As Chamberlain and Dalladier brilliantly showed with the Munich Agreement, it can be a good thing to appease a potential adversary which feels wronged for some reason by giving in to their demands and forgetting for a while about one's law or best interests - for a "greater cause". They did in fact avoid a war.
But since the agreement was made possible by the fear of the potential alternative outcome (failed negotiations -> risk war), which was of different significance to the opponents (one could say, with hindsight, that one of the negotiating parties wanted an opportunity to go to war), an advantage could be gained by the party with attached less significance to the bad outcome.
The result was in fact positive for all the negotiators : they all got what they wanted. But the ones with an interest in a war were given the zone where the border defenses and the banks were - even if the result was positive for all, some gained more - and not just "more", but strategically more.
In other words, reaching an agreement failed to consider the strategic significance of the advantage that was given away.
Slippery slope? Maybe. The real problem is not just incentivizing a very destructive conduct, but it seems very similar - giving away one's best defenses in exchange of a short-lived peace.
Why ? Just like a pen is mightier than a sword, free speech is the best defense of democracy.
Why is no one interested in free speech? (in one of the posts: "I'd be willing to take that risk, the answer is no")
It looks like a public good - one which utility is the sum of marginal utility, with individual marginal utilities not enough to offset the cost of this good.
That's bad.
But there's something to learn - any group that can manage to make its adversary give them their best defense is applying a good strategy - so threatening violence works, while giving in to the demand of bullies with diverging interest doesn't.
(Please do not interpret this post as an endorsement of any party, faith, or country - the strategy here is just very interesting)
As Chamberlain and Dalladier brilliantly showed with the Munich Agreement, it can be a good thing to appease a potential adversary which feels wronged for some reason by giving in to their demands and forgetting for a while about one's law or best interests - for a "greater cause". They did in fact avoid a war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
But since the agreement was made possible by the fear of the potential alternative outcome (failed negotiations -> risk war), which was of different significance to the opponents (one could say, with hindsight, that one of the negotiating parties wanted an opportunity to go to war), an advantage could be gained by the party with attached less significance to the bad outcome.
The result was in fact positive for all the negotiators : they all got what they wanted. But the ones with an interest in a war were given the zone where the border defenses and the banks were - even if the result was positive for all, some gained more - and not just "more", but strategically more.
In other words, reaching an agreement failed to consider the strategic significance of the advantage that was given away.
Slippery slope? Maybe. The real problem is not just incentivizing a very destructive conduct, but it seems very similar - giving away one's best defenses in exchange of a short-lived peace.
Why ? Just like a pen is mightier than a sword, free speech is the best defense of democracy.
Why is no one interested in free speech? (in one of the posts: "I'd be willing to take that risk, the answer is no")
It looks like a public good - one which utility is the sum of marginal utility, with individual marginal utilities not enough to offset the cost of this good.
That's bad.
But there's something to learn - any group that can manage to make its adversary give them their best defense is applying a good strategy - so threatening violence works, while giving in to the demand of bullies with diverging interest doesn't.
(Please do not interpret this post as an endorsement of any party, faith, or country - the strategy here is just very interesting)