The Pardoner's Dilemma

Behind the mask

There is a famous result in Game Theory known as “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” which involves two accused people, each of whose incriminating testimony could send the other to jail. The 1994 Nobel prize was awarded to John Forbes Nash and a movie was made of his life for formalizing these insights. A counter-intuitive result occurs as the expected outcome (lower right of the graphic below), self-interest notwithstanding, is sub-optimal for both parties. What makes this interesting is that it stands as a contrast to the “zero-sum” game that also goes by the unflattering name “Economic Darwinism.”

There are lots of game theorists. I am not one of them. But I do have questions. Suppose that one of the prisoners always has immunity from prosecution, regardless of his guilt or innocence? Suppose further that his wrong doing was abetted by many others who knew the scope of the perfidy but remained silent during the conduct of the fraud? Crony capitalism and the Covid nonsense are both examples. Should the accomplices be offered immunity (just a pardon in advance) on the condition that they fully and completely provide truthful testimony of what really happened and their role in the scam? Will there ever be an incentive for this mob to “come clean”?

A branch of the same subject is The Theory of Cooperative Games. It describes how outcomes change when, rather than the every-man-for-himself model, parties in a transaction cooperate in reaching decisions. Much of human action is governed by the decision to cooperate or not (ask anyone who has ever divorced). It is no surprise to learn that cooperation is likely when players expect future interactions, but breaks down, due to the absence of future consequences, once a final round is known.

Last August, in a post which I believe we can at least call “a draw,” the AI bot in my computer and I had a debate over the issue of “Who Shall Decide?” The question, then and now, is whether decisions should be made by the group or the individual. In light of recent events, revisiting that question seems to be in order. If the group is lead by a potentate who is immune or likely to be granted immunity from any consequence of his actions, why would any of us ever believe anything he says? Should not every utterance be considered part of the Known Last Round phenomenon? The group is complicit. How can it ever be trusted?

The classic recitation of The Prisoners’ Dilemma involves more than just the two prisoners. There is a third party, a police agent, presumably neutral, who is expected to truthfully communicate facts to the players. How does the game change and how is the outcome affected when that interlocutor is biased toward a particular outcome? What should we expect when the jailer and the jailed switch positions? An independent judiciary is an extension of the policing agency. Its job is to recognize and determine the difference between right and wrong. How is society reduced by the absence or corruption of such a tribunal?

Inquiring Americans still want to know. The answer lies in the universal arbiter of truth, factual reality as it occurs in Nature. Governments, nations and politicians come and go. But reality is what remains. That physical reality is and must be measured by a rigid, objective standard. The silly putty yardstick of government always loses. We always return to hard truths, hard money and hard reality. In the end, the math always wins.

This week found many leaving the stage with a get-out-of-jail-free pass. Truth may have exited with them.

Temporarily.