Re: Game Theory and its Relevance to Cypherpunks

[Llywarch Hen <ecgwulf@worldnet.att.net>]

Timothy May wrote:
>Game theory is terribly important to Cypherpunks.
Definite agreement here. Wait ... it gets better.

>                                                     . . . Creating a
terrifying image,
>an image of crazed indifference, is a useful thing. Certainly the S.S.
>understood the power of their frightening uniforms and the "myth" of their
>bloodthirstiness. (Note: I am not saying their bloodthirstiness was a myth,
>but that they deliberately cultivated this image. Intimidation works,
>game-theoretically.)

What Timothy May espouses is not the appearance of craziness but actual
insanity itself.

>                                 . . . Even the "MAD" policy of "mutually
assured
>destruction" has game-theoretic justification. (Indeed, this is virtually a
>truism, given the role game theory and the RAND Corporation played in the
>devising of the MAD strategy.) While humanists and liberals may cluck at
>the admittedly horrible consequences of MAD, were it ever implemented, it
>is solidly grounded in these "games." Fortunately, the goal of MAD was to
>not have to be used, and it appears now to have worked quite well (albeit
>at high cost).

Recall that during the time MAD supposedly worked that both of Reagan and
Brezhnev were comatose much, if not all of the time. The crazies were out of
the picture. Who was in charge? Let's suppose it was the generals. Who would
know better their systems were shit? Recall on the day that Reagan was shot
that Alexander Haig appeared on national TV and announced 'I am in charge
here.' Haig was not constitutionally in charge of anything. Did he mean 'we'
not 'I'. Who would that 'we' be? The twentieth century is drawing to a close
as the world's most bloodthirsty by far: 40 mil under Stalin, 25 mil under
Mao, 8 mil under Hitler, and so on. There are no heroes. Timothy May
suggests that we continue to play his stupid game. Much of the cold war for
public consumption was predicated on the notion that ends do not justify
means. It was rather profitable for some interests however.

The numbers speak for a strong info-war capability. But what we are asked to
do is to refight the last war with grandpa, who we find out stayed home and
watched it on TV but gets off on all this scary shit. Especially the uniforms.

Perhaps Timothy May through luck, manipulation and hard work has made it up
toward the head of the line to feed at the public trough and then declare to
the rest of us that we have a free and competitive market. He will cite
Hudson, Heritage, RAND, ... AEI, and Cato whose shining lights best
understand who it is that is signing their paychecks. These are the folks
that bought us Vietnam, did not pay for it in lives or money, but profited
immensely. He cites Kahn whose best game is the consulting game.

Wanna buy a hot stock? Buy Steven Emerson -- guy's gonna take off.

-- Llywarch Hen