Do you not think that a Nash Equilibrium is likely to ultimately result in some privately policed polities where homosexuals (or blacks or Jews or bums or protestants or Catholics) are welcome and others where they are not? Won't this arrangement look very much like a diversity of states?
I ** DO ** think that a Nash Equilibrium will deliver exactly the results you desire.
...and I consider this to be a feature.
This is exactly what I mean by the phrase "Nozickian meta-utopia". In _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ (the third section, I think, but it's been a decade since I last read it, so don't hold me to this) Nozick talks about how any one man's utopia is many other men's hell, and therefore there can be no one utopia. The best that can be achieved is a meta-utopia, that allows many smaller utopias to flourish within it. This is very similar to the Nrx / ancap idea of exit, or Moldbug's idea of "Patchwork" http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/11/patchwork-positive-vision-part-1.html .
Lefties hate this idea, because they are unable to summon the epistemelogical humility to accept that de gustibus non est disputandum : if { gay marriage | sex before marriage | recreational drug use | etc. } is fun for them, it must be excellent for EVERYONE, and ANYONE who disagrees with them clearly hates human flourishing and should be belitted, mocked, and driven out a job.
Righties don't love it either: it grates on many righties to imagine that the neighbors might not be as full of respect for Jesus, the military, etc. as they are.
There is declining marginal utility to making others agree with us, and increasing marginal utility to hanging on to our preferences as others try to pry one more unit of our freedoms away, thus the N.E. in any given attempt at a monolithic utopia is failure, as no side has the appetite to completely give up and no side has the appetite to complete win.
Thus if utopia is impossible, only meta utopia is left.
Or, at least, that is the efficient frontier.
One can do considerably worse.
...and I consider this to be a feature.
This is exactly what I mean by the phrase "Nozickian meta-utopia". In _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ (the third section, I think, but it's been a decade since I last read it, so don't hold me to this) Nozick talks about how any one man's utopia is many other men's hell, and therefore there can be no one utopia. The best that can be achieved is a meta-utopia, that allows many smaller utopias to flourish within it. This is very similar to the Nrx / ancap idea of exit, or Moldbug's idea of "Patchwork" http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/11/patchwork-positive-vision-part-1.html .
Lefties hate this idea, because they are unable to summon the epistemelogical humility to accept that de gustibus non est disputandum : if { gay marriage | sex before marriage | recreational drug use | etc. } is fun for them, it must be excellent for EVERYONE, and ANYONE who disagrees with them clearly hates human flourishing and should be belitted, mocked, and driven out a job.
Righties don't love it either: it grates on many righties to imagine that the neighbors might not be as full of respect for Jesus, the military, etc. as they are.
There is declining marginal utility to making others agree with us, and increasing marginal utility to hanging on to our preferences as others try to pry one more unit of our freedoms away, thus the N.E. in any given attempt at a monolithic utopia is failure, as no side has the appetite to completely give up and no side has the appetite to complete win.
Thus if utopia is impossible, only meta utopia is left.
Or, at least, that is the efficient frontier.
One can do considerably worse.
Liked by:
Nicholas B Stevenson
St. Rev. Dr. Rev