated from the surface level, it would appear as if stable and monogamous relationships are untenable. Men frequently fall prey to the over perception bias. Where men tend to interpret often misinterpreting friendly female behavior as sexual interest; to avoid “… the cost of missed sexual opportunities…” (p.2). Per Haselton and Buss (2000), the costs of misreading a sexual opportunity are relatively low; when compared with the costs of losing a potential mate (p.3). The ultimate measure of genetic success is producing offspring. If mating opportunities are scant; this perceptual bias has a logical evolutionary function.
However, many theorists surmise that women have the opposite perception of mating opportunities. Females tend to be much more cautious in the mate selection process for one salient reason; women bear the costs of childbearing. In Haselton and Buss (2000), it is suggested that women underestimate a man’s level of investment in a relationship; he is more likely to demonstrate commitment to his partner (p.3). Overall, men rely on very liberal mating strategies, while women utilize conservative approaches to pair-bonding. Men have a lot to lose by not capitalizing upon potential mating opportunities. Women have a strong interest in guarding themselves against the high costs of promiscuity. Please note that this model excludes the variable of birth control for the sake of simplicity.
When viewing human mating strategies from the lens of a game-theoretical framework, there is unquestionably a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The conflicting mating strategies invariably lead to miscommunication and frustration among men and women. This mating conflict is depicted in a very two-dimensional nature in many sappy and cliché Rom-Com films. The archetypal freewheeling bachelor, being tamed by the female protagonist, attempting to cure him of his wild ways. Almost like a modern version of the sacred harlot taming Enkidu, but it is possible that making this analogy is too generous. The unfortunate fact of both sexes having opposing mating strategies is that it creates suboptimal results by increasing the transaction costs of courtship and sex. Most notably through miscommunication, but there are many other drawbacks incurred through the contending mating interests of men and women. These divergent approaches to mating have even engendered distrust. Some women believe that most men are only interested in sexual contact and not the emotionally deeper aspects of romantic relationships.
The Johnson Act and Challenges to Class II Gaming:
Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 1988, there are three distinct classifications of gambling conduct on tribal soil. Class I games are generally of little economic value to the tribes operating gaming establishments; are associated with intracultural ceremonies. Class I games are unregulated by any nontribal institution (p. 8). In contrast, Class II games fall within the range of bingo and associated games (tip jars, pull tabs, and card games) (p.3). However, any banking card games such as Blackjack and Baccarat fall outside of the category of Class II gaming along with traditional casino-style games such as slot machines (p.4). Class II games are free of state and federal regulation providing the form of gambling is not prohibited (p.1341). Pursuant to IGRA, the tribe establishes local ordinances governing the operation of Class II gambling. All local regulations need to be approved by National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) (p.1341). The final class of tribal gaming is Class III, including banked card games and traditional casino games (p.4). Per IGRA, the tribe must enact a tribal-state compact to provide Class III gaming services (p.305). Arguably, games such as slot machines are significantly more profitable than Class II games .
Over the years, some controversy has surfaced regarding what games fall under the umbrella of Class II games. Despite IGRA acting as a well-intentioned compromise, providing the tribes with the right to pursue gaming enterprises and balancing for safeguarding tribal gaming from criminal influences (p.2), it failed to foresee technical advances in the gaming industry. By the 1990s, digital aides to accompany Class II games such as bingo and pull-tab were devised, making them superficially similar to Class III games such as slot machines and video Blackjack. After years of length, court battles it electronic versions of Class II games are now recognized as distinct from Class III forms of gambling. Class III games incur substantial transaction costs of negotiations with the state the tribal territory resides within.
The attempt to prohibit electronic variations of Class II games, such as bingo, is justified by the Johnson Act. This law enacted before IGRA banned the use of gambling devices in establishments in the Indian country. The Johnson Act was soon challenged in the courts; by various tribes providing Class II gaming services. One prominent case was Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Green, 995F.2d 179, 179 (10th Cir. 1993). The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision that video lottery terminals would not apply to the IGRA waiver of the Johnson Act since Oklahoma outright bans such gambling devices. The court sided with the state, but it did open the door for video pull-tab and bingo terminals by making such an exemption contingent on the state loosening restrictions on these actives. After the Citizen Band ruling, Oklahoma passed the Amusement and Carnival Games Act, this liberalized gaming in Oklahoma (p.7). Unfortunately, the tribes struggled to negotiate a compact much beyond expanding to off-track horse racing (p.8). The tribes were still languishing in a purgatorial dead-end from the pressure of the social conservatives of Oklahoma (p.8). The East Shawnee Tribe “…developed a paper pull-tab game that utilized an electronic reader to scan paper pull-tabs and display an image on a video screen when the machine dispenses the paper pull-tab..” (p.9). The tribe circumvented their gaming commission and requested a ruling from the CFR court. The CFR’s favorable ruling did not dissuade the U.S. Attorney Lewis of the Northern district from viewing “…such devices as an unlawful class III electromechanical facsimile of a pull tab game..” (p.9). Subsequently, the District Court ruled that this variant of an electron pull-tab game was a Class III game (p.10). The U.S. Attorney Lewis ignored the ruling raided the tribe’s casino. The East Shawnee and the government came to a settlement dismissing the charges and returning all seized funds (p.10).
In 1996, the NIGC chairman decided that the “..electronically broadcasted bingo game…” MegaMania was a Class II game (p.10). Then in 1997, the DOJ and Oklahoma tribal leaders met to discuss the limits of electronic bingo games while the NIGC concurrently expanded the list of electronically assisted games that fell within the Class III category (p.10-11). Lewis ignored this decision and organized a raid on casinos owned by the Seneca-Cayug and Cherokee Nation. Lewis also went so far as to pursue a case against MegaMania devices used at tribal establishments in California (p.11). Resulting in United States v. 103 Electronic Gaming Devices, No. 98-1984-CRB, 1998 WL 827586 at *10 (N.D. Cal. 1998). The Ninth Circuit threw Lewis’s case out citing that the interconnected terminals were an aide and therefore was Johnson Act compliant. After several years of appellate courts finding that IGRA permits Class II games to utilize electron aides, NIGC made the 2002 amendment to IGRA formally codifying this conclusion (p.12).
The Obvious Prisoner’s Dilemma:
The long and drawn-out battle over the classification of tribal-hosted electronic-aided bingo games is a clear example of how the interests of bureaucratic agencies do not always align. Bureaus function under the auspices of the same department, compete for funding and institutional support. This situation demonstrates a scenario where orthogonal agencies are at odds; due to having diametrical incentives structures. The NIGC was intended to operate with constrained autonomy when IGRA was first enacted. But NIGC independence is significantly hampered by the shared regulatory responsibility dispersed between the agency, the Department of the Interior, and the DOJ (p.305-306). As is evident from the previously described struggles for tribes in Oklahoma, the relationship between the NIGC and the DOJ is contentious.
A Prisoner’s Dilemma exists because the DOJ exists to offensively combat illegal activities associated with improper operation of gaming facilities (p.323). Simultaneously, NIGC solely exists to provide an on-ramp for tribes to seek liberalization of gaming for economic development (p.323-324). Neither of the incentives structures is compatible; this can explain the ample examples of defection on the part of both parties. The NIGC actively helps the tribes by expanding the number of games utilizing electronic aides regulated as Class II (fewer legal hurdles). In contrast, the DOJ enforces the gaming laws, even if that means taking overly broad or narrow interpretations of the current statutory code. Both government entities could have coordinated mutual compromises versus adversarial strategies for managing tribal gaming regulations. This lack of consensus generated a multilayered cat-and-mouse game between the NIGC/tribes and the DOJ.
The Distal Prisoner’s Dilemma:
The less conspicuous Prisoner’s Dilemma is an intertemporal one involving one set of congressional representatives versus another. The Johnson Act and IGRA are incompatible pieces of legislation that generate intricate policy conflicts (p.315-318). Since the two laws are incongruent, IGRA is a defection from the previous Johnson Act. In IGRA, it is implied before the 2002 amendments that the electronic aides were exempt; it was not clear enough to dispel any controversy. Either clarification of the exemption in the original law or having it match more closely to the criteria of the Johnson Act would have been a “cooperative strategy”.
A Distal Prisoner’s Dilemma is an indirect mutual defection that engenders poor outcomes. The defections are generally temporally stratified and are not an instantaneously implemented noncooperative strategy. Either through congress’s ignorance of the law or zealotry to regulate tribal gaming, they are working against their own previously established legislation.
Most legislative proposals seeking to permit or expand state gambling have generated controversy. Proposition 5 (1998) delivered on creating a notable amount of contention in California. The referendum aimed to allow tribes to form gaming compacts with the state, allowing them to provide Class III gaming (casino-style) services to their patrons. Per the provisions laid out in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1988) (IGRA) under Sec. 2710 of the act. The more granular objectives of the proposition included:
Allow tribal casinos to install or keep video-style slot machines, operate lotteries, and run card games.
2. Require the governor to approve such gambling arrangements with any tribe requesting them.
3. Require tribes with gambling operations to contribute a small percentage of their earnings to a fund benefiting statewide emergency medical care programs, communities near tribal casinos, or tribes without gaming.
4. Turn over to the tribes’ primary responsibility for overseeing the casinos. State regulation would be limited, but tribes would reimburse the state for the cost of state oversight.
The tribes had a lot to gain through the passage of Proposition 5, but in contrast, non-tribal gaming venues and adjacent industries had the potential to be big losers. This tension resulted in the Prop. 5 campaign engendering record-setting election spending in California. Per an October 1998 report, surpassing the spending on insurance reform bills in 1988, amassing a gargantuan $84 million in campaign expenditures. The rivalrous campaigning of tribal and non-tribal interest groups lays down the substrate for Bootlegger and Baptists’ (1983) coalition dynamics. The union of business and moralistic factions are most salient on the side that opposed the referendum. Since gambling is associated with crime and moral decay, attracting Baptists to act as moralizing agents is like shooting-fish-in-a-barrel. Once a curious individual dives deeper into it, the invested interests of the opposition become a web of predictable and unlikely Bootleggers begins to emerge.
The most conspicuous moralistic voice in the anti-Prop 5 campaign was Stand Up for California, a grassroots political action organization with conservative leanings. Since 1996, the organization has been a vocal opponent of expanding tribal gaming. The organization even acted as a consortium of moral anti-Prop 5 arguments, publishing articles ranging from trade associations, law enforcement organizations, and even the California Council on Alcohol Problemsexpounding upon the ills of tribal gaming. It is even suggested (on the California voter Information Guide not by Stand Up) that environmental protection issues; resulting from tribal gaming establishments being exempt from California environmental regulations (p.23). The implication is that environmentalists would object to the measure. The 1998 Voter Guide indicates a diverse array of moralistic arguments against Prop. 5. Including but not limited to the potential for crime, violation of state labor laws, the lack of bargaining power on the part of local citizens/governments, the lack of taxation, and even arguing that the revenue gained from gambling proceeds only helps a minority of tribally affiliated Indians (p.21-23).
The organization Stand Up reduced its political activity during this campaign to avoid cooperating with “…Nevada gambling interests…”.; demonstrating the organization’s commitment to moralistic communitarian causes. Regardless of whether they wanted an alliance with gaming interests, simply by taking a passionate position on the issue, they formed a tacit coalition. However, the relationships between the various varieties of Bootleggers are far more intricate than the networks of Baptists. It is open to debate whether some of these actors are Bootleggers, Baptists, Dual-Role Actors, or even if they are Covert Bootlegger (p.190).
The Bootleggers with the most linear relationship to the anti-referendum campaign are those with overt ties to the gaming industry. Several in-state interest groups donated money to shutdown Prop. 5. The involvement of gaming interests in the appurtenant state of Arizona and nearby Nevada is attention-grabbing. It is easy to surmise that many of these firms feared a loss in revenue from California residents having more local casinos. One notable gaming firm that contributed to the campaign was Aztar, the now-defunct gaming and hospitality management firm previously headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona (p.3-4). The list of luminaries included donors such as Caesars Las Vegas, the Rio, and Hilton Hotels (p.4). A careful observer may find it puzzling that a construction company based out of Framingham, Massachusetts (p.4) donated to the Prop. 5 counter-campaign. That is because the Perini Building Company built many of the famous casinos in Las Vegas, including Luxor and the northern expansion of Caesars Palace (p.5).
Another group backing the opposition was the labor unions. Many readers may question what organized labor would have to gain through blocking tribal gaming? The unions had two main objectives in the opposition campaign. First, the unions operated under the political action organization COPE (Los Angeles County Council on Public Education) since “…Indian casinos are not required to apply the National Labor Relations Act guidelines as other private employers are..” (p.24). The second reason why the tribes created such a powerful enemy was by the fact that “… many tribes refused to bargain with unions…” (p.24). Keeping in mind the doctrine of tribal sovereignty, they were well within their rights to refuse such negotiations; but they engendered a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Through working against the unions, the tribes incentivized organized labor to defect by working against their interest in an uncharacteristic (p.24) amount of activism devoted to defeating a tribal gaming bill.
Despite the best effects of the opposition campaign, Prop. 5 still passed in November 1998. The measure achieved victory by winning 62.38% of the vote, leaving the opposition at 37.62%. This demonstrates that even calculated and strategic counter-campaigns cannot assure success in the political arena. It also should be noted that the tribes did overall spend more on Prop. 5 advocacy than their opponents did refute it. While it is shrewd to avoid any social justice justifications for permitting tribal gaming, but for many tribes, it is crucial for their economic development. Native Americans, as of 2020, have the highest rates of poverty among any ethnic group living within the United States. Loosening regulations constraining tribal gaming is a tenable solution to help improve the economic circumstances of native peoples. Versus relying on handouts or ill-fate government programs that could only exacerbate their current economic struggles, we are allowing indigenous people to help themselves by getting out of their way. It is also worth noting that tribal casinos are not “for-profit” in the traditional sense. They might not overtly operate as charities. The casinos are “state-owned” since the establishments are owned by the tribal government. The proceeds function like tax revenue, funding infrastructure, programs, and other tribal initiatives (p.2).
Per a 2020 study, approximately 70 % of all surveyed parents admit to preferential treatment to one of their kids. The context of this biased parenting can range from intentional behavior to subconscious reflective behavior; such dynamics create a perverse incentives structure for the parent’s children. Despite this fallacy being prevalent, that does not eliminate the harm that it inflicts upon family dynamics. Anytime incentives are aligned for two people to work against one another, there is a strong potential for a Prisoner’s Dilemma. However, since each “player’s” incentives align with defection doesn’t mean that such strategies yield optimal outcomes. The same holds when it comes to interactions among family members.
Two notable defection strategies are implemented in sibling rivalries. The first salient strategy would be both siblings pitted against one another, vying for their parent’s affection. The two siblings simultaneously attempt to win the praise of their parents. Even if that means that they do so at the expense of their brother or sister. One example would be highlighting the shortcomings of the opposing sibling and comparing them to their achievements. For example, one sibling emphasized their straight A’s, and their brother Johnnie is a C-student. Based upon the author’s anecdotal observations, this is the most common form of noncooperative strategies implemented in sibling rivalries.
Another strategy that is slightly less common; but mildly prevalent is the double defection strategy. In this game-theoretical framework, the disfavored sibling does not attempt to conform to the expectations of the biased parent. The disadvantaged sibling opts to defect by rebelling against the rules and norms of the household. The recalcitrant sibling effectively defects concurrently from both the favored sibling and the biased parent; by defying the parent and taking a hostile stance against their sibling. However, both siblings could work together to create a more harmonious household. They could work together to evenly divide the chores around the house and stick up for one another when one parent is being too harsh on the other sibling. Instead of allowing the chaos of competition to fray the relationship of the family members.
The event of toilet paper shortages of March 2020 was our societal initiation into the peculiar COVID-19 era. Now that we are currently facing global supply-chain shortages, people are once again starting to engage in hoarding behavior. The attempt to accumulate scarce goods when confronted with shortages is an understandable response. However, is it a good strategy? From a superficial standpoint, hoarding seems like an optimal strategy, especially when assessing the present market conditions. But being fixated on the current supply shortages does not take into account downstream consequences of hoarding behavior. Whether it is the toilet paper shortages of 2020 or the current supply shortages of 2021, all supply shortages present us with a Prisoner’s Dilemma. This observation is most likely true of all supply shortages past, present, and future.
By definition, a Prisoner’s Dilemma is a situation where players (in this scenario shoppers) believe it is in their best interest to adopt noncooperative strategies; but create suboptimal results. For example, consumer’s hoarding scare commodities can have the following consequences:
1.) Consumers’ opting to hoard a scarce product will only exacerbate current shortages.
2.) The intensified stress placed on the supply chain from hoarding will be reflected in skyrocketing prices (absent any price control measures, e.g., price gouging laws).
3.) Private firms may decide to place purchasing quotas on specific scarce goods.
4.) The increased potential for violent interactions when attempting to obtain scare goods.
While many people may think buying every last roll of toilet paper is a good strategy, several potential ramifications suggest otherwise. Hoarding results in forms of strategic purchasing that pits shopper versus shopper. Consequentially, engenders many social and economic externalities.