|
|
This makes me think of a book I bought when it came out, 20+ years ago - Matt Ridley: The Origins of Virtue[^]. I understand that it has since become a classic in the field.
I certainly enjoy how he starts out with very primitive simulation models, with actors of varying degrees of greediness and trust, as pure mathematical / algorithmic concepts devoid of any kind of "moral" or "politics", showing how pure greediness and egoism and distrust is most counterproductive, regardless of ethics and ideals.
Then he moves gradually up "the biological ladder", observing manifestations of the successful behaviour patterns in the primitive simulation models in higher organisms.
Ridley's book is certainly not the only one in its field, and approach. "The Selfish Gene" is a predecessor in the the same line of thought, and there are many others. But "The Origins of Virtue" is written in a fascinating, easy to read style. I really should dig it up an re-read it soon!
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I'm gonna check that book out.
|
|
|
|
|
I experienced a serious violation of trust a few weekends ago. I thought the whole band had committed ourselves to playing a gig. I showed up, waited for an hour, called them up, and found out they were just getting loaded up. I left the gig and left the band right then and there.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
 When will the ivory tower people realize that game theory has very little to do with trust.
|
|
|
|
|
It might have nothing to do (and I agree) but it has been used to visually explain some pretty good points in an easy way.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
For a suitable definition of "trust", it has.
For other definititions, it has not.
"Trust" is about as unamibiguosly defined as "love" or "justice". Or "ivory tower".
"I trust our leader to take the country in the right direction" is quite unrelated to game theory (it may be closer related to gambling than to gaming...). Game theory is based on another definition of trust. Similar with systems for authentication and authorization. Common man's rather diffuse social / politicics / psychology based concepts of "trust" are rarely suitable for any formal processing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how long some of these will be on the books?
Consider:
In Alaska It is illegal to be drunk - in a bar
In Chico, California it is illegal to build, own or use(!) a nuclear bomb
In Connecticut only pickles that bounce may be legally sold
In Florida it is illegal to sell your children
In Idaho (and only Idaho) is it actively illegal to practice cannibalism (unless it is “consensual consumption”
)
and many more. a large majority of these are still on the books. How long will COVID-19 laws stick around?
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
stoneyowl2 wrote: In Chico, California it is illegal to build, own or use(!) a nuclear bomb
That's the second reason I will never move to Chico.
It should be illegal to make any new laws.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
stoneyowl2 wrote: In Florida it is illegal to sell your children
but clearly it is not illegal to eat your children. 
|
|
|
|
|
Well ... Income Tax was introduced to the UK in 1799 as a temporary measure to cover the cost of the Napoleonic Wars ... and we're still paying it!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That might be true for one specific kind of taxation. But taxes in the general sense are more than five thousand years old. Genesis 47,24: "But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children" - and this is certainly not the oldest reference. Contributing to the maintenance of the society, and the military forces in particular, has been common for millennia.
The taxes were not necessarily individual. Often taxes were laid on the farm, determined by the farm's growable land, livestock etc. The UK was no different - citizens had to pay their share of the expenses for all sorts of infrastructure, military forces etc.
So taxes were nothing new in 1799. Only that one specific tax for financing the war against Napoleon. If you still consider your income tax as your share to fight against Napoleon: Maybe you should enjoy it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: Genesis 47,24: "But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh.
You could use a credible source.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
Motorway speed limits were also "temporary" I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Collection of crazy US laws have been in circulation for at least fifty years, probably longer. So when I went to the USA as a high school exchange student, in the mid 1970s, I asked whether the stories were just jokes, or what. They are mostly true, I was told, but ...
In local American politics, far away from "strange" presidental rumblings, it is (or at least was at that time) often so that the two main parties in reality were in agreement about some action to be taken. But if this was proposed by party A, party B couldn't just give party A right, saying "Great idea! Your party is doing the right thing with this proposal!" - that would be loosing face completely. So behind the curtains, they made a trade: OK, we will go for your proposal if, and only if, you will support our proposal for a law that prohibits drying men's and women's underwear on the same clothesline! (This is an actual example of those crazy laws.)
Everybody knew that the law was not meant to be practiced, it was just a way for party B not to loose face: They could say "Look what we made party A follow us on - that is crazy, isn't it?" Everyone knew that this was party B's way of showing their power, rather than submission under party A. According to my sources, and I had others confirming it, this was not that uncommon, regardless of which party was A and which was B. Maybe that practice is gone now, 40+ years later, but it seems to me like a probable explanation of lots of the crazy local laws you read about in the US. The collections you find at newsstands today is more or less a blueprint of the 1970s and 80s collections; it looks as if the growth of new crazy laws is quite limited nowadays.
Here in Norway, we have nothing of a similar kind: We have national laws only - county or local laws do not exist. A specific national law may leave to a local authority, usually the police, to define detail interpretation, such as identifying in which streets parking is forbidden. The local authority is strictly limited by the national law. If you are sued for violation a law, it is always a national law, not regional or local.
Not all crazy laws are local. But for US laws at the state/federal level, if foreigners are shaking their head in disbelief, it is usually not because of the law itself, but of the culture that lays the ground for such laws. We realize that the law is consistent with US (or US state) culture, so the law in itself makes sort of sense in that framework. But we may shake our heads over the culture that makes such laws "natural".
|
|
|
|
|
Those are all crazy laws from the USA. Since this post is about laws in the UK - aren't there any crazy ones there?
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
We've had a parliament a lot longer. Our stupid laws would break the servers.
|
|
|
|
|
I can only imagine.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I have always like the Oklahoma law prohibiting getting fish drunk.
If you follow up on the history, it was way to arrest moonshiners. The would dump their stock (moonshine) in a local creek so the law would not have any evidence. But the law said 'OK, you made all those poor fish drunk; we will make a law against that'
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
In New Zealand there's still a section of laws that can only be committed by Maori, and enforced by Maori Wardens - not regular police officers.
I believe they were laws to give individuals nominated by local Maori authorities similar powers to police officers (including the power to issue fines) in specific situations that Maori leaders at the time thought were a problem they needed to deal with - mostly I think to do with drunken and disorderly behaviour, which I guess was a problem to Maori leaders in the 60s.
But it's a funny set of laws, or as a former Prime Minister referred to it "a bit racist", if you strip it out of the context of what it was meant for.
At least the laws about prohibiting animals to mate in fields adjacent to roads were scrapped though.
|
|
|
|
|
In France, in 2013, they canceled a law stating that women were not allowed to wear trousers  It was about time.
|
|
|
|
|
Some years ago in the UK, there was a proposal to repeal the law requiring a man to walk in front of every railroad train waving a red flag as a warning. The proposal was turned down; in the House of Lords, the proposal was described as "cultural vandalism". (Brits are Brits...  )
My favorite Norwegian law dates back to 1687 - it might make you smile, but it really is great:
If an animal of one man's livestock atacks another man's animal and kills it, the owner of the animal that killed shall pay a compensation to the man whose animal was killed. If the killed animal was a better animal than the one killing, half its value shall be compensated. But if it was inferior to the one killing, the full value shall be compensated.
So the farmer whose animal was killed mustweigh back and forth: Shall I admit that my livestock is inferior to my neighbour's, just to get the maximum compensation? Or should I hold that my livestock is the better one, and sacrify half the compensation?
|
|
|
|
|
Some of our lockdown laws have been challenged and declared unconstitutional here in South Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
