matt comments on Bayesians vs. Barbarians - Less Wrong

51 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 April 2009 11:45PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (270)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: matt 15 April 2009 10:47:58PM 3 points [-]

"social contract" [shudders], I don't remember signing that one.

A "social contract" binding individuals to make self-sacrificing decisions doesn't seem necessary for a healthy civilization. See David D. Friedman's Machinery of Freedom for details; for a very (very) brief sketch consider that truck drivers rationally risk death on the roads for pay and that mercenaries face a higher risk of death for more pay - and that merchants will pay both truck drivers and soldiers for their services.

Soldiery doesn't have to be a special case requiring different rational rules.

Comment author: AndySimpson 16 April 2009 07:51:13AM 0 points [-]

What army of free-market mercenaries could seriously hope to drive the modern US Armed Forces, augmented by a draft, to capitulation? Perhaps more relevantly, what army of free-market mercenaries could overcome the fanatical, disciplined mass of barbarians?

What I'm inferring from your comment is that a rational society could defend itself using market mechanisms, not central organization, if the need ever arose. Those mechanisms of the market might do well in supplying soldiers to meet a demand for defense, but I'm skeptical of the ability of the blind market to plan a grand strategy or defeat the enemy in battle. It's also very difficult to take one's business elsewhere when you're hiring men with guns to stop an existential threat and they don't do a good job of it. In order to defend a society, first there must be understanding that there is a society and that it's worth defending.

Comment author: mattnewport 16 April 2009 08:01:05AM 1 point [-]

Those mechanisms of the market might do well in supplying soldiers to meet a demand for defense, but I'm skeptical of the ability of the blind market to plan a grand strategy or defeat the enemy in battle.

Plenty of private corporations seem to do quite well at grand strategy and defeating enemies in market competition. It doesn't seem a huge stretch to imagine them achieving similar success in battle. Much of military success comes down to logistics and I think a reasonable case can be made that private corporations already demonstrate greater competence in that area than most government enterprises.