There’s an old idea of fairness that when cutting a cake between two people one person cuts and the other picks the piece they want.

This method aligns the interests of both parties, no matter how corruptible and human they may be.

I think it’s underappreciated how often the US government design has a similar method in its checks and balances: one group can reject an official, but they don’t get to choose the replacement.

See, for example, impeachment proceedings.

After all: “This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public.”

–Hamilton (maybe)

@volkris Id argue this tactic garubtees an advantage always to the person selecting their piece.

@freemo which means that the person cutting has every interest to make sure both pieces are the same size!

@volkris Sure but its a physical impossibility that they can. Which means its always to the other persons advantage


So it’s an advantage that becomes vanishingly small as the one doing the cutting follows their incentive to make the difference also vanishingly small.

And that’s enough to make the solution practically, if not ideally, very useful.

@volkris just refusing them endlessly seems to be working very well tho to bring us to our knees.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.