central planning is not incompatible to democratic concesus, central planing of economy is orthogonal to society's method of rule.
ok lets recap, nash equilibrium existence does not guarantee
1 stability of the eq
2 optimality of the eq
3 reachability of the eq
4 persistance of the eq
now tell me why one should invest playing a game with uncertain outcome? for some illusion of freedom of tv-imposed choice?
This is somewhat akin to:
A: - If you want to jump from an air plane, the only way to have a possibility to reach the ground safely, is with a parachute
B: - Jumping with a parachute doesn't guarantee:
1) that it will open
2) that the ropes will not mangle
3) that down under you will not fall into a lake and drown
now tell me why on earth I should use a parachute with an uncertain outcome ? Let's jump without !
sorry not the same, parachutes have gone through vigorous testing, while "free market" doesnt have a great success record, besides I gave you a jet pack.
I'm not talking about free market, I'm talking about your logical error.
I say: "no social system can be stable if it is not a Nash equilibrium".
You answer: "there's no guarantee that you reach a Nash equilibrium, so let's go for a non-Nash equilibrium solution".
There's a logical error here, which I tried to point out with my colorful parachute example.
The logical error is this:
The statement "if a social system is stable, it needs to be a Nash equilibrium"
is not contradicted by a statement like "one might not reach a Nash equilibrium, or there may be many"
But that certainly doesn't imply: if it is NOT a Nash equilibrium, it might be stable. Indeed, that last statement is forbidden by the theorem that has not been disproved.
It is not because a parachute might not work, that you can save your ass by jumping out of a plane without one. It is not because a Nash equilibrium might not be reached, that you can find stable social systems which aren't Nash equilibrium.