I am curious about something you said in a Q&A (#508): "In every tribe I know of, cases are handled on an individual basis (since no two are alike), along lines roughly consonant with game theory. Thus, what is sought is not the biggest win for any party but the least loss for all parties."Certainly, this suggests that the Taker notion of justice, in which a "criminal" is punished, is entirely misguided in terms of game theory. While the "victim" may take some sort of consolation in the punishment, the original loss isn't addressed at all, so the punishment merely adds to the total loss experienced by all parties. So it seems that the only way to achieve "the least loss for all parties" is to either do nothing in response to a "crime" or to have the "criminal" somehow directly restore some of what the "victim" lost. Does this sound correct? Can you give some extra thoughts or examples? I'm particularly puzzled about situations in which it would be impossible to restore a loss, e.g., if the criminal murdered someone close to the victim. • Ishmael.org, the work & philosophy of Daniel Quinn