These scenarios also remind me of internal corporate politics. While there is nominally a chain of higher powers, they are usually ineffective as arbiters because they don't want to get tied up in it. As a result, a lot of playground tactics end up going around. People break promises and puff themselves up with "what are you going to do about it?".
Maybe we should take more hostages in these situations. "If you want to see your stapler again, you can't keep agreeing to things in private and then badmouthing me in public."
Hence the prevalence of signatures on documents and read receipts on emails. Things to prove what was said that cannot be denied later. It's much easier to get a ruling from a mutual boss when it's clear in black and white, and much more costly to deny it.
Things get very messy when there's no mutual boss and underlings are throwing each other under the bus. They usually end up with one or both sides pleading to not damage the mutual relationship or the seller in the arrangement capitulating to save the contract.
I am interested you say that Joan of Arc was a military genius. I did a very enjoyable podcast with Jonathan Sumption and his view was very much that she was no such thing. Her (decisive) significance was in morale.
That was certainly important but my son's essay, which is my source, argues for more. Feel free to argue it with him on his Substack. Or here if I persuade him to join in.
PS I had you on the podcast once (I’m sure you’ve forgotten but Covid was just having into view and you were in London) and I stole the bit about pirate law to give a presentation to my colleagues (my boss demanded something). I worked in a legal department. Anyway it was quite a hit so thank you very much. (I did give credit to you of course!)
The hostage is much more valuable as a son than as a slave. Also, slavery requires in practice a society that enforces it against those who, by that society's rules, count as slaves. Mere physical possession is not enough to count. You would not expect, even in a society with slavery, that someone could simply seize a random passerby, enslave him, and expect him to be returned if he runs away.
I’d love to have Sumption and your son debate it directly. However given how hard I found it to pin him down to come on the podcast in the first place I think I can rule that out. The problem I find with all these things is that lacking detailed knowledge myself I’m just the proverbial cushion bearing the impression of the last person to sit on me. My solution (which is pretty unsatisfactory) is to ask myself who I trust more. It’s a big problem when trying to work out what is true without spending vast amounts of time. 😕
This reminds me of a fun topic for a post. Would you expound upon your entry into Axelrod's game theory competition that you submitted along with your colleagues at VPI?
These scenarios also remind me of internal corporate politics. While there is nominally a chain of higher powers, they are usually ineffective as arbiters because they don't want to get tied up in it. As a result, a lot of playground tactics end up going around. People break promises and puff themselves up with "what are you going to do about it?".
Maybe we should take more hostages in these situations. "If you want to see your stapler again, you can't keep agreeing to things in private and then badmouthing me in public."
Hence the prevalence of signatures on documents and read receipts on emails. Things to prove what was said that cannot be denied later. It's much easier to get a ruling from a mutual boss when it's clear in black and white, and much more costly to deny it.
Things get very messy when there's no mutual boss and underlings are throwing each other under the bus. They usually end up with one or both sides pleading to not damage the mutual relationship or the seller in the arrangement capitulating to save the contract.
I am interested you say that Joan of Arc was a military genius. I did a very enjoyable podcast with Jonathan Sumption and his view was very much that she was no such thing. Her (decisive) significance was in morale.
That was certainly important but my son's essay, which is my source, argues for more. Feel free to argue it with him on his Substack. Or here if I persuade him to join in.
PS I had you on the podcast once (I’m sure you’ve forgotten but Covid was just having into view and you were in London) and I stole the bit about pirate law to give a presentation to my colleagues (my boss demanded something). I worked in a legal department. Anyway it was quite a hit so thank you very much. (I did give credit to you of course!)
"I give you a deposit in the form of something valuable to me but of no use to you — my eldest son,"
Assuming there is no slavery, of course.
Yet giving hostages has been quite common, even with slavery around.
The hostage is much more valuable as a son than as a slave. Also, slavery requires in practice a society that enforces it against those who, by that society's rules, count as slaves. Mere physical possession is not enough to count. You would not expect, even in a society with slavery, that someone could simply seize a random passerby, enslave him, and expect him to be returned if he runs away.
I’d love to have Sumption and your son debate it directly. However given how hard I found it to pin him down to come on the podcast in the first place I think I can rule that out. The problem I find with all these things is that lacking detailed knowledge myself I’m just the proverbial cushion bearing the impression of the last person to sit on me. My solution (which is pretty unsatisfactory) is to ask myself who I trust more. It’s a big problem when trying to work out what is true without spending vast amounts of time. 😕
One of the categories of my sorted substack posts is "Discovering Truth." You might find some of them interesting:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Sorted_Posts.html#Discovering_Truth_
I did not know this story about the young William marshal! Am storing it in my memory banks
This reminds me of a fun topic for a post. Would you expound upon your entry into Axelrod's game theory competition that you submitted along with your colleagues at VPI?
As far as I can remember I did not submit an entry. I believe Tullock submitted an elaborate one that did not do very well.
You're right. I noticed Friedman listed along with Tideman & Tullock and assumed it was you. In fact it was James Friedman.