Adam Smith And Darwin

[WSG]

Don't you start - I've been having a never-ending argument about the selfish gene on a science forum elsewhere and it's doing my nut in... (I'm Team Gould).

Edit to add - this creature looks like HPC's worst nightmare - a baby spewing mother who produces nothing but girls already pregnant when they leave the womb... on a more serious note, it's worth appreciating the details of this strategy. You only get these kind of m/f imbalances when you have inter-sibling breeding, but then it's the best strategy. However, producing a single male, while the optimal approach, is risky, since a predator or accident could take out your only male - hence the in-womb XXX action.

if they are native to Romania I fear the board may meltdown!!!

[WSG]

Don't you start - I've been having a never-ending argument about the selfish gene on a science forum elsewhere and it's doing my nut in... (I'm Team Gould).

soz..... ...although selfish gene neatly explains altruistic behaviour between related individuals

[shipbuilder]

Yet it's very hard to have stable trade without stable government. You may resent paying a tax, but if the quid pro quo of that tax is that you don't have to worry about bribes, violence, theft, etc - then trade is easier.

This does demand that the state is transparent, subject to the rule of law and professional in it's duties. Of course, those who rabidly dislike the state with no nuance are effectively against these things.

Actually I don't resent paying tax particularly - that's not my complaint against the state. I used to believe that the state could be reformed, however now I believe that the post-war golden couple of decades of prosperity and social progression, where with increasing equality of opportunity, universal healthcare etc., the future looked genuinely bright and 'the people' genuinely had the balance of power, was a blip due to historical circumstance. Since then we have see a slide into bureaucracy, power and rent seeking and corporatocracy. I no longer believe that the state, as a top-down, coercive organisation can be reformed and should eventually be replaced with bottom - up voluntary, decentralised organisations.

I suspect that you would call the police if threatened, which is a use of state coercion.

And if you look at stateless societies - or societies with an ineffective/dictatorial state - you will see very high levels of violence and cheating.

I might well wish to defend myself or call on others to help, but that would be self-defence, not coercion.

Societies where the state has collapsed are not a valid representation of a stateless society because the process has not been voluntary, nor has there been time to adapt. A stateless society would take a huge leap in responsibility for individuals - probably beyond what most people could handle in a short period of time.

But I believe it would be worth it because I see most problems in society today originating from individuals or small groups hijacking power for their own ends and decentralising that power is the only way to combat that.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shipbuilder

[shipbuilder]

If that were true there would be no coercive states. Clearly coercive states work in the sense that they persist over time- the state in darwinian terms survives does it not? After all your main complaint about the state is that it succeeds in maintaining itself via the use of coercive strategies. So you have no doubt as to their effectiveness.

I didn't say it worked for you- my point is that the coercive strategy of the state allows the state to survive and thrive- and as such clearly demonstrates that coercion can work if your objective is to gain and hold power.

Yes-that is exactly what it means. You wish to claim that coercion and deception are non viable strategies- yet at the same time regard yourself as being oppressed by a state that maintains it's power over you by deploying exactly those strategies- so whatever else we might say about them it's clear that coercion and deception are viable strategies for those who wish to gain and hold power.

Bizarrely you now seem to want to define 'working' as enabling those in power to get what they want. You are conflating motivations of the state and individuals, but obviously they aren't the same.

I meant 'working' as functioning for the good of society as a whole - the point of any system - which, if you remember, was your initial definition when you referred to the free market as not working.

I have not yet been put to the test. Lincoln once said that anyone could endure hardship- but if you want to really test a man's character then give him power.

So I cannot answer your question because I have never had the power to impose my will on others- I like to think that I would not use that power but the honest answer is that I don't really know how I would behave if I did.

You're avoiding the question here and moving the goalposts.

This is nothing to do with you being Prime Minister. Remember we were talking about the actions of individuals - of course you have the power to impose your will through threats - the reality is that you don't because it doesn't work - neither for you or others, because chances are, like most people, you're not a sociopath.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shipbuilder

[wonderpup]

Bizarrely you now seem to want to define 'working' as enabling those in power to get what they want. You are conflating motivations of the state and individuals, but obviously they aren't the same.

I meant 'working' as functioning for the good of society as a whole - the point of any system - which, if you remember, was your initial definition when you referred to the free market as not working.

So we both agree that coercion is a viable way for some people to get what they want-yes? They want power and coercion allows them to have it and keep it.

So to claim that coercion does not work is not really accurate- it works if your objective is to get power.

And what is the primary motive for the self interested agents in a free market- it's to get what they want-right?

So we can at least agree that for some people in some situations coercion is a valid strategic choice. But here is the problem- you don't want them to have that choice- you want to forbid it- and the moment you forbid something in a free market you instantly create the problem of enforcement. So now you would use coercion to stop others using coercion- at which point you become the state.

In order to be consistent you would need to accept that you cannot forbid coercion- the best you can do is let market forces decide if coercion is or is not a valid strategy- this would be the free market solution to coercive strategies.

So any accurate definition of a free market would need to recognise that coercion is a valid mode of participation- one that may or may not succeed depending on the run of market forces in play at the time.

You're avoiding the question here and moving the goalposts.

This is nothing to do with you being Prime Minister. Remember we were talking about the actions of individuals - of course you have the power to impose your will through threats - the reality is that you don't because it doesn't work - neither for you or others, because chances are, like most people, you're not a sociopath.

You keep saying that threats don't work- but also keep saying that the state is coercing you- isn't coercion the issuing of threats? How come-if threats don't work- you have this feeling of being threatened?

What you seem to be saying here is that threats do work if backed by enough power- so it may well be true that I lack the power to issue credible threats- but this is not the same as saying that threats don't work- if those issuing the threats have the power to do so.

You are in no doubt that the state has the power to follow through on it's threats- which is why you feel you are being coerced by the state.

[shipbuilder]

So we both agree that coercion is a viable way for some people to get what they want-yes? They want power and coercion allows them to have it and keep it.

So to claim that coercion does not work is not really accurate- it works if your objective is to get power.

And what is the primary motive for the self interested agents in a free market- it's to get what they want-right?

So we can at least agree that for some people in some situations coercion is a valid strategic choice. But here is the problem- you don't want them to have that choice- you want to forbid it- and the moment you forbid something in a free market you instantly create the problem of enforcement. So now you would use coercion to stop others using coercion- at which point you become the state.

In order to be consistent you would need to accept that you cannot forbid coercion- the best you can do is let market forces decide if coercion is or is not a valid strategy- this would be the free market solution to coercive strategies.

So any accurate definition of a free market would need to recognise that coercion is a valid mode of participation- one that may or may not succeed depending on the run of market forces in play at the time.

I don't want to forbid anything, no matter how much you wish I would, or how many times you repeat it.

You keep saying that threats don't work- but also keep saying that the state is coercing you- isn't coercion the issuing of threats? How come-if threats don't work- you have this feeling of being threatened?

What you seem to be saying here is that threats do work if backed by enough power- so it may well be true that I lack the power to issue credible threats- but this is not the same as saying that threats don't work- if those issuing the threats have the power to do so.

You are in no doubt that the state has the power to follow through on it's threats- which is why you feel you are being coerced by the state.

Sorry, but this is simply a lame argument - just admit you don't use these 'strategies' because they don't work.

Just like, for example, I won't threaten my neighbour into lending me his lawnmower, i'll maybe buy him a few beers instead.

Because it is perfectly obvious to anyone which is the better option.

To be honest there's only so many times I can repeat the points I have made here, so here it is in a nutshell - In the long term, I believe people voluntarily self-organising and interacting freely produces better results for more people than a involuntary coercive state, even when a minority of people attempt to use violence, cheating etc.

Clearly you don't agree, so we'll leave it at that.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shipbuilder

[mfp123]

To be honest there's only so many times I can repeat the points I have made here, so here it is in a nutshell - In the long term, I believe people voluntarily self-organising and interacting freely produces better results for more people than a involuntary coercive state, even when a minority of people attempt to use violence, cheating etc.

Clearly you don't agree, so we'll leave it at that.

what hes saying in part though is that under a system of voluntary self organising people acting freely , over time it can evolve into a state if one group decides it wants more power.

the only way you can keep the system consisting wholly of voluntary self organising people - is by denying another system (perhaps a more coercive system) from forming, which contradicts the initial premise.

[tomandlu]

soz..... ...although selfish gene neatly explains altruistic behaviour between related individuals

Well, you need traits (but you need those anyway, otherwise offspring would just be a homogeneous mess), but the specific mechanism is irrelevant. My main objection is that genes are only exposed to selection en masse through the phenotype - i.e. the individual. The whole concept of the gene being the unit exposed to selection just strikes me as overly-specific. You might as well subscribe the role to carbon bonds or something.

[tomandlu]

if they are native to Romania I fear the board may meltdown!!!

Adactylidium rumanicus Jordana & Goldarazena, in Goldarazena, Ochoa, Jordana & OConnor 2001:504 [Mehedinti judet, Potile di Fieri, Parasite of Megathrips lativentris (Insecta); Romania]

[shipbuilder]

what hes saying in part though is that under a system of voluntary self organising people acting freely , over time it can evolve into a state if one group decides it wants more power.

If a system were reached that was voluntary and self-organising, the motivation and efforts involved to reach that point would mean that it would be unlikely that such a group would be allowed to subvert that system. I think people attempting to use violence to gain power in such a system would quickly find themselves out in the cold, with little support.

Of course there would be nothing stopping such a group starting a 'competing' system.

I know which system I believe would be successful and which would fail.

The only way you can keep the system consisting wholly of voluntary self organising people - is by denying another system (perhaps a more coercive system) from forming, which contradicts the initial premise.

Stopping such a system would indeed contradict the initial premise. My argument is that it would likely fail through lack of support - events past and present show that people seek freedom and non-violent interactions outnumber violent ones by millions to one, so it is clear how humans prefer to interact with each other.

I'm sure someone will come along and claim that self-defence is coercion, or any kind of attempt to defend a voluntary system would be coercion. Such arguments are 'dancing on the head of a pin' and I can't really be bothered with them anymore, I think my points are explained well enough, as I said in my previous post.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shipbuilder

[wonderpup]

To be honest there's only so many times I can repeat the points I have made here, so here it is in a nutshell - In the long term, I believe people voluntarily self-organising and interacting freely produces better results for more people than a involuntary coercive state, even when a minority of people attempt to use violence, cheating etc.

Clearly you don't agree, so we'll leave it at that.

The problem with people 'interacting freely' is that they are then free to act in ways that are incompatible with the common good- so there is no required correlation between personal liberty and that common good.

As I said at the start of this debate, in a system where self interest is the core value the use of cheating, coercion and violence can be valid strategies- if they get you what you want.

So there is no reason to believe that a self organising freely interacting population would not produce a tyrant, or totalitarian dictatorship or any other form of repressive regime.

After all- the State you currently live in is itself the end product of what was once loosely associated small groups of hunter gatherers who chose to live in larger and larger groups over time, creating more complex social structures in the process.

Your mistake is your assumption that 'the state' has somehow been imposed on human beings by some outside agency- when common sense tells us that all human social structures are in fact emergent behaviours of our species.

As the Nest is to the Ant so the State is to Man.

The problem with your ideas is that they have already been tested and you are living right now with the outcome- those freely associating humans made their choice millions of years ago- and they chose the state.

[shipbuilder]

The problem with your ideas is that they have already been tested and you are living right now with the outcome- those freely associating humans made their choice millions of years ago- and they chose the state.

Well if you wish to use that line of argument, the fact that they've also chosen neoliberalism (or whatever you wish to call the current orthodoxy) unfortunately seems to make your ideas rather redundant too....

Edited February 26, 2013 by shipbuilder

[shipbuilder]

.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shipbuilder

[tomandlu]

Well if you wish to use that line of argument, the fact that they've also chosen neoliberalism (or whatever you wish to call the current orthodoxy) unfortunately seems to make your ideas rather redundant too....

I don't think you can compare the flavour of the state with the more critical dichotomy of state/no-state. That said, and given that 'stateless' seems to be very rare (and almost unheard of as a stable state - sic), there are two possibilities:

1. That humans never opt for 'stateless' as a group

2. They do opt for it sometimes, but are immediately crushed by state-based neighbours

[easy2012]

I don't think you can compare the flavour of the state with the more critical dichotomy of state/no-state. That said, and given that 'stateless' seems to be very rare (and almost unheard of as a stable state - sic), there are two possibilities:

1. That humans never opt for 'stateless' as a group

2. They do opt for it sometimes, but are immediately crushed by state-based neighbours

And a 3rd where some still live stone age lives (like the San people in African Desert, The Baldwin in Arab desert, the Amazonian tribe). Those groups also tend to be rather small. So, if 50 people wants to live a stateless life in the Artic/desert/forest/mars/moon, it probably will work. If it is 5000 - then it won't.

[tomandlu]

And a 3rd where some still live stone age lives (like the San people in African Desert, The Baldwin in Arab desert, the Amazonian tribe). Those groups also tend to be rather small. So, if 50 people wants to live a stateless life in the Artic/desert/forest/mars/moon, it probably will work. If it is 5000 - then it won't.

And probably not if the 5000 live next door to your 50... notice anything about those stateless tribes?

[The Spaniard]

If we consider the interative co-evolution of memes and human brains, then perhaps we can get some understanding of the de facto evolutionary success of the “let’s organise ourselves into a state“ meme.

Sometimes memes detrimental to the brains that believe them can nevertheless do just fine in the meme pool, e.g. celibacy.

Just a suggestion.

Edited February 27, 2013 by The Spaniard

[tomandlu]

If we consider the interative co-evolution of memes and human brains, then perhaps we can get some understanding of the de facto evolutionary success of the “let’s organise ourselves into a state“ meme.

Sometimes memes detrimental to the brains that believe them can nevertheless do just fine in the meme pool, e.g. celibacy.

Just a suggestion.

Celibacy, in kin-theory, can be perfectly valid. That said - you are right. There's nothing to stop a generally positive trait being turned to a disadvantage (provided, on average, it is a positive), or a trait that was helpful in a particular environment from being a handicap elsewhere. Black people are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anaemia because the trait that makes this more likely also helps protect against malaria. Not doing Black-Britons much good though...

[easy2012]

And probably not if the 5000 live next door to your 50... notice anything about those stateless tribes?

I did say on moon/mars/middle of dense forest/desert :-)

[tomandlu]

I did say on moon/mars/middle of dense forest/desert :-)

Indeed - I wasn't really knocking you, just anyone who came along with the notion that such an option was sustainable and used such tribes as 'proof'.

Personally, I'd love to try living in a co-operative, stateless world. I would also like to live in a world with talking animals and super-powers. But not zombies. Zombies suck.

Edited February 27, 2013 by tomandlu

[The Spaniard]

Celibacy, in kin-theory, can be perfectly valid. That said - you are right. There's nothing to stop a generally positive trait being turned to a disadvantage (provided, on average, it is a positive), or a trait that was helpful in a particular environment from being a handicap elsewhere. Black people are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anaemia because the trait that makes this more likely also helps protect against malaria. Not doing Black-Britons much good though...

I was thinking more of the "I will become a celibate monk" sort of meme which presumably is of no direct evolutionary advantage to the kin of its believer. Of course celibacy per se can be of enormous advantage to close kin if the related celibate contributes towards their fitness.

Memes can often require not much more of their host brains that that they believe them, and this susceptibility can be governed by the memes already dominant in that brain, rather than the genetic composition of the brain.

I am just suggesting that the "state" meme might be more loosely connected to the gene pool of the brains that believe in it than we might think at first. Human brains are in general very suggestible, and believe all sorts of things.

Edited February 27, 2013 by The Spaniard

[tomandlu]

I was thinking more of the "I will become a celibate monk" sort of meme which presumably is of no direct evolutionary advantage to the kin of its believer. Of course celibacy per se can be of enormous advantage to close kin if the related celibate contributes towards their fitness.

I find it hard to judge whether a celibate monk helps or hinders his kin, but yes, if celibacy is an option due to kin selection (e.g. the celibate, producing no off-spring of its own, helps raise its close relatives), then there is nothing to stop that being misapplied. This would be no weirder than using contraception (which subverts the evolutionary purpose of sex).

Aside from that, man and all other primates (afaicr) are tribal, and I'd suggest that that alone is the basis for our determination to form states, rather than any meme. What the ideal form for the state should be is another matter, and would appear to be a work in progress...

[fluffy666]

Indeed - I wasn't really knocking you, just anyone who came along with the notion that such an option was sustainable and used such tribes as 'proof'.

Personally, I'd love to try living in a co-operative, stateless world. I would also like to live in a world with talking animals and super-powers. But not zombies. Zombies suck.

Actually, they bite.. Vampires suck.

Anyway.. you could imagine, I suppose, an AI-run society. In this case we'd still have a government of sorts, but it wouldn't be a human government. It would presumably be given a set of objectives* - which would have to be determined in some democratic way - and then leeway to adjust things (laws, taxes, regulation etc) in whatever way was deduced most likely to reach those objectives.

By definition, of course, it would be unbribable and not interested in personal wealth/power.

[PopGun]

By definition, of course, it would be unbribable and not interested in personal wealth/power.

Apart from the guy with the screwdriver behind it's main processing unit.

[shipbuilder]

I don't think you can compare the flavour of the state with the more critical dichotomy of state/no-state. That said, and given that 'stateless' seems to be very rare (and almost unheard of as a stable state - sic), there are two possibilities:

1. That humans never opt for 'stateless' as a group

2. They do opt for it sometimes, but are immediately crushed by state-based neighbours

It's quite possible that it's a stage of development that we haven't yet reached.

A belief that seems to be commonly held is that we have tried all forms of human organisation and that such organisation is 'binary' in it's nature and has now reached a stable state, however history doesn't bear this idea out.

In all human history, the state is merely a moment; industrialisation, democracy, capitalism, the welfare state barely the blink of an eye. I should also point out that the 'state' is not just any organisation, but a particular type of involuntary organisation, so 'stateless' does not mean 'organisationless' - that would be ridiculous, however it is a straw man frequently brought up.

Actually the current corporatocracy has been fairly stable and widespread for generations now, so it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that it is the most recent 'emergent behaviour of our species', to quote Wonderpup, hence all arguments that things should be done differently are equally futile, or valid.

Edited February 27, 2013 by shipbuilder