When I came across this notion, "governing dynamics" in the film "Beautiful Mind" about John Nash, it struck me because what he described in his doctorial is related to what is known in biology that operates instinctively; that is, for a survival situation, does one join a collective or operate on one's own? In more complex orders, as our own, optimal survival is the capability to do both. Therein is the difference after I think about it. The survival paradigms I mentioned are mutually exclusive frames of mind, and shifts between them can be cognitive, intuitive, or instinctual. In Nash's "governing dynamics" the survival paradigms, collective vs. individual initiative, are integrated, which advises one to make decisions that benefit both one's self and the system they are in, but as we know, such a "win-win" philosophy does not always effect survival. It just makes one a good professional in the system they are in. The struggle in politics today is responding to a very stressed environment...too many people competing with one another. Fear drives people to instinctively decide...survive by collective or by individual initiative. Family traditions tend to usher one into one or the other. So, I deleted the reference to "governing dynamics" in my essay, and leave it at that. I appreciate your comment. It has made an improvement.

On your point about government land, I agree. The question is how much city, county, state, and federal parks or land should there be? Also, once some kind of rule settles that, how can governmental and privately owned land be managed within the interlocking ecosystems of the land. Today, these things are not even thought of. You have the "tree huggers" with their lawyers; you have the developers with their schemes; you have the politicians with their lobbyists; and you have the government regulators that are willing to wipe out an entire industry to save a bug. Each out for themselves.

I don't give much credence to game theory. It is an interesting academic exercise, but doesn't play out well in reality. IMHO.
I look forward to your revision.
O.A.

Nash equilibrium (game theory). sounds like the old balance of power. essentially amoral. assumes that all power is equally moral. MAD, (mutual assured destruction) when applied on a more personal level assumes when the guns are in the hands of the police, is no more moral than being in the hands of criminals. or in a second amendment debate, guns in the hands of citizens should be balanced by guns in the hands of govt.
You have already said in here that you accept govts role in protection of the environment. The reality is, privately held lands are much better managed on all fronts. When you centralize control, you destroy or imprison people's minds

I used the term "governing dynamics" from the mathematician, John Nash. His doctorial on economics and game theory. What I wrote needs better definition, perhaps an essay to address this concept. The application of governing dynamics to commerce economy requires minimal government and minimal taxation, which is not clear in my essay, nor in the phrase "governing dynamics" as you pointed out. Thanks. I will start working on improving it, and repost later.
http://breadeconomics.wordpress.com/2012...

Hello DJSprague,


“Without governing dynamics, capitalism would lead to a corporate state in collusion with a dominating government and the intolerant fascist environment that together, they would foster.”
“Corollary 1.1: When the middle class is institutionalized in the form of government, big business becomes in bed with government. Only when corporations and companies are in a competitive environment can they be tamed in terms of goods and services, and for that end, the government can powerfully serve.”

I do enjoy reading your contributions, but I keep seeing statements like the above which are not explicit but seem to implicitly posit the notion that governance of capitalism beyond laissez-faire market forces is necessary and beneficial…

This is troubling as I do not believe government action has done much positive for capitalism. More often than not a company or corporation that grows to a monopoly position has done it in one of two ways. They have and continue to offer a value unmatched to the consumer, or they have been bolstered by government policy. I do not fear the former as it stands as a value and can be knocked off its perch by competition if they stray from offering the best value. The latter is made impervious to market forces or competition. This is a detrimental entity created by cronies. Perhaps I am reading you incorrectly… Could you clarify/ elaborate? How should government powerfully serve? If you mean stay out of business altogether except to insure that collusion is not occurring, allowing competition to be free to challenge, insuring an even playing field then I agree.

The rest is quite satisfying.
Respectfully,
O.A.