People willing to commit murder are typically those with little to lose. In order to make a significant amount of money from shorting, you have to have a significant amount of money already. Yes, rich people often want more money, but they’re unlikely to tolerate the high risk of committing a murder when there are many less risky ways of making money.
If the USA assassinates foreigners, foreigners can fight back. It’s in everyone’s best interest to maintain a low-assassination equilibrium instead of a high-assassination one.
Some of this is done in war. Why not outside of war? See 2.
If the USA assassinates foreigners, foreigners can fight back. It’s in everyone’s best interest to maintain a low-assassination equilibrium instead of a high-assassination one.
This is the standard, game-theoretic reason I’ve always heard. Assassination and sabotage are effective and can be carried out with enough secrecy that no one could necessarily prove you did it, but engaging in them creates a world where you have to defend against them because they are normalized, so it’s a tool that gets reserved for only those cases where it is deemed to be worth the risk.
I’m not so sure it’s feasible to carry out an assassination with enough secrecy that no one could know you did it. It’s hard to keep a secret if the world’s best intelligence agencies are all highly motivated to figure it out! Now, your word choice was “no one could necessarily _prove_ you did it,” but even if it could not be proven in say an international tribunal, if other countries knew that my country did it, they could retaliate.
Murder/sabotage can be outsourced. A wealthy capitalist can pay to have people murdered.
I agree that a low-assassination equilibrium is probably better for all parties involved, but it is not a nash equilibrium. Parties have incentives to defect, especially if they can do so somewhat anonymously. (I.e., this hypothesis does not explain why cyberattacks do occur semi-regularly.)
I have not heard of, e.g., water poisoning even in war. It has probably happened, true, but it seems it is not at all common even in war.
Off the top of my head:
People willing to commit murder are typically those with little to lose. In order to make a significant amount of money from shorting, you have to have a significant amount of money already. Yes, rich people often want more money, but they’re unlikely to tolerate the high risk of committing a murder when there are many less risky ways of making money.
If the USA assassinates foreigners, foreigners can fight back. It’s in everyone’s best interest to maintain a low-assassination equilibrium instead of a high-assassination one.
Some of this is done in war. Why not outside of war? See 2.
This is the standard, game-theoretic reason I’ve always heard. Assassination and sabotage are effective and can be carried out with enough secrecy that no one could necessarily prove you did it, but engaging in them creates a world where you have to defend against them because they are normalized, so it’s a tool that gets reserved for only those cases where it is deemed to be worth the risk.
I’m not so sure it’s feasible to carry out an assassination with enough secrecy that no one could know you did it. It’s hard to keep a secret if the world’s best intelligence agencies are all highly motivated to figure it out! Now, your word choice was “no one could necessarily _prove_ you did it,” but even if it could not be proven in say an international tribunal, if other countries knew that my country did it, they could retaliate.
Murder/sabotage can be outsourced. A wealthy capitalist can pay to have people murdered.
I agree that a low-assassination equilibrium is probably better for all parties involved, but it is not a nash equilibrium. Parties have incentives to defect, especially if they can do so somewhat anonymously. (I.e., this hypothesis does not explain why cyberattacks do occur semi-regularly.)
I have not heard of, e.g., water poisoning even in war. It has probably happened, true, but it seems it is not at all common even in war.
If a person outsources murder they can still be charged with murder.