Just a brief note about tit-for-tat in game theory

Four words:
Cooperate
Retaliate
Negotiate
Forgive

In other words, cooperate as long as the other party does, punish them for any defections, negotiate a return to cooperation, then forgive them for their defection.

/And it's been a half year since I wrote anything in the blog. I really need to A) Post some stuff I've written about balanced senary notation (specifically, the cool truncation/rounding part, including things like prices), B) Post some thoughts on IFNOP/ILOOP Condorcet completion methods (Ignore Fewest Number Of Preferences/Ignore Lowest Order of Preferences), and C) Post some ideas on the Single Tax, and how much cooler it is than the mis-named "Fair Tax." (grin)

Five lessons learned from Iraq

This came to mind from a Fark thread entitled Ten Iraq lessons learned. You won't like them.

1. Only attack other countries who actually attack you first. Massive retaliation is preferable to incorrect pre-emption.
2. Wars should only be fought to protect the people and the Constitution of the United States, not to reshape the politics of the Middle East or other parts of the world.
3. "Allies" share danger, so that both are safer together than they would be apart. If one group shields another at the cost of their own safety -- shifting danger from one group to another, rather than sharing it -- they are more accurately called a patron, benefactor, or protector, and the quote about "entangling alliances" comes into play.
4. People have friends, countries have interests. The interests of the most annoying state in the union come before even the nicest country overseas.
5. If terrorists hate us for our freedoms, taking away our freedoms to fight them is a stupid idea.

Health Saving Accounts -- updated

I updated this in a post on Slate.com, so I thought I'd copy it so I had a record for future reference (and possible inclusion in Fark and Slashdot threads). Here goes:

It seems like most of the plans proposed by the major candidates for President require mandatory enrollment and government-control. Still, it's not necessary to have a super slush fund set up by the federal government to pay for medical treatment -- it's perfectly possible to have universality with mandated private health savings accounts, which not only remove the stranglehold of insurance companies on the process, but the government temptation to redirect funds (e.g. Social Security).

For example, how about the following:

1. Calculate the amount of money a person is likely to require for healthcare throughout his life, factoring in pre-existing conditions and genetic predispositions. Adjust this amount to reward good healthcare decisions (regular exercise, immunizations, annual checkups) and punish bad ones (overeating, smoking, etc). You might also give a break for those who are regular blood donors, or have signed a consent form for organ donation.

2. Figure out how much money a person can afford to set aside for their health savings account, up to some maximum percentage of income. Require at least that amount to be saved (though of course they could save more if desired), until their account matches the actuarial estimate in #1. In addition, front-load the account so that it is fully-funded before the person retires, barring accident or illness. This would be pre-tax, to provide an incentive to those who are saving the most.

3. Have the government calculate a standard fee for a wide range of medical services, and reimburse health care providers up to a set amount based on the drug, procedure, or treatment. A person could opt for a more expensive option, but they would have to pay the difference out of their own pocket, and if they are able to take advantage of a cheaper option, then less would be taken from their account.

4. If there is any shortfall in the account, the state would cover it, but treat it as a loan with interest. If the person's financial situtation improved, they would start paying off the debt, and then return to funding their account.

5. Once an account is fully funded, the owner of it would no longer be subject to automatic withholdings, unless there is a future shortfall. If there is a surplus in the account, a reasonable rate of interest could be paid, and the owner allowed to spend the excess, or transfer it to another account.

6. Parents would be responsible for all healthcare costs for their children until they reach adulthood.

7. If a person dies with an account shortfall, the money to retire the debt would come out of the estate, if possible. If there is a surplus, it will be treated as an asset, and transferred to one's heirs.

8. Since there will probably still be a shortfall over the entire system (since surpluses are fully transferred, but shortfalls after probate are not), a graduated tax rate could be imposed to make it fully solvent.

This system would be universal, and since the state would have a direct say in the maximum payment per procedure from the HSA, there would be a two-prong approach to limiting costs and minimizing fraud -- patients wouldn't want to spend more from their account than necessary, and the state would set a limit for their reimbursement, kind of like insurance companies do nowadays. By making patients fully aware of the costs for treatment, they can make more informed health decisions, turning the system into a means of exploiting the "wisdom of crowds" rather than the "opinions of bureaucrats."

In addition, this plan would reward people who were frugal, and encourage conserving scarce resources without requiring the state to ration care. On a related note, people in the final stages of their lives who have no hope for recovery would be less likely to choose the most expensive, herculean efforts to prolong their suffering, since the cost would be taken from their estate.
Finally, it would also severely curtail the free-rider problem, since a person demanding expensive, unnecessary care would be paying more for the privilege than a thriftier person.

Most arguements against this kind of system are that it's unfair (what could be fairer than paying as much of your own way as you can?), punishes the sick (but treatment is guaranteed, and repayment only necessary if you can afford it), is mean-spirited (okay, it doesn't give freebies to anyone), or is inefficient (but the government would still controll the maximum payment per service, it would simply have a second pair of eyes -- the patient -- trying to minimize the bill as well). Compare to a system where the government puts the money in a big pool, and ladles out coverage as necessary, this has less potential for fraud and abuse, and is probably more in tune with American desire for individuality than most of the "socialized medicine" alternatives.

/I wonder if anyone will bother reading this far? Oh well, it's fun to craft plans like this and see how people respond.

The hunter and the bear

I argue a lot on Fark, and typically, political arguments are of the form "Candidate A doesn't believe in X, so you are an idiot if you vote for him." Of course, this completely ignores who you should vote for. I finally wrote the following:

These threads are a bit like a religious argument between a Mormon and a Muslim. Sure, it's easy for one side to poke holes in the wacky beliefs of the other, but only when their own beliefs aren't subject to the same scrutiny.

Which is probably why a lot of people seem to be against everything and for nothing. There are relatively few arguments like "I believe Ron Paul is mistaken in the role of the Federal government in universal health care, which is why I support John Edwards," while there are plenty saying "Ron Paul is a racist homophobe, and if you vote for him you are an idiot."

There is a joke about two hunting guides walking in a forest. On the other side of the canyon they see a grizzly bear stand up on it hind legs, sniff the wind, then take off running toward them. The first guide looks around the scrubby pines in vain for a tree to climb, while the second grabs a pair of running shoes from his backpack and starts to hurriedly put them on.
"Why are you doing that? You can't outrun a bear!" The first guide exclaims.
"I don't have to outrun the bear," the other replies. "I just have to outrun you."

Likewise, Representative Paul is far from a perfect candidate, but he doesn't have to be perfect, he just has to be better than the others -- as President, not king, or emperor, or whatever, but as a chief executive that must defer in certain matters to the Congress, the Court, the various states, or to the citizens of the United States.

There is plenty of time between now and election day, and there is a very good chance I may change my mind in the interim, either by some policy statement of Paul's, or by another candidate really impressing me, but at this point I don't trust any of the other Republicans to keep us out of unnecessary wars, and I prefer some form of divided government to offset the Congress, rather than a Democratic rubberstamp. With Paul, it would be like divided government no matter which party held Congress, and that situation works for me.

Ron Paul -- spamming or swarming?

I wrote this (as "anonymous") on the Elephant Biz blog, and I thought I'd put it here as well, since it's a brief synopsis of what I think about the accusations that Ron Paul supporters are "spamming" online polls:
***
Are the same people voting in multiple polls? Probably. Are they voting multiple times in the same poll? Probably not -- or at least, not any more than supporters for other candidates. Checking the IP address, using cookies, and validating e-mail addresses would prevent the vast majority of that from happening.

Thus, I don't think "spamming" is the correct word, though "swarming" might be. While it can be annoying for websites that prefer other candidates, it does show how excited some people are about the election. Rather than ban a particular candidate, I think other candidates should differentiate themselves from the pack in order to generate the same excitement -- people tend to root for the underdog, and a person standing for his convictions in the face of widespread opposition is attractive to many. For example, John McCain impressed me with his principled stand against torture, especially since he was the only person on the stage to have endured it (granted, he lost most of that goodwill with his stand on immigration, but that's another subject).

Finally, the Republican Party has to decide whether their platform is a big tent or a pup tent. If they can't defend their views against a person in their own party, how will they fare in the general election? The Iraq issue isn't going to go away between now and Novemeber 2008.
***

For me, "spamming" means a small group of people voting over and over in the same poll, while swarming means a larger group of people who vote in many (most? all?) of the polls they see, but only once per poll. The latter might annoy some people, but it's no more unethical than if Gallup and Pew called the same person on the same subject, and they answered both times. "I'm sorry, I already answered that question for a Gallup poll, so I can't answer it here" seems a little excessive.

My suggestion for other candidates (as mentioned above) is to find an important position where you disagree with the majority of your compatriots, and give a firm, reasoned defense of that position. It will help differentiate you from the rest of the pack, and generate excitement with those who agree with your position. Saying "Me, too!" and "I'd do that -- twice as much!" doesn't give anyone a reason to vote for you over anyone else in the race.

Ron Paul did not say the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks

I see this pop up on blogs (and even in some newspapers, which one would assume know better), and it's kind of irritating to see a lie repeated over an over, as if it will become the truth.

He said (and I quote):

"Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."

Let me give an analogy. Let's say a little girl is visiting Yellowstone, and she is mauled by a bear. One park ranger insists that bears are inherently evil, and should be hunted down and exterminated.

Another ranger disagrees, saying:

"Have you ever read the reasons bears attack humans? They attack us because people feed them, and they associate humans with food and seek them out. We don't understand that wild animals are not pets."

Is this blaming the child for being attacked? Is this blaming the majority of park visitors, who heed the warning signs to not feed the bears? I would say it does not. Instead, it is giving helpful information about how to avoid future attacks. Much like the warning signs in parks, Paul believes the U.S. would be better off if we follow the Constitution rather than ignoring it.

Of course, not feeding bears and not occupying foreign countries only helps most of the time. Sometimes you have to hunt down a vicious bear and shoot it, and sometimes you have to invade a foreign country to protect your own. It's interesting that Paul actually voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, which indicates that he knows the difference between non-intervention and pacifism.

Declarations of War and Authorizations For Use of Military Force

Ever since the first Republican debate on May 3rd, 2007, where Congressman Ron Paul made the case that if Congress wanted war, it should have declared war, there apparently exists some confusion as to what constitutes a Declaration of War. Many Iraq War apologists claim that there was such a declaration. I would like to illustrate the difference here.

War of 1812:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof
APPROVED, June 18, 1812

Spanish-American War:
DECLARATION OF WAR WITH SPAIN
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, First. That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the 21st day of April, A. D. 1898, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.
Second. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States to such extent as may be necessary to carry this act into effect.
Approved, April 25, 1898.

World War I:
Joint Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial German Government and the Government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

World War II:
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
************

Now for Iraq War 2: Desert Boogaloo

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]
Public Law 107-243107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. <>
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress <> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.
[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) <> Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]
(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Approved October 16, 2002.
****

As you can see, there is a slight difference.