Update [2008-6-3 21:0:49 by architek]:These articles are about the evolution of rationale for moral behavior and the REASONS to apply long-term incentives supporting honesty and cooperation in human behavior. And the reasons to punish those who cheat.

What these papers are about -

Its like the old debate between democracy and fascism. Does might make right? Does crime pay? Different people often have different answers.

One of the responders to this post - the only one who seems to have understood it, (see "Winners don't publish") holds up the contents of a recent letter to the editor of Nature with its justification that the cost to a society of sanctioning morally bankrupt behavior is too great. However, thousands of years of experience and a large body of PUBLISHED research, as well as the behavior of human society suggest otherwise.

Nature 415, 137-140 (10 January 2002)
| doi:10.1038/415137a; Received 5 October 2001; Accepted 5 November 2001

Altruistic punishment in humans

Ernst Fehr1 & Simon Gächter2

  1. University of Zürich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, Blümlisalpstrasse 10, CH-8006 Zürich, Switzerland
   2. University of St Gallen, FEW-HSG, Varnbüelstrasse 14, CH-9000 St Gallen, Switzerland

Correspondence to: Ernst Fehr1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.F. (e-mail: Email: efehr@iew.unizh.ch).
Top of page
Abstract

Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism.

Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation.

(Defectors means people who ignore the morals of the group, say, those who openly steal or cheat.)

Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out.

The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.

The comments section of Alegre's diaries have become a central phenomenon of this blog. Her posts, devoted supporters, and equally committed detractors seem to produce effects that reach beyond these heated and largely unproductive discussions, begging questions of what they accomplish and offering the opportunity to ask what we are trying to achieve on this blog in general.

As we enter the final phase of this contentious primary, the question of unifying the party behind a nominee is becoming more immediately pertinent.  As someone who teaches rhetoric and composition at the University of Michigan (yes, that Michigan), I'd like to offer a few suggestions for how to continue to engage each other at this critical juncture.  These are guidelines that seem, in my experience, to help a great deal both in persuading others and in getting one's point across to a committed and passionate opponent.  Recent diaries and comments express a great deal of frustration and disagreement over what constitutes an attack, or what is a valid argument.  I hope some of you find the following helpful.  I apologize in advance if they read as overly prescriptive or pedantic.  I am merely attempting to alleviate frustration and offer avenues to improve understanding between us.  I think everyone here agrees that we need each other for the coming struggle.  

In yet another indication that the charges being leveled against John McCain -- that he doesn't practice what he preaches on campaign finance law, that he stretches the bounds of what's legal (perhaps even crossing the line at times) -- the right wing Judicial Watch (underscore right wing; it was founded during the Clinton administration and hounded the Democratic White House with 18 lawsuits) has filed an FEC complaint against McCain (h/t Wall Street Journal).

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint, dated April 22, 2008, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising luncheon held at London's Spencer House to benefit Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.  The venue for the event was apparently donated to the campaign by foreign nationals, in violation of federal campaign finance laws.

"Recent news reports suggest that Sen. John McCain and John McCain for President may have accepted an in-kind contribution from foreign nationals Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild of Great Britain in contravention of federal election laws," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote in a complaint letter dated April 22, 2008.  "On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate the matter."

The McCain fundraiser was held on March 20, 2008 at London's Spencer House, billed as "London's most magnificent 18th century private palace."  The McCain campaign distributed an invitation indicating that the site for the luncheon had been provided "by kind permission of Lord Rothschild, OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild," who are both foreign nationals.  In statements to the press, the McCain campaign referred to the luncheon as a "fundraiser."

While it is, as yet, unclear how much money was raised during the luncheon, had the venue not been donated to the McCain campaign, the net profit from the event would have been significantly reduced.  The donation of the venue, therefore, represents an illegal in-kind campaign contribution.

According to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, Contributions and donations by foreign nationals, it is illegal for any foreign national to "make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" to a Federal, State or Local election.

This is a bit of a "man-bites-dog" story, with a conservative organization coming out and hitting McCain on fundraising issues. As such, it stands out on it's own. But it is also part of a broader trend. This is not the first serious question about McCain's not-clearly-kosher campaign finance tactics -- there remains a pending FEC complaint over whether he is in violation of the public financing program, which he opted into and then attempted to unilaterally opt out of without the approval of the commission. It's not even the first serious question about this particular London fundraiser. As I noted last month, McCain flew to London on the taxpayer dime, didn't repay the federal government at first, and then when he finally did refused to pay as much as he owed it. The release from DNC general counsel Joe Sandler read at the time:

"The 2007 ethics reform law and the regulations implementing it require that when a candidate mixes campaign and official travel when using a government plane, the campaign travelers must reimburse the government for the full cost of an equivalent round trip charter flight.  Reasonable estimates place the cost of a one-way charter flight from Washington to London at between $20,000 and $56,000.  As a result, McCain's stated intention to reimburse the federal government $3,000 almost certainly falls far short of what the law requires."

With McCain apparently playing fast and loose with campaign finance statutes and regulations, it's going to be awfully difficult for the Senator to run on a reformist platform this fall, let alone have much credibility if attacking Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for not participating in the public finance system in the general election, if either choses not to opt in. (That is, of course, assuming that the establishment media folks inside the Beltway stop merely reporting what they think the story is with McCain and campaign finance, and actually start looking at the evidence of his questionable activities...)

I want to try and put into words what has happened lately in the democratic party in response to Bush and how it plays into Rove's hands.  Let me site examples:

1)  Name Games and Racism
First Move on strikes
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

Then Rove strikes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-mar sh/fox-news-chief-obama-o_b_43037.html

And Time asks why is Hussein off limits?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl e/0,8599,1718255,00.html

2)  Free Press

Fox is biased
http://www.outfoxed.org/

But  so is MSNBC
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/200 7/11/msnbcs-politica.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/ 2008/02/26/liberal-media-ethicists-mourn -msnbc-blurring-news-opinion-line

3)  Democracy issues
Gore won Florida?
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm ?id=181

Does Florida count?
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/ 06/13/dean-florida-primary-wont-count/

4)  Voter suppression

Republicans are alleged to do them
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/13 15534/960

But on the democratic side we have it institutionalized also
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/942/story/ 95454.html
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/942/story/ 109677.html

And Obama employes it as a tactic against Michigan
http://technorati.com/posts/85r2a6NFw7hO RWGqArKqXLEd24qdl8t6kt6s5bttJNk%3D

Thing to remember is that Michigan had an election and voters could have voted for Obama via writing his name in and generally chose not to.  They had a choice although difficult and choose not to.  The choice was made difficult by OBAMA taking his name off the ballot.   Hillary has lost a lot of support because the caucus process was made difficult and her voters chose not to spend the 2 hours and this has favored Obama.

5)  Stealing delegates

In 2000 Rush said that if needed there were democratic delegates that could be tempted into voting for Bush if Florida was stolen.  I can't find the quote.

And Hillary is accused of the same thing
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2931

To be fair I think Obama has also been accused of this
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/in- texas-obama-campaign-tries-to-win.html

6)  Threatening to boycott if you lose
Obama fist threatens
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/02/01/629273.aspx

Various Obama supporters threaten

Jan 2008
http://susiemadrak.com/2008/01/14/15/44/ i-will-not-support-hillary-clinton-for-p resident

Oct 11, 2006
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?d iaryId=12272
I am very partisan but I think if people look at the above its pretty clear that on things that the Democratic party used to hold the high moral ground we have decided to let it go.

April 17 2008 Hillary is not a Democrat by kos
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/17/1546 36/154

And no suprise now polls show Democratic karma will hurt Obama
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain -vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

What bothers me most is that the very people who claim that they are bringing hope and change are the people who brought us a good chunk of the above.  People understand non politically correctness but they have almost no tolerance for hypocrisy once its understood, example bush presidency.  I am sincere in believing that the Progressive movement has been corrupted and it no longer liberal.

Liberals held the high moral ground.

To my fellow supporters of Barack Obama, I don't mean to sound so dramatic.  I really don't.  However, we are in the minority here.  That's fine.  None of us are here because we prefer to hear only what we want to hear.  None of us are here for the sake of nay-saying or arguing.

We're here because we want to represent our the candidate that we prefer.  The campaign that we prefer.  The movement that we may consider ourselves apart of. It's a movement that has been built from the ground up with the understanding that alone any one of us are all but entirely insignificant. Together, we are far from insignificant.

When Rush Limbaugh publicly implied that a football player was only in his quarterback slot because of his race, Wesley Clark, called on him to be fired. Limbaugh resigned:

George Bodenheimer, president of ESPN and ABC Sports, issued the following response: "We accept his resignation and regret the circumstances surrounding this. We believe that he took the appropriate action to resolve this matter expeditiously."

The comments referenced by Limbaugh came during Sunday's pregame show when the conservative talk show host offered the opinion that McNabb wasn't as good as the media perceived him to be. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Negative reaction did not come immediately. But on Tuesday, McNabb told the Philadelphia Daily News: "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal." From there, the firestorm spread quickly. Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and Rev. Al Sharpton called for ESPN to fire Limbaugh. Others in both political and athletic circles also lashed out at Limbaugh's comments.

So when, one wonders, will Clintonite Clark call for Ferraro to be fired from her campaign position?

Or is Rush Limbaugh now held to a higher standard than Geraldine Ferraro?

Careful what you say, Hillary, it just might come back and bite you.  The backlash against Clinton saying that McCain would be a better commander in chief is in full force (see the video here):

Nancy Pelosi told Boston TV that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is "impossible."

"I think that the Clinton administration (sic) has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible," she said.

Please urge Hillary Clinton to stop helping the Republicans by lauding McCain's ability to be commander-in-chief.  This CANNOT help the Democratic Party!