This story is a happy one because not only does it leave all parties better off than before, but the deal is fair. The deal could have been unfair by increasing someone’s taxes a lot and decreasing someone else’s taxes a lot. I don’t know how to define fairness in this context, or if fairness is the right thing to aim for.
In order to know that it is fair, we have to know a) what it is (the deal), and b) what fair is.
In practice, competition would prevent any one coalition from succeeding.
This seems wrong. Different coalitions have different sizes, and different properties (and are drawn from a pool of continuous variation along the $ axis). Also, ‘success’ doesn’t seem binary, the tax rate (or tax function) seems continuous.
“Can you get Congress to lower my taxes a bit in exchange for not cheating? As a compromise.”
“That wouldn’t work for a number of reasons. Congress knows that it’s a bad idea to reward people for breaking the law. And the voters wouldn’t be happy if you got special treatment.”
Good negotiating (which this AI supposedly provides) would get that deal for everyone. Greater compliance increases revenue, ostensibly Congress is elected by voters. To put it a different way, there’s mass coordination which can enable a ‘revolution’. And besides, with such negotiation, who needs Congress?
In order to know that it is fair, we have to know a) what it is (the deal), and b) what fair is.
This seems wrong. Different coalitions have different sizes, and different properties (and are drawn from a pool of continuous variation along the $ axis). Also, ‘success’ doesn’t seem binary, the tax rate (or tax function) seems continuous.
Good negotiating (which this AI supposedly provides) would get that deal for everyone. Greater compliance increases revenue, ostensibly Congress is elected by voters. To put it a different way, there’s mass coordination which can enable a ‘revolution’. And besides, with such negotiation, who needs Congress?