Evolutionary Game Theory and Anarchy

Let's simply define anarchy as a condition of non-monopoly enforcement of law and security. And given "scarcity" as "a priori" reality(thus, the need for economics), de-centralized enforcers, such as markets, firms, and communities, would arise to replace the centralized monopolized enforcer. Is this a viable and stable form of "government?"

Under Classical Game Theory, it would be viable but not particular stable under an external threat. That is, if we make the Neoclassical assumptions of rational, utility maximizing agents in order to evaluate outcomes in any Game with a defined set of strategies, then it can be shown that cooperation will arise from an iterated prisoner's dilemma game if the agents are sufficiently future-oriented(discount rate of utility payoff is sufficiently low). But if such a "government" came under an external threat (from strangers), then the discounted rate of utility payoff would rise sharply and any cooperation would thusly break down.

Therefore, from neoclassical assumptions, minarchy would seem to be the libertarian requirement(monopoly authority to provide for the common defense, etc).

However, what if advances in evolutionary game theory and neuroeconomics the past decade demonstrate that humans are not Neoclassical, utility maximizing agents. What if "anarchy" could be shown to have Evolutionary Stable strategy(ESS) equilibriums for the "free rider" or "public goods' prisoner-dilemma games, even under external threat?

Now what if a "new left" arose to make the academic arguments against the monopoly power of the state along the lines of the Hungarian born, "anarcho-liberal" economist/philosopher Anthony de Jasay?

What if, "anarcho-liberals" could come up with a calculation, "The Price of Statism"(borrowing from the concept of the "Price of Anarchy" in algorithmic game theory), that would be able to quantify the worst-case ratio, say, between monopoly enforcement of social welfare at a Nash equilibrium and the social welfare at an optimal assignment(or something along such lines).

What would be "The Price of Statism" calculation for, say, Katrina?

Below, Michael Shermer on Reason.tv talks about his new book, the 'Mind of the Market," which deals with advances being made in evolutionary models as applied to economics. However, keep in mind that Shermer would argue for the need of the State to promote and maintain "globalism." From anarcho-liberal or agorist perspective, is "globalism" a powerful enough argument to justify the state?

IMO by the time you concede scarcity as a necessity, you've given up the game. Scarcity in everything except status items has been purely artificial in our society since the 1960s. Have a look at Murray Bookchin's Post-scarcity Anarchy for a view of the alternative.

i don't find that to be a defensible position,instead striking me as a utopian reliance on technology to supplant economics...

Good post, thanks for encouraging discussion on this topic.

First, how would these de-centralized enforcers develop and operate?

I think history gives us two major examples. The first, mercenaries for hire and other similar "hired guns." The second, examples in more traditional societies of clan-based approaches to protection and legal enforcement. Central Asia is full of such examples, which often have had a dynamic relationship with the development and expansion of Islam.

I've read interesting accounts of government arising from external threats, particularly the imbalance created by more prosperous settled agricultural societies and nomadic societies with a military edge. But I can also see how government can arise internally through the rise of organized religion, which matches with historical evidence.

I enjoyed Michael Shermer a lot. On the question of government and trade, I do think that there's a tradition of thought within libertarianism that argues that government is a more efficient way of enforcing contracts and therefore building trust than an anarchic system that depends on repeated interactions or a network of individuals (like Jewish trading families in the Mediterranean, which historically acted as a catalyst for trade). I think the rise of the Internet may actually provide for the rise of anarchic systems of trade that depend less on government.

published in 1997 gives a solid academic, philosophical foundation for anarcho-liberalism(which is very similar to agorism or agorist class theory). de Jasay predicted the rise of "Rovian" politcs and the trend of increasing statism to enforce slimmer and slimmer democratic majorities(which also explains all this hope and hype around Obama to to deliver a "New American Majority").

Since the election of Bush, I have had to challenge my assumptions of right-libertarian minarchism and I have found them wanting, which explains my drift from classical liberal to now "anarcho-liberal." I no longer believe minarchism is a defensible position, while I believe anarcho-liberalism is. The thing is, i don't think it's necesssary to demonstrate that market anarchism is the most optimal form of "government," but rather that the "price of Statism" under either a left-progressive or right-progressive machinery of a National security State makes 'market anarchism' far more preferrable in all likelihood. This is a "consequentialist" argument but it also establishes a much lower threshold to meet. And hence the reason why I've been studying and brushing on game theory the last few months to have a mathematical framework to make this argument.

And I agree that communication technology(i.e., the internet, which is after all a de-centralized, libertarian/anarchist construct) can lift market anarchism from the "tribe" to more global anarchic systems of trade.

I don't think I've encountered Anthony de Jasay before, I'll have to look into it.

I'm similarly interested in agorist class theory.

But if such a "government" came under an external threat (from strangers), then the discounted rate of utility payoff would rise sharply and any cooperation would thusly break down.

Any social structure breaks down if people lose faith in it. People can lose faith in a state if it is put under stress. In fact, war, by definition, undermines the foundation of the state "monopoloy on violence".

Anyway, there are plenty of military ventures that succeeded in the absence of a unifying state. All inter-state military alliances fit this mold. Likewise, any rebellion or resistance movement fits this mold. These might be good places to start looking at how this type of thing can work.