[cap-talk] Is "Authority" Subjective?

[Mark Miller]

How embarrassing. My initial numbering of the interpretations is
reversed from that used in the rest of my message. Please reply to
this one instead of the original. Sorry.

On 6/30/07, Mark Miller <erights at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am among those who don't know CSP. However, your explanation seems
> quite clear, thanks. But it does leave open a remaining crucial
> ambiguity: Does the expression "b -> ...", combined with your
> description "b is performed by another object Bob" mean x) "If the
> system is in a state where only b would be accepted and if Bob does
> attempt b, then b will happen and cause the described state
> transition." or y) "If the system is in a state where only b would be
> accepted, then Bob will perform b and cause the described state
> transition."?
>
> Interpretation #y is more consistent with my vague sense of what CSP
> is about. But this interpretation presumes to describe the actual
> behavior of all the players, rendering the players too deterministic
> to be considered players of a game, rendering any description of
> authority mostly meaningless. As David Wagner says later on, causality
> is about counterfactuals. A full characterization of everyone's
> behavior leaves open where to draw the counterfactuals.
>
> Interpretation #x in effect says only what the bounds are on what the
> players might do in a given state, without prescribing which of these,
> if any, they will do. This interpretation is more consistent with your
> arguments below, and with my sense of what authority analysis should
> be about. Given this interpretation, I think your argument #2 is more
> correct but misphrased. Alice can cause Bob not to be able to perform
> b, therefore Alice can cause Bob to be able to perform b. But only if
> we know that Bob will always attempt to perform b when it would be
> accepted (as in interpretation #y), can we say that Alice can cause
> Bob to perform b.
>
> It seems that your arguments as stated require interpretation #x
> regarding Alice's actions but interpretation #y regarding Bob's. This
> is consistent with the kind of authority analysis done by SCOLL, where
> Alice would be described as a non-relied-upon subject and Bob would be
> described as a relied upon subject.
>
>
> > I can't decide -- I keep dithering between the following two arguments.
> > I suspect that in different circumstances, both are valid. But I might
> > be wrong -- I'm hoping you can help me decide whether one of them is
> > definitely more valid than the other.
> >
> > Argument 1: Before Alice acts, Bob can perform b -- the system won't
> > refuse it.
>
> The above sentence suggests interpretation #x, where Bob might not
> perform b even when he could.
>
> > After Alice finishes acting, Bob can perform b -- the system
> > won't refuse it.
>
> But in you next argument, you imply that Alice might perform a1 and
> not perform a2, which means Alice might have the authority to prevent
> Bob from being able to perform b.
>
> > With and without Alice acting, Bob can still perform b.
>
> But if Bob might not actually perform b even when he could, then Alice
> can't cause him to perform b, and so Alice doesn't have authority to
> cause Bob to perform b.
>
> > Hence, Alice doesn't cause Bob to perform b and hence, has no authority
> > to do so.
> >
> > Argument 2: If Alice performs a1, she can cause Bob to perform b by
> > performing a2. In fact, if she refuses to perform a2, the system
> > deadlocks and Bob will never perform b.
>
> If Alice can so refuse in a system described by this CSP expression
> (as in interpretation #x), then Bob can likewise refuse to perform b.
>
> > Hence, by performing a2, Alice
> > causes Bob to perform b. Hence, Alice does have authority to cause Bob
> > to perform b.


-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

    Cheers,
    --MarkM