Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fencerman t1_jaxdzgh wrote

Reply to comment by -Rixi in Game Theory's ultimate answer to real world dilemmas: "Generous Tit for Tat" by TryingTruly

All games of this type are based on both parties having some power to affect each other. If one is powerless then their preferences aren't going to matter.

Which coincidentally is why more egalitarian systems breed more cooperation.

17

[deleted] t1_jaxzbb5 wrote

[deleted]

2

fencerman t1_jay5ue5 wrote

> My answer is: no human being is ever truly powerless.

That's nice in theory, but anecdotal examples aren't the same as practical reality for most people.

MLK, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela only had "power" because of massive international pressure, cold war balance of power issues and a large, potentially violent movement behind them. They weren't individuals and pretending their actions didn't benefit from real hard power is erasing history.

In a similar vein, Ukraine is surviving in large part to massive foreign military aid making it possible for them to resist an otherwise vastly more powerful military.

And most people, especially in western society, don't have the backing of foreign military powers or an armed resistance movement behind them.

9

emelrad12 t1_jb00d7n wrote

That is not really true when comparing 1:1. Besides when we say powerless it means that the power they have is disproportionately going to bring negative consequences.

1