[cc-community] Benjamin Mako Hill on Creative Commons
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Aug 1 14:36:34 EDT 2005
On Monday 01 August 2005 12:34 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > On Monday 01 August 2005 11:42 am, Greg London wrote:
> >> > On Monday, August 01, 2005, at 03:57PM, Greg London
> >> > <email at greglondon.com>
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>12 people are taken hostage by a lone gunman in a bank.
> >> >>If one hostage stands up and attempts to fight
> >> >>the gunman, his chances of winning a hand-to-gun
> >> >>fight are slim, he'll take all the risk, possibly
> >> >>lose everything, and if he succeeds in tackling
> >> >>the gunman, everyone immediately benefits from his
> >> >>work, and he has no way of getting paid for his
> >> >>efforts.
> >> >
> >> > The hostage can of course grab the gun, shoot all the other hostages
> >> as
> >> > well as the gunman, and throw some of the money out of the back
> >> window.
> >> > Then when the police storm the building he can return the gun to the
> >> > (dead) gunman's hand and play the heroic survivor of a massacre before
> >> > going to pick up the loot. After this he can make more of a fortune by
> >> > selling his story to the press, appearing on chat shows, writing a
> >> novel
> >> > and selling the film rights.
> >> Actually, no. the 1-versus-12 is a hostage scenario. As soon as one of
> >> the
> >> 12 rises up and takes the gun from the gunman, and wants to become a
> >> gunman himself, it becomes another hostage scenario, this time
> >> 1-versus-11.
> > Why? The one has no concept of needing hostages. Therefore, no hostage
> > scenario.
> because Rob wrote it that way. One guy tackles the gunman,
> shoots the other hostages, and takes all the money for himself.
> As soon as the guy tackled the gunman and took the gun,
> it became a new hostage scenario. 1 to 11 instead of 1 to 12.
Nope, because the way Rob wrote it, tghe original gunman did not have a
scapegoat which guy number two does. Therefore, he does not need the hostages
the way the first guy did.
> > This is one of the big problems with theories about people. The theory
> > wants
> > some people to be scenery and some be players. In real life, I would say
> > that
> > all are players.
> OK, you are REALLY getting wrapped up in teh analogy then.
> Game theory is all about analogies that describe circumstances.
I don't think I am that wrapped up in it. I am just pointing out that the
analogy or theory is a simplification of real life and not real life itself.
You can't offer a bribe to the scenery. The scenery can't be your cousins
> The "tragedy of the commons" is described in game theory tersm
> in many different ways. People sharing a common pasteur.
> people fishing from the same ocean. Etc. If you counter
> "I don't have cows" or "I don't eat fish", then you are
> completely missing the point.
> If these "theories of people" are wrong, then all of the theories
> are wrong, including tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy of the commons is wrong insofar as it always assumes a certain
type of commons and ignores other historical ways of running commonage. At
least every time I see it presented, I see it put forth that the general
public are always commoners and that use of the commage is an unregulated
free for all. The arguments are shown to apply to this setup and then it is
implied that all commons work in this flawed way.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community