‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’

A friend recently e-mailed me about the frustrating CNMI scholarship program for off-island college students. The program, as we all know by now, has been drastically curtailed

In fact, as I understand it, college grants are no longer being awarded. The $2,500 per semester grants have been eliminated altogether. They have been replaced by $1,500 per semester loans instead. The CNMI government apparently doesn’t have a very positive cash flow these days.

Don’t get me wrong. The CNMI government is still wasting money–just not quite as much as the good old boom days.

As my friend says, “On general principles, I think that a government guaranteed loan program for education would be a far better use of this money than bailing out [a certain company] with unneeded office rentals and you name it that is going on right now, regardless of the alleged austerity [measures].”

And I agree that government money is being squandered in other areas, but I am afraid it would compromise my principles and cast me as a hypocrite if I were to clamor for more government college aid, which would be tantamount to endorsing big government socialism–something I have long opposed.

This might seem rather ironic, considering the fact that I have already allowed the CNMI government to subsidize some of my college expenses. But to tell you the truth, I never for a moment thought that I had a right to government-sponsored college loans or grants. I only take it because (although it is needed on my part) I realize that if I didn’t take it, somebody else surely will. And since I have paid taxes anyway (still am, in fact), that wouldn’t be fair.

I think the problem is somewhat akin to the classic case of “Prisoner’s dilemma.” You know the story: two citizens are captured and separately interrogated by the Soviet KGB. The two citizens, who both know each other, are then strongly encouraged (usually through torture) to incriminate the other party. If they both don’t condemn each other as a spy or a traitor, then they both go free.

However, if one party condemns the other while the other holds out, then one man goes free and the other is shipped to Siberia. Now if they both rat on each other, then they both get sent to Siberia.

Obviously, the best thing to do in this case is not to say anything, so that both parties remain free. But if one person makes an accusation, the other party is harmed. If both parties level a charge against each other, both suffer equally. Naturally, this makes for difficult choices. Hence the label, “Prisoner’s Dilemma.”

Although the original concept arouse in the context of a government dictatorship, “Prisoner’s Dilemma” is probably more relevant–and more applicable–to today’s democracies, particularly in socialist-dominated economies.

Suppose that a college student accepts government grants to help pay for his education. He would basically be taking money from someone else.

Ideally, he shouldn’t take government money. Ideally, the government shouldn’t be offering people other people’s money in the first place, because the government basically has no money–except for what it confiscates from people.

But the fact of the matter is, the money is being made available, and if the college student doesn’t take it, he would only be hurting himself and giving someone else a free ride.

So all college students take the money, even the rich ones, because, after all, they (or their parents) are paying for part of the government loot through various taxes.

Then you have the farmers, the senior citizens, the disabled population, the veterans–all sorts of special interest groups–doing exactly the same thing, all caught up in the same vicious trap: ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma.’

In the end, everybody gets fleeced. Everyone loses personal freedom. Everyone suffers from high taxes and a bankrupt, deficit-ridden central government burdened by a stagnant socialist economy.

It all begins with ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma.’