Interesting! I was thinking that there would be some incentive for the holdouts on either extreme to coordinate on "moral trades" that better advance their collective goals (it's hardly a one-shot prisoner's dilemma, after all), but it would be interesting to hear a game theorist map it out.
Interesting! I was thinking that there would be some incentive for the holdouts on either extreme to coordinate on "moral trades" that better advance their collective goals (it's hardly a one-shot prisoner's dilemma, after all), but it would be interesting to hear a game theorist map it out.
(I agree that voters themselves would generally be pretty hopeless, but that's why many would naturally want to transfer their budgetary power to a trusted intermediary, like I donate to EA funds rather than trying to work things out myself.)
Why would it look different to conventional charity? Partly because people currently rely on the govt to fund core public services (including altruistic obligations like foreign aid), freeing up charity to be more "personal" and frivolous. I think there would be more of a sense of civic duty to use one's "civic voucher" (as we could call it) wisely, much as many people feel a sense of civic duty towards voting responsibly.
Still, your counterargument that the centralization of voting is helpful for *forcing* coordination is an interesting suggestion that I hadn't come across before. Thanks for pointing it out!
Interesting! I was thinking that there would be some incentive for the holdouts on either extreme to coordinate on "moral trades" that better advance their collective goals (it's hardly a one-shot prisoner's dilemma, after all), but it would be interesting to hear a game theorist map it out.
(I agree that voters themselves would generally be pretty hopeless, but that's why many would naturally want to transfer their budgetary power to a trusted intermediary, like I donate to EA funds rather than trying to work things out myself.)
Why would it look different to conventional charity? Partly because people currently rely on the govt to fund core public services (including altruistic obligations like foreign aid), freeing up charity to be more "personal" and frivolous. I think there would be more of a sense of civic duty to use one's "civic voucher" (as we could call it) wisely, much as many people feel a sense of civic duty towards voting responsibly.
Still, your counterargument that the centralization of voting is helpful for *forcing* coordination is an interesting suggestion that I hadn't come across before. Thanks for pointing it out!