There are many other scenarios, than the point you are making.
Like what? What scenario are you imagining where the person who forces you to âcompromiseâ down from your original material goal does not have more or in a position of more power than you?
Have you ever agreed to changed terms, after the original plan, or agreement, that were not in your immediate favor?
How many times?
What were the reasons?
Was it ever the right thing to do?
If so, why?
When I wasnât in a position to force the issue yes.
You need to be more specific. If you want to argue that you could just do it because youâre a nice guy, sure thatâs reasonable.
It does not have to be because one is a nice guy, per se.
It can be motivated entirely be self-interest,
even when one is the position of power, and leverage.
Sometimes, especially so.
Okay, what self interest would you have to capitulate to someone making a demand to you?
I will answer your question, if you first answer mine, that I posed earlier than yours:
I didnât think it was relevant. I have only ever done that when I wasnât in a position to argue against it or I was being a nice guy. The two reasonable positions.
I guess you did answer, because you said âyesâ.
But that was a little non-specific.
So, I will answer.
Sometimes we are socially entangled.
Sometimes we are strategically entangled.
Sometimes, a short term transaction, is a pale fraction of the medium term, and long term relationship value, including future values.
Sometimes, parts of our supply chain get hit with a hurricane, or a blight, and we willingly give back some margin, while we are flush, and fat, to make sure they are around,
as one of our valuable supply chain partners, in future periods.
Also, sometimes favors, and the ability to call them in, are far more valuable than the amounts in question, for that specific transaction.
Every single one of those scenarios assumes you are in a position of power to do those things or that your material goal wasnât the original stated goal.
Ok. Imagine you are trump. And you say liberals are super bad and they stole the election and looked at my cows and made them barren.
And everything is going peachy untill a bunch of guys storm the capital building.
Now you have a dilemma. They are your guys so they are by definition right. But they fucked up and made you look like an asshole .
I am always in a position of power.
And so is my counter party.
And time horizons matter.
There may come a day, when I am paralyzed, or bound in fetters, about to be murdered, but short of that grim scenario, I am always in some position of power.
If I can speak, and have my wits, let alone my ability to move, tap my rolodex, or financial means of any kind.
Iâm not sure this is even a complete thought much less related to what I wrote.
My point is that you arenât breaking the analytical frame of Friend Enemy Distinction by saying âwell what if I change my material goal voluntarily or if Iâm just being a nice guy?â
You can address what you want.
My point, which is very different, and true, is one can voluntarily agree to a change in terms, with no duress, even as the party in the position of superior power, and leverage, that is individually transactionally not favorable, out of pure self-interest, depending on time horizons, or changes in circumstances, or by not looking at a single transaction in a vacuum.
See Nash Equilibriums.
And also the literature regarding strategic entanglements as a means of competitive advantage.
And the literature from biology on eu-social behaviors as survival advantages, over isolated, or non eu-social species, as a competing method for survival of the fittest.
For that matter, look at cell phones sold at no margin, or loss leaders, on retail shelves, to catch the high margin cell phone accessory business.
I donât care about changing terms on non-important single transactions, to secure important transactions, or revenue streams, or supply chain, because I am not in the habit of forgoing dollars to pick up pennies.
I am selfish, and rational, that way, even when, and especially when I am in a position of superior power, and leverage.
As a matter of fact, it may not even be worth my time, to chase the pennies.
And as the old saying goes, if you are not enough of a thief to look after yourself, how the fuck can I trust you to look after my interests�
(just keep your skimming at reasonable levels, and donât let it become a distraction that I have to deal with because it is interfering with what I want to get done, or what you are supposed to be getting done for me).
There was a âsunsetâ clause. Remember that?
So, was that capitulation?
I do. And no Democrat who agreed to that thought it was going to be an issue. When 2004 rolled around even Dubya said he would sign an AWB if it got to his desk. It wasnât seen as a risk. They were wrong about how sentiment would shift between 1994 and 2004.
Iâm not sure itâs that simple, really.
OKâŚ
So, the personal is the political?
I was attempting to come up with an easy to understand analogy. But the alternative explanations seem to boil down to âwell what if I changed my material goal of my own volition, my material goal isnât actually the goal you said, or Iâm just a nice guy?â
All are reasonable and a rational actor could decide to do those things. A reasonable and rational actor could even decide to actively capitulate to their Enemy. None of these decisions break the analytical frame though.