The ability to thus influence the game is a legitimate
part of any real life strategy. Game Theory assumes that the game is a
given - and the players have to optimize their results within it. It
should open itself to the inclusion of game altering or redefining
moves by the players as an integral part of their strategies. After
all, games entail the existence of some agreement to play and this
means that the players accept some rules (this is the role of the
prosecutor in the Prisoners' Dilemma). If some outside rules (of the
game) are permissible - why not allow the "risk" that all the players
will agree to form an outside, lawfully binding, arbitration and
enforcement agency - as part of the game? Such an agency will be
nothing if not the embodiment, the materialization of one of the rules,
a move in the players' strategies, leading them to more optimal or
superior outcomes as far as their utility functions are concerned.
Bargaining inevitably leads to an agreement regarding a decision making
procedure. An outside agency, which enforces cooperation and some moral
code, is such a decision making procedure. It is not an "outside"
agency in the true, physical, sense.
Pages:
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200