A big problem for evolutionists (xpost from politards) [Archive]

FortunaMaximus

10-17-2006, 01:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You wake up tomorrow morning and find a HUGE ASTEROID hurtling into earth, causing a catastrophic impact, plunging the world into a nuclear-winter-type scenario.

What species will survive? What adaptations, mutations, etc will we see? What will be the dominant species on earth 10,000 years from now? 1 million years from now?

Is the failure to provide specific, exact answers to these questions indicative of a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
I predict that the luckiest will survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on whether the rock in question is a knuckler or a split-finger. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

When fatalists stop using the Earth as a catcher's mitt, we'll all be the better for it.

luckyme

10-17-2006, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is the failure to provide specific, exact answers to these questions indicative of a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the flaw is in the theory of weather. IF we could predict the exact weather on each square inch of earth for the 500 years following the impact then we'd have a decent backdrop to make evolutionary predictions. Until they fix up their blasted Theory of Weather, we'll have to be happy with witnessing evolution unfold for the most part.

luckyme

TJ Eckleburg

10-17-2006, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is the failure to provide specific, exact answers to these questions indicative of a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no predictive theory of future evolution from previous evolution; for the same reason that there is no predictive theory of human culture, politics, and diplomacy from history.

Nielsio

10-17-2006, 07:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What will be the dominant species on earth 10,000 years from now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ants.

[ QUOTE ]
1 million years from now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ants.

MidGe

10-17-2006, 07:22 AM

And I thought it was going to be cockroaches!

To the OP, really poor choice of subject. It seems you don't know much about evolution at all! No problems for evolutionists, big problem for creationists unless they attribute the meteor to the creator too who then becomes destructr. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Anyway the two, evolution and creation, should not be mentionned in the same sentence, one is science the other in bunkum. It sounds like a crosspost from retards to me.

madnak

10-17-2006, 09:46 AM

I don't think SMP has the context for the joke.

Cockroaches are so much more likely than ants.

But if I had to make a bet about what will survive, my money's on Archaea.

FortunaMaximus

10-17-2006, 10:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think SMP has the context for the joke.

Cockroaches are so much more likely than ants.

But if I had to make a bet about what will survive, my money's on Archaea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cockroaches are less of a possibility if Keith Richards survives the impact.

Nocturnal cold-weather scavengers that survive the impact itself will be dominant, and, yeah, Archaea's more likely to survive anything. They may be an evolutionary deadend though.

pvn

10-17-2006, 10:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No problems for evolutionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. As another poster pointed out, evolution makes no predictions. Anyone who agrees that this is not a problem had better not let me catch them asking for such specific predictions from anarchocapitalists. "Who will build the roads?" "What about when your neighbor sprays nerve gas all over his garden?" "Why do you hate poor people?" etc.

pvn

10-17-2006, 10:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think SMP has the context for the joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right; I actually wanted to pose it semi-seriously, even if it is a trick question. AC seems to be more common over here than it used to, so let's get some of the frequently-debunked "fatal flaws" out of the way on the front end.

FortunaMaximus

10-17-2006, 10:39 AM

Good idea, I think. Our direct evolutionary line, after all, is presumably traced from another, similiar event.

DVaut1

10-17-2006, 10:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No problems for evolutionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. As another poster pointed out, evolution makes no predictions. Anyone who agrees that this is not a problem had better not let me catch them asking for such specific predictions from anarchocapitalists. "Who will build the roads?" "What about when your neighbor sprays nerve gas all over his garden?" "Why do you hate poor people?" etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I don't think anyone fails to understand why it's unfair to ask such specific predictions from evolutionists. I, however, missed why it's unfair to ask for specific predictions from ACists.

I understand why failure to answer such questions is not in and of itself indicative of a fatal flaw in ACist theory. But I'm not sure why it's a "problem" to ask such questions of ACists, so long as the questioners don't also posit that a failure to answer demonstrates some kind of categorical failure of the ACist theory.

Similarly, I'd prefer if hmkpoker stopped saying "but what if one day the New-World Order/one-world-state forced me into a concentration camp and steals all my money?!?!" followed by a declaration of the utter defeat of statism if his question isn't answered, but sometimes we don't always get what we want. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In other words, anyone who agrees that this is not a problem for evolutionists had better not let me catch them asking for such specific predictions from statists about one-state worlds and $100 hot dogs.

pvn

10-17-2006, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I understand why failure to answer such questions is not in and of itself indicative of a fatal flaw in ACist theory. But I'm not sure why it's a "problem" to ask such questions of ACists, so long as the questioners don't also posit that a failure to answer demonstrates some kind of categorical failure of the ACist theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But most of the time, they do posit that. "Hey, I figured out why you guys are all crackpots! Who's going to make the trains run on time?!? HUH!?"

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, I'd prefer if hmkpoker stopped saying "but what if one day the New-World Order/one-world-state forced me into a concentration camp and steals all my money?!?!" followed by a declaration of the utter defeat of statism if his question isn't answered, but sometimes we don't always get what we want.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the cause goes away, the effect will follow. In the same vein, I can stop posting this image of the ultimate icons of statism:

http://blogs.starwars.com/static/img/image-selector/full/original-trilogy/episode-iv/12.jpg

madnak

10-17-2006, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No problems for evolutionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. As another poster pointed out, evolution makes no predictions. Anyone who agrees that this is not a problem had better not let me catch them asking for such specific predictions from anarchocapitalists. "Who will build the roads?" "What about when your neighbor sprays nerve gas all over his garden?" "Why do you hate poor people?" etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I don't think anyone fails to understand why it's unfair to ask such specific predictions from evolutionists. I, however, missed why it's unfair to ask for specific predictions from ACists.

I understand why failure to answer such questions is not in and of itself indicative of a fatal flaw in ACist theory. But I'm not sure why it's a "problem" to ask such questions of ACists, so long as the questioners don't also posit that a failure to answer demonstrates some kind of categorical failure of the ACist theory.

Similarly, I'd prefer if hmkpoker stopped saying "but what if one day the New-World Order/one-world-state forced me into a concentration camp and steals all my money?!?!" followed by a declaration of the utter defeat of statism if his question isn't answered, but sometimes we don't always get what we want. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In other words, anyone who agrees that this is not a problem for evolutionists had better not let me catch them asking for such specific predictions from statists about one-state worlds and $100 hot dogs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that AC (like evolution) describes a process, not the result of that process.

Sometimes this applies to statists as well, you're right about that.

But in many cases, statists are describing a result rather than a process. When they do that, they open themselves to criticism of the result and the process according to which that result will supposedly come about and the reasoning according to which they believe the process will lead to the result.

hmkpoker

10-17-2006, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Similarly, I'd prefer if hmkpoker stopped saying "but what if one day the New-World Order/one-world-state forced me into a concentration camp and steals all my money?!?!" followed by a declaration of the utter defeat of statism if his question isn't answered, but sometimes we don't always get what we want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I say that all the time.

DVaut1

10-17-2006, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that AC (like evolution) describes a process, not the result of that process.

Sometimes this applies to statists as well, you're right about that.

But in many cases, statists are describing a result rather than a process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait - ACists never do that? I think it's disingenuous to claim ACists only describe the process and never the results.

madnak

10-17-2006, 12:23 PM

ACists may speculate on the results, but there are no specific results that represent any kind of AC "canon." An ACist speculating on what an AC world would look like 50 years from now is similar to an evolutionary biologist speculating on what the human genome will look like 10,000 years from now. Does it happen? Sure. But typically even the person making the prediction will acknowledge it as conjecture.

Of course, the nature of the process itself can lead to some general conclusions. Just as evolution logically results in adaptation, so does AC (at least according to its premises) logically result in economic vigor.

DVaut1

10-17-2006, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Similarly, I'd prefer if hmkpoker stopped saying "but what if one day the New-World Order/one-world-state forced me into a concentration camp and steals all my money?!?!" followed by a declaration of the utter defeat of statism if his question isn't answered, but sometimes we don't always get what we want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I say that all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, well, I actually understood pvn's frustration with being demanded to answer his critics' absolutely asinine hypothetical situations, and then, when he couldn't, having his critics declare the defeat of his theory. Do you know why I understood his frustration so well?

All of this is from one thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7151914&an=&page=&vc=1

HMKPOKER: "DVault:

Suppose, in the future, the national governments are fully globalized. All local, state and national governments defer to the world government, which constitutes the greatest percentage of any individual's tax revenue, and which creates and enforces most of the laws that govern our lives.

Luckily, if you don't like it, there are other alternatives. Mars has been terraformed for several decades now, and exists mostly as an independent, loose confederation of city-states. Unfortunately trade is very difficult with Mars and it has few natural resources, so the economy is abysmal, poverty is rampant, health care is terrible, the weather and culture suck, there is little to do, and getting there costs (in today's money) two hundred thousand dollars. This can, of course, be purchased with a loan much like today's houses, but it's still quite costly.

Nevertheless, you do have a choice, and are free to leave Earth's global jurisdiction at any time. Does this mean that the social contract of residing in Earth's government is just as legitimate as the social contract of living in modern USA?"

HMKPOKER: "In other words, you agree that a reduction of jurisdictions to choose residency in "probably" damages the legitimacy of the social contract, yet you seem to support the existence of the federal government and the social contract we have with it as 100% legitimate, as though nothing is lost when the states unify into a 4 million square mile jurisdiction.

If you can't answer either this question, or at least put forth some kind of logical basis for a possible answer, then I don't see why you are endorsing the legitimacy of the social contract of the state at all, let alone so vehemently. "

HMKPOKER "Please answer this question."

DVAUT: "Woah woah woah...did an ACist just demand I answer some hypothetical concern?

Okay, if you would, then, please detail for me your utopian ACist society, answering every possible hypothetical concern I may have. Until you do this, I will declare ACism completely impracticable, and suggest you stop advocating it -- particularly not so vehemently."

HMKPOKER: "Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. What the hell does AC have to do with this?"

DVAUT: "You demanded I address all of your hypothetical concerns. Is this not what people do to ACists on this forum? And, is it not the case that ACists eventually say "I'm not going to address every hypothetical situation ever dreamed up to maintain my defense of ACism"? "

And of course, the eventual ACist declaration when I didn't bother answering your inane hypothetical:

HMKPOKER: "You're wrong.

I win. "

So yeah, I understood and in fact agree with pvn that some people throw hypothetical turd-attacks that are supposed to be meaningful but typically aren't.

DVaut1

10-17-2006, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ACists may speculate on the results, but there are no specific results that represent any kind of AC "canon."

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand there are different ACist camps -- would you not agree one of those camps is a consequentialist one that relies heavily on their 'speculations' to justify their beliefs?

And even though it's not part of some peoples' 'canon' -- I maintain many ACists point to the eventual percieved benefits of ACism as a compelling reason to support it. Whether or not they consider it dogma, it's certainly utilized heavily.

madnak

10-17-2006, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ACists may speculate on the results, but there are no specific results that represent any kind of AC "canon."

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand there are different ACist camps -- would you not agree one of those camps is a consequentialist one that relies heavily on their 'speculations' to justify their beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... Well I don't think we're divided up like religious sects. I'm sure some ACists do try to justify their beliefs in just such a way, I won't claim that they aren't "true" ACists. Against them the kinds of arguments we're discussing would apply. But pvn, Boro, hmk... They don't fall into that camp. And they're typically the victims of these arguments. I'm not sure whether any ACist on this board actually falls into the camp. The point stands.

[ QUOTE ]
And even though it's not part of some peoples' 'canon' -- I maintain many ACists point to the eventual percieved benefits of ACism as a compelling reason to support it. Whether or not they consider it dogma, it's certainly utilized heavily.

[/ QUOTE ]

The benefits of AC aren't always based on the specific results of AC. An ACist can say that, "under AC people will be happier" or "under AC people will be more productive" or "under AC there will be less violence." This is similar to an evolutionary biologist saying "given the necessary conditions for evolution, a species will adapt to its changing environment." If he were to explain exactly how the species would adapt, that would be another story.

But it's true that ACists frequently speculate about what exactly an AC society would look like. Partly because it's fun and exciting - it's like science fiction. But on these forums it's mostly because of questions such as this! People ask "what would happen under AC if X." And then someone will respond "well, there's no one way it 'would happen,' but it might be like so..."

And yes, you can argue against these speculations. But that's no indication that AC is some kind of "recipe" for some "end product." In fact, there is no end product! That's part of the point. People who see AC as representing a set of instructions for achieving ideal society are confusing the matter in the same way as people who believe evolution is some sort of ladder toward a perfect organism.

DVaut1

10-17-2006, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
People who see AC as representing a set of instructions for achieving ideal society are confusing the matter in the same way as people who believe evolution is some sort of ladder toward a perfect organism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most everything you say, except that I would claim the reason ACism leaves this impression on people is because its adherents seem to suggest it, whether through fancifully describing an ACist society, or through being forced to answer hypothetical questions from critics, or through justifying some of their beliefs by noting the possible benefits of an ACist society -- in other words, people get left with the impression that ACism is some kind of remedy for societal problems -- a "confusion" if you must call it that, rather than an impression -- because I think ACists willfully try to create that impression/confusion. It's a hard notion to avoid when the claim from ACists is that the state causes most of the ills experienced by contemporary human society -- surely, then, if you're suggesting an anarchist solution, it's not terribly wild to assume you're suggesting anarchy is a panacea to those ills. It may not be that ACist are explicitly suggesting that, and indeed it may not be "cannon", but as I said, I think the impression is unavoidable.

madnak

10-17-2006, 01:18 PM

Hmm. Well, I agree. But I also think it's unavoidable to give that impression.

hmkpoker

10-17-2006, 02:33 PM

The reason I did that was to illustrate the nature of the legitimacy of the social contract, in light of the fact that we do have the ability to leave it. I was not suggesting that this was an inevitability or even a likely result of modern statism; I was simply using an extreme example of the same quality in order to illustrate that there are conditions that could exist under which the assertion you made was false. I then explained why there was a relationship of degrees (rather than fixed qualifiers) between the two variables (level of jurisdiction of the state and the legitimacy of social contract with same). This is very similar to my "Incentives" thread in politics. The logical conclusion of this thinking is that, because decreased jurisdiction and more choices increase the legitimacy of the social contract, social contracts with one of many, smaller jurisdictions are more legitimate than those with one of many, few jurisdictions...at which point you bailed.

Your analogy is false because pvn's frustration is rooted in the fact that the hypotheticals he describes are not used to illustrate concepts that might lead to the formation of the understanding of a principle, but are posted as blanket attempts to debunk an event with demonstrably poor (or extreme, or rare) assumptions of the conditions surrounding it. In other words, the conditions of the hypothetical do not isolate the important variables.

Note the difference between the following hypotheticals:

1) Under the condition that you had a terminal illness that could only be cured by pushing a button that randomly killed ten strangers, would you press it?
Purpose: In the affirmative, this is illustrative of an individual's preference for his own life over the lives of others.

2) Ever watch Saving Private Ryan? A bunch of guys risked their own lives to save someone else.
Purpose: Debunk the aforementioned principle with an extreme example that discounts other variables.

It is a logical fallacy to employ hypotheticals without isolating the critical variables, yet this comprises the bulk of the anti-AC arguments. This is why so many of our comments are pathological $100 hot dog scenarios; they are directly analogous to the logical fallacies being employed by many misused hypotheticals.

Rduke55

10-17-2006, 02:57 PM

Borodog

10-17-2006, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No problems for evolutionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. As another poster pointed out, evolution makes no predictions. Anyone who agrees that this is not a problem had better not let me catch them asking for such specific predictions from anarchocapitalists. "Who will build the roads?" "What about when your neighbor sprays nerve gas all over his garden?" "Why do you hate poor people?" etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

But ACers ignore the fact that statism is a possible outcome that "evolves".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we don't. It's obviously a possible outcome that can evolve, because we have it, don't we? The question is, must it always evolve? And I have given arguments in the past that make it clear that the answer is no. Governments, and later the modern state, evolved under a particular set of historical circumstances. Those conditions are no longer in place. If we could a) get rid of the things, without destroying civilization in the process, and b) create a libertarian culture, they would not arise again. Neither of those things may be possible. But that's not really relevent. Even if it's never possible to cure cancer, that doesn't mean having cancer is better than not having cancer, or that people should stop trying to cure it.

By the way, I would appreciate your input in my Property: The Great Leap Forward thread (no, it has nothing to do with AC).

Rduke55

10-17-2006, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it's never possible to cure cancer, that doesn't mean having cancer is better than not having cancer, or that people should stop trying to cure it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this statement sums up the main point of our disagreement on these issues.

Back to my earlier analogy, I see ACers as old evolutionists - using the individual as the sole unit of selection (and I guess some hard-core statists could be the "group selection" faction). With that worldview you would make predictions that aren't neccessarily true and would consider things like ant colonies abbherations because your model suggests that individual ants should not behave like that because they are reducing their fitness.

Borodog

10-17-2006, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if it's never possible to cure cancer, that doesn't mean having cancer is better than not having cancer, or that people should stop trying to cure it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this statement sums up the main point of our disagreement on these issues.

Back to my earlier analogy, I see ACers as old evolutionists - using the individual as the sole unit of selection (and I guess some hard-core statists could be the "group selection" faction). With that worldview you would make predictions that aren't neccessarily true and would consider things like ant colonies abbherations because your model suggests that individual ants should not behave like that because they are reducing their fitness.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are straining the analogy between biological evolution and social evolution too far. Dawkins would rap your knuckles. The logic is different.

It stretches my credulity that you think that someone who understands how free markets work for human beings would attempt to apply the same logic to ants. Ants are not people, people are not ants.

The unit of selection in the market is not the individual in the sense that I think you mean; the individual applies the selection in his capacity as a consumer. The unit of selection, the thing that gets selected for or against, are producers.

The thing that markets have in common with biological evolution is that fantastic spontaneous order arises from a simple set of conditions that are demonstrably true and the logical results thereof, completely in the absence of central planning.

Rduke55

10-17-2006, 03:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if it's never possible to cure cancer, that doesn't mean having cancer is better than not having cancer, or that people should stop trying to cure it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this statement sums up the main point of our disagreement on these issues.

Back to my earlier analogy, I see ACers as old evolutionists - using the individual as the sole unit of selection (and I guess some hard-core statists could be the "group selection" faction). With that worldview you would make predictions that aren't neccessarily true and would consider things like ant colonies abbherations because your model suggests that individual ants should not behave like that because they are reducing their fitness.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are straining the analogy between biological evolution and social evolution too far. Dawkins would rap your knuckles. The logic is different.

It stretches my credulity that you think that someone who understands how free markets work for human beings would attempt to apply the same logic to ants. Ants are not people, people are not ants.

The unit of selection in the market is not the individual in the sense that I think you mean; the individual applies the selection in his capacity as a consumer. The unit of selection, the thing that gets selected for or against, are producers.

The thing that markets have in common with biological evolution is that fantastic spontaneous order arises from a simple set of conditions that are demonstrably true and the logical results thereof, completely in the absence of central planning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should of expected that. I was going to put a disclaimer before my analogy.
It's probably not the best because what I was doing there was using evolutionary thought to make a broader point, so the threat of confusion that I'm directly applying evolutionary principles is high.

To me, the schools of thought on evolution most closely parallel these economic arguments - separate from the actual similarities of the phenomena we are discussing (natural selection and market forces for example).

The point I was trying to make was that if you have a certain model that ignores some information you may get erroneous conclusions. My thoughts are that, among others, the newish field of neuroeconomics (I hate that name - should be etho-economics maybe) suggests that humans are wired in certain ways that make the formation and continuation of an AC society extremely unlikely, if not impossible. (in this way maybe we are like ants)

Borodog

10-17-2006, 03:54 PM

What information do you believe is ignored?

And what is it about our brain wiring that makes you believe territorial coercive monopolies are inevitable?

Rduke55

10-17-2006, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What information do you believe is ignored?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of information about how the brain works and how it has evolved to do what it does.

[ QUOTE ]
And what is it about our brain wiring that makes you believe territorial coercive monopolies are inevitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

That us, our ancestors, and a whole slew of related species have structures similar to territorial coercive monopolies.

I can see you saying "but we've evolved since then" but it's not a small point. Neuroeconomics suggests that a lot of the irrationality, etc. humans demonstrate are holdovers from our evolutionary past (when those behaviors were more rational) and act as severe constraints to developing new behaviors.

Is it possible for a species to work out in AC-land? Sure, but H. sapiens isn't it. You'd have to change a lot more than peoples' attitudes to get it to work. Maybe in a few hundred thousand years.

Borodog

10-17-2006, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information do you believe is ignored?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of information about how the brain works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what is it about our brain wiring that makes you believe territorial coercive monopolies are inevitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

That us, our ancestors, and a whole slew of related species have structures similar to territorial coercive monopolies.

I can see you saying "but we've evolved since then" but it's not a small point. Neuroeconomics suggests that a lot of the irrationality, etc. humans demonstrate are holdovers from our evolutionary past (when those behaviors were more rational) and act as severe constraints to developing new behaviors.

Is it possible for a species to work out in AC-land? Sure, but H. sapiens isn't it. You'd have to change a lot more than peoples' attitudes to get it to work. Maybe in a few hundred thousand years.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but all I see is handwaving. The world is filled with empirical evidence that human beings can operate quite nicely in the absence of territorial coercive monopolies. In fact, there is no good or service that is supplied by a government in one place that is not now or has not in the past been supplied by the market somewhere else.

Rduke55

10-17-2006, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information do you believe is ignored?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of information about how the brain works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

I edited my earlier post but too late. Basically, under what conditions our brain evolved, how they evolved, and how they can and cannot be changed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what is it about our brain wiring that makes you believe territorial coercive monopolies are inevitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

That us, our ancestors, and a whole slew of related species have structures similar to territorial coercive monopolies.

I can see you saying "but we've evolved since then" but it's not a small point. Neuroeconomics suggests that a lot of the irrationality, etc. humans demonstrate are holdovers from our evolutionary past (when those behaviors were more rational) and act as severe constraints to developing new behaviors.

Is it possible for a species to work out in AC-land? Sure, but H. sapiens isn't it. You'd have to change a lot more than peoples' attitudes to get it to work. Maybe in a few hundred thousand years.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but all I see is handwaving. The world is filled with empirical evidence that human beings can operate quite nicely in the absence of territorial coercive monopolies. In fact, there is no good or service that is supplied by a government in one place that is not now or has not in the past been supplied by the market somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the problem is, I see that as handwaving. How is it not?

I think you are missing my point. Despite our earlier debates on specific goods or services I'm not arguing that. Could all goods and services be provided by the market? I'll concede that it can. Can H. sapiens function in such a way to make this possible? No.

Also, where's alll the evidence where humans existed happily in large numbers while free of coercion? (And don't say Iceland.) You can cobble together a list of goods and services from a bunch of separate cultures here and there that were provided by the market but there hasn't been a culture that gets ALL of its goods and services w/o some form of your "territorial coercive monopoly."
It may be just history but I'd suggest it's our natural state.

Borodog

10-17-2006, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What information do you believe is ignored?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of information about how the brain works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

I edited my earlier post but too late. Basically, under what conditions our brain evolved, how they evolved, and how they can and cannot be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying more things without saying anything. What specifically about the human brain logically implies that states are inevitable?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what is it about our brain wiring that makes you believe territorial coercive monopolies are inevitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

That us, our ancestors, and a whole slew of related species have structures similar to territorial coercive monopolies.

I can see you saying "but we've evolved since then" but it's not a small point. Neuroeconomics suggests that a lot of the irrationality, etc. humans demonstrate are holdovers from our evolutionary past (when those behaviors were more rational) and act as severe constraints to developing new behaviors.

Is it possible for a species to work out in AC-land? Sure, but H. sapiens isn't it. You'd have to change a lot more than peoples' attitudes to get it to work. Maybe in a few hundred thousand years.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but all I see is handwaving. The world is filled with empirical evidence that human beings can operate quite nicely in the absence of territorial coercive monopolies. In fact, there is no good or service that is supplied by a government in one place that is not now or has not in the past been supplied by the market somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the problem is, I see that as handwaving. How is it not?

I think you are missing my point. Despite our earlier debates on specific goods or services I'm not arguing that. Could all goods and services be provided by the market? I'll concede that it can. Can H. sapiens function in such a way to make this possible? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense. The market can provide everything, except some mystical force prevents it from doing so? If the market were to ever be allowed to supply all goods and services rather than some incomplete subset, something would swoop out of the cosmos and create a coercive territorial donut monopoly? Or any other monooly, since you concede that the market can provide all goods and services?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, where's alll the evidence where humans existed happily in large numbers while free of coercion? (And don't say Iceland.) You can cobble together a list of goods and services from a bunch of separate cultures here and there that were provided by the market but there hasn't been a culture that gets ALL of its goods and services w/o some form of your "territorial coercive monopoly."
It may be just history but I'd suggest it's our natural state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where was the evidence that humans could build a plane and fly until they did? If something is theoretically possible, the absence of exemplars is irrelevent. If the human race followed your logic, that what has never existed cannot exist, we wouldn't even have made it to the stone age.

Rduke55

10-17-2006, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make any sense. The market can provide everything, except some mystical force prevents it from doing so? If the market were to ever be allowed to supply all goods and services rather than some incomplete subset, something would swoop out of the cosmos and create a coercive territorial donut monopoly? Or any other monooly, since you concede that the market can provide all goods and services?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ, why do I continue to get into these silly arguments?

I'm saying that based on what I know about neuroscience, human evolution, and human behavior that it's incredibly unlikely to impossible for an AC society to develop and continue?
Is it possible I'm wrong? Sure. Grab that quote in your next response like my concession in the earlier one. But there are huge constraints to it ever happening. You'd have to rewire everyone's brain a whole lot.

Look, here is my point. Humans and closely related species have certain hardwired characteristics to form bands for defense and aggression. A lot of the behavior patterns from back then are still around and it's unlikely they're going anywhere anytime soon. Primates take [censored] from other primates. We grab for more at the expense of others. We seek to exert our will on others. Hierarchies are hard-wired. THOSE are the mystical forces that create a coercive territorial donut monopoly.

[ QUOTE ]
Where was the evidence that humans could build a plane and fly until they did? If something is theoretically possible, the absence of exemplars is irrelevent. If the human race followed your logic, that what has never existed cannot exist, we wouldn't even have made it to the stone age.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy crap. I guess I should be glad you didn't use your latin.
You're guilty of the opposite problem. Just because you can imagine it does not mean that it can or will occur.

We talked about evolutionary constraints before. I think that's relevant here.

aeest400

10-17-2006, 10:14 PM

Completely agree RDuke. I'm starting to think that AC is an interesting phenomenon for what it shows about how hope can blind people to reality (especially when combined with a lack of reflection on reality). I think communism had similar problems. They are both of the form: 1) people, 2)....., 3) happiness. Have we learned nothing from the underpants gnomes?

I'm still working on my 1000 page "A couple of flaws with AC" pamphlet, but until I'm done, I'm just going to have belittle them for being naive.

[Hint: a ethically conceived (but by no means perfect) system of laws together with the threat of coercive force is what keeps people and corporations in check and society functioning. Hint 2: commons problems are huge. Hint 3: people act to rationally maximize their own self-interest, not society's (think prisoner's dilemma). Hint four: people aren't very rational in the first place--most ethical and political debates are actually disagreements about relevant facts and causal mechanisms].

pvn

10-17-2006, 10:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[Hint: a ethically conceived (but by no means perfect) system of laws together with the threat of coercive force is what keeps people and corporations in check and society functioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

People can't function without coercive force? Are you serious?

Note that no coercive force is necessary to "ethically conceive" a system of laws. In fact, I'm interested in how such laws can be ethically conceived when coercive force underlies them.

Can you start with bad eggs and get an edible omelette?

[ QUOTE ]
Hint 2: commons problems are huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point? Cooperation is better than coercion for tackling such problems. Further, a variety of approaches is more likely to find the optimal solution than a single imposed approach.

[ QUOTE ]
Hint 3: people act to rationally maximize their own self-interest, not society's (think prisoner's dilemma). Hint four: people aren't very rational in the first place--most ethical and political debates are actually disagreements about relevant facts and causal mechanisms].

[/ QUOTE ]

People act rationally, but aren't rational. OK.

Note that AC does not depend on (all) people being rational. Of course, if no people are rational, AC won't work, but neither will anything else.

madnak

10-17-2006, 10:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[Hint: a ethically conceived (but by no means perfect) system of laws together with the threat of coercive force is what keeps people and corporations in check and society functioning. Hint 2: commons problems are huge. Hint 3: people act to rationally maximize their own self-interest, not society's (think prisoner's dilemma). Hint four: people aren't very rational in the first place--most ethical and political debates are actually disagreements about relevant facts and causal mechanisms].

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. We hadn't thought of any of that! Wanna be our leader?

Borodog

10-18-2006, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make any sense. The market can provide everything, except some mystical force prevents it from doing so? If the market were to ever be allowed to supply all goods and services rather than some incomplete subset, something would swoop out of the cosmos and create a coercive territorial donut monopoly? Or any other monooly, since you concede that the market can provide all goods and services?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ, why do I continue to get into these silly arguments?

I'm saying that based on what I know about neuroscience, human evolution, and human behavior that it's incredibly unlikely to impossible for an AC society to develop and continue?
Is it possible I'm wrong? Sure. Grab that quote in your next response like my concession in the earlier one. But there are huge constraints to it ever happening. You'd have to rewire everyone's brain a whole lot.

Look, here is my point. Humans and closely related species have certain hardwired characteristics to form bands for defense and aggression. A lot of the behavior patterns from back then are still around and it's unlikely they're going anywhere anytime soon. Primates take [censored] from other primates. We grab for more at the expense of others. We seek to exert our will on others. Hierarchies are hard-wired. THOSE are the mystical forces that create a coercive territorial donut monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hierarchical social structures? Is that your whole problem, that you think "AC" denies that human beings form hierarchical social structures? Why didn't you just say that? Why did I have to ask it 4 times?

So it would apparently surprise you to find out that anarchocapitalist theory readily recognizes that hierarchical social structures are natural and inevitable, that there are natural leaders, that it's already totally incorporated and accounted for in the theory?

The existence of natural leadership and hierarchical social structures do not necessitate that they be coercive territorial monopoly hierarchical social structures. Demonstrably, since non-coercive non-monopoly examples of such structures exist all over the place.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where was the evidence that humans could build a plane and fly until they did? If something is theoretically possible, the absence of exemplars is irrelevent. If the human race followed your logic, that what has never existed cannot exist, we wouldn't even have made it to the stone age.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy crap. I guess I should be glad you didn't use your latin.
You're guilty of the opposite problem. Just because you can imagine it does not mean that it can or will occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it requires you to explain logically why it can't before you dismiss it out of hand.

BTW, What's with all the Jesus Christs and Holy Craps? Has my tone been anything but civil in this discussion?

Rduke55

10-18-2006, 09:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, What's with all the Jesus Christs and Holy Craps? Has my tone been anything but civil in this discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't read too much into those. Just exasperation bubbling up for a moment.

I don't know where else this discussion can go. We're talking in circles.

Borodog

10-18-2006, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BTW, What's with all the Jesus Christs and Holy Craps? Has my tone been anything but civil in this discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't read too much into those. Just exasperation bubbling up for a moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. I get that too. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know where else this discussion can go. We're talking in circles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I know exactly where it's going; it going towards you buying into AC, and you can't stand it! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Rduke55

10-18-2006, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BTW, What's with all the Jesus Christs and Holy Craps? Has my tone been anything but civil in this discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't read too much into those. Just exasperation bubbling up for a moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. I get that too. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know where else this discussion can go. We're talking in circles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I know exactly where it's going; it going towards you buying into AC, and you can't stand it! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You almost had me. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

DougShrapnel

10-19-2006, 07:01 AM

WARNING: Mainly a joke post that mixes metaphors, with little substance. [ QUOTE ]
You wake up tomorrow morning and find a HUGE ASTEROID hurtling into earth, causing a catastrophic impact, plunging the world into a nuclear-winter-type scenario.

What species will survive? What adaptations, mutations, etc will we see? What will be the dominant species on earth 10,000 years from now? 1 million years from now?

Is the failure to provide specific, exact answers to these questions indicative of a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]We really should do this. Whatever evolves will be better than what has evolved now. And there is no way to get those new species without completely disolving what we have now. Why anyone would want to wait for an astoriod? Lets get started right away.

vhawk01

10-19-2006, 07:20 AM

Drop the big one...see what happens?

DougShrapnel

10-19-2006, 08:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Drop the big one...see what happens?

[/ QUOTE ]It would be stupid not to. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

pvn

10-19-2006, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
WARNING: Mainly a joke post that mixes metaphors, with little substance. [ QUOTE ]
You wake up tomorrow morning and find a HUGE ASTEROID hurtling into earth, causing a catastrophic impact, plunging the world into a nuclear-winter-type scenario.

What species will survive? What adaptations, mutations, etc will we see? What will be the dominant species on earth 10,000 years from now? 1 million years from now?

Is the failure to provide specific, exact answers to these questions indicative of a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]We really should do this. Whatever evolves will be better than what has evolved now. And there is no way to get those new species without completely disolving what we have now. Why anyone would want to wait for an astoriod? Lets get started right away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you the flaw in your proposed metaphor?

DougShrapnel

10-19-2006, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WARNING: Mainly a joke post that mixes metaphors, with little substance. [ QUOTE ]
You wake up tomorrow morning and find a HUGE ASTEROID hurtling into earth, causing a catastrophic impact, plunging the world into a nuclear-winter-type scenario.

What species will survive? What adaptations, mutations, etc will we see? What will be the dominant species on earth 10,000 years from now? 1 million years from now?

Is the failure to provide specific, exact answers to these questions indicative of a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]We really should do this. Whatever evolves will be better than what has evolved now. And there is no way to get those new species without completely disolving what we have now. Why anyone would want to wait for an astoriod? Lets get started right away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you the flaw in your proposed metaphor?

[/ QUOTE ]I see alot of them. But not the one you bolded.