The case for distributed power

This forces those who have power to act in ways that benefit the system, not themselves. They are forced to consider their actions as a small part of a larger machine. Rational thinking will lead each member of the system to make decisions that benefit the machine as a whole, and thus the greatest good to everyone becomes possible. Of course, the best part of this system, is that if there are outliers that refuse to rationalize, they can be punished by the rest of those in power as long as there are a majority of rational thinkers in power. This transforms the decision to not only a consideration of benefit to the system as a whole, but a direct benefit to oneself with obvious consequences.
This is similar to distributed consensus with byzantine node faults, where the byzantine nodes are the non-rational thinkers, the nodes are those in power, and consensus is the greatest good for all.

If power is not distributed evenly, this causes problems, as each unit acts to its best interest. If the unit has majority power, it can simply disregard any other units’ interests, and simply consider its own. This can still be considered rational, so this situation must be avoided. Often though, people try to achieve this unfair playing field to maximize their personal gain. They often do that by forming groups, as this consolidates power of all the individuals into one unit that can seek the best interests of itself. Power is still distributed evenly among members of the group, but the groups effective power (as opposed to natural power) is more than the sum of its individuals natural power, so, transitively, the effective power of each group member is increased. Of course, as more power is consolidated across the board, the effective power increase of each group is negated. Since effective power is a zero-sum system, increase over natural power is proportional to the difference of unit power from the other units in the group. So, consolidated power in groups, does not result in an increase in effective power of its members. Also, since the members of a group, must confine their thinking to act in unison, their decisions are not even optimal for its members, so the net good of a system with consolidated power is net loss of good.

It is easy to see then, that the Nash Equilibrium is the state of few groups, with much consolidated power. And as history shows, this is often the point reached. Game theory is not currently passed on to children, and thus is not a consideration in the rational process of thought of humanity. This lack of understanding about the effects of ones decision has resulted in much of the sub-optimal systems in existence.
Of course, an enforceable contract is the only way to get away from the Nash Equilibrium. This is the sole reason for government, and the reason for the construction of the Constitution of the United States.

–

Copied from my original Facebook note. This was written before my more in-depth studies of game theory.