#2,544 in Business & money books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Game Theory and the Social Contract, Vol. 1: Playing Fair
Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 2
We found 2 Reddit mentions of Game Theory and the Social Contract, Vol. 1: Playing Fair. Here are the top ones.
or
- 2 inch 42mm SuperView eyepiece, 65 degree apparent field of view
- Fully multi-coated lenses, 5 lens elements, Blackened lens edges
- 30mm eye relief, fold-down rubber eyeguard
- Threaded for standard 2" astronomy filters
- Weight 13.0oz., Made in Taiwan
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 9 Inches |
| Length | 6.3 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Weight | 1.69976404002 Pounds |
| Width | 1.1 Inches |
Was hoping a little more for an active defense of an ancap's reject of the social contract, and not a rundown of the logic and history. Interesting presentation nonetheless.
> Yes, yes, we all know who John Rawls is. However, the defense of social contract theory which you've provided is actually not much like John Rawls's theory of justice at all.
That's because I didn't reference him for that reason (hint: I do it for a potential source of interest for those who may not have known him), if you've read more into it, I prefer referencing Binmore's work and the work on moral psychology (1, 2, 3, 4).
> If you're going to condescendingly posture yourself as better educated than we stupid libertarians, at least be better educated.
Uh huh. Think you've got the wrong idea about me, kid.
> Feasibility and efficacy are inversely related, within the liberal mindset of state capitalism & its institutions.
From a Law & Econ perspective, the feasibility of producing policy is determined by the incentive structures presented to policy makers. It's not true that efficacy and feasibility are considered to be universally inversely related within Law & Econ. That'd be a ridiculous argument because it'd suggest that we'd always have minimally effective laws, which we clearly don't.
> Now, it's true, this betrays they don't understand econ because subjecting measures of evaluation and mechanisms of competition to those very measures of evaluation and mechanisms of competition creates a paradox. Equilibrium analysis famously cannot handle meta/endogenous preferences--i.e. preferences about preferences or the systems in which they are expressed and this is why I think Law & Econ is stupid.
Could you elaborate on this?
I'm in the process of reading a book about game theory and law. Its author attempts to model the origins and development of law as a competitive game.
I don't see a paradox in the claim that competitive markets for goods in services are a product of property laws which themselves are a product of some different but related competitive process.