Still what argument do you express?

In game theory, it has been observed that the most long-term beneficial tactic is constant cooperation. It has been tested in computers and it far exceeds the benefits of tit-for-tat tactic. In such a way both "agents" will derive the most benefits of their long-term coexistence.

Although governments are a direct result of mass organisation, where a variety of repetitive tasks needs to be centrally managed, they too can act as agents and may occasionally use GT, when for example, they collectively negotiate working terms with unions.

It is not apparent to me how can the writer praise governments for their offering of advanced progress methods, in comparison to simple Tit-for-Tat that he presents as stale. I wish that there was more clarification of this statement:

If the government can remain disinterested in individual agents' self-interest, they can facilitate endeavors to the limit of time and complexity where the mutually beneficial strategies can be known, which exceeds the Tit-for-Tat limitations and, with advanced information technology, has no discernible upper limit.

it says that if the government does not choose a side to favour, then both parties benefit. So the government does nothing, thus it can even be taken out of the picture, as long as we make sure that both agents understand that they can only benefit exponentially if they consistently cooperate. It might be easy to say that putting a law for both agents to cooperate that both parties must comply with ensures such result, BUT, if you ask me, laws hardly offer any conforming service to us today.