Comment by xpe

Thanks.

> but to emphasize that it is ultimately power that enables or constrains a nation's possible actions.

If one interprets this as "perceived power" I think we'd be getting closer. But even that is not enough.

I would also need us to recognize "the power that ideas have in shaping worldviews". Consider the Magna Carta, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and so on. They can't simply be accounted for using a probabilistic calculus of consequences w.r.t. military force, economic sanctions, popular uprisings, and so on.

International law and notions to some degree also become normative. They are worldviews and aspirations that spread. (Memetics is a powerful analytic frame here!) These laws and norms take hold in people's minds and they shape how leaders and their people think about what is good and what should be done. In this sense, even though they are ultimately just neural patterns (if you are a materialist like me), they can be thought of as 'real' and impactful when it comes to making predictions about how leaders act.

I wonder if we would both agree on this: as people lose faith in the normative force of law, they care relatively more about the perceived consequences. Seems pretty straightforward?

Such a degradation, seems to me, cannot be good for civilization. A world where everything is purely contractual or consequentialist does not work in a world of agents with very limited computation.* It is just too costly to formalize everything in terms of individual incentives. Building systems where all the consequences are perceived by actors at the right levels of the system is really hard. Maybe it can work with certain kinds of information systems. But with humans, with our current biology and technology, I don't think it scales well at all. (At this point you might wonder if John Von Neumann is rolling is in his grave, but I suspect if he lived today, he would agree! His work spanned computation theory, game theory, and more.)

* Here is a guess that seems plausible (hypothetically): In a perfect world of unlimited computation, agents would be smart enough to think of interactions as long-run games and might be able to have a healthy society even if they don't 'believe' in norms.