If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

This works both ways, by the way.

You creationists still have my blessing to be statists.

gogogogo.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

This works both ways, by the way.

You creationists still have my blessing to be statists.

gogogogo.

[/ QUOTE ]

can;t I believe in evolution and believe that a Intelligent designer could create a better result than evolution did?

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

This works both ways, by the way.

You creationists still have my blessing to be statists.

gogogogo.

[/ QUOTE ]

can;t I believe in evolution and believe that a Intelligent designer could create a better result than evolution did?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want. But it isn't relevant to my point.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

This works both ways, by the way.

You creationists still have my blessing to be statists.

gogogogo.

[/ QUOTE ]

can;t I believe in evolution and believe that a Intelligent designer could create a better result than evolution did?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want. But it isn't relevant to my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I don't see why, perhaps in the morning when I'm sober...ish.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

Further drunken thoughts:

Borodog's First Law: The market is smarter than you are.
Borodog's Second Law: Order is the daughter, not the mother, of the market.

I think it was Dawkins that once observed that every amazing innovation ever devised by man was previously discovered by nature in evolution. I believe this is true even of Austrian economics and praxeology itself.

Praxeology is the study of purposeful action. Evolution crafts amazing things that appear to have been designed, i.e. they have every appearance of being the result of purposeful action. This is why economic theory is so applicable to evolutionary theory and vice versa. Nature invented cost accounting aeons ago, but the comensurate unit was not money, but rather reproductive success. Organisms minimize costs and maximize reproductive profits. They engage in specialization and the division of labor and exchange, even with species they should be mortal enemies with. They develop property rights and systems of rights observation and enforcement to minimize conflicts and costs. Evolution acts to lower their time preference even if they cannot rationally plan into the far future (does the squirrell know why he gathers and buries nuts? Does he understand the coming winter? Evolution does). For any variation to thrive in the evolutionary market it must pay for itself by reaping reproductive profits. Variants that suffer reproductive losses are driven from the market.

Vice versa, where selection can produce astounding order in the biological realm without a central plan, so too does selection produce astounging order in the economic realm without one either. The Invisible Hand is the right hand of the Blind Watchmaker.

[ QUOTE ]
If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, producers vary at all in their satisfactions of consumer wants, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the scarcity of goods and the unendingness of wants, a severe struggle for consumers' dollars, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite ingenuity of producers, causing the production of an infinite diversity in goods and services, to be advantageous to the consumers, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each producer's own profits, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to life. But if goods and services useful to consumers do occur, assuredly producers providing goods and services thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for dollars; and from the strong principle of profit they will tend to produce competing firms similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, the Market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

doesn't dawkins have a passage where he talks about being an anarchist until...

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

Evolution is the Actor. But his actions are not planned ahead of time. Rather they only exist in hindsight.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't dawkins have a passage where he talks about being an anarchist until...

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to quote it; I don't recall it. But he has several passages that show his political thinking is nowhere near as clear as his economic thinking.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

Your post reminds me of Nielsio where he said that atheism, anarchism, WTC conspiracy and global warming conspiracy all fit together. He was equally as wrong as you.

You should take a poll of experts on evolution and see how many are anarchists.

It's kind of silly to compare evolution to the free market. You could equally argue that all of higher biology works via command and control, so any biologist should believe in government. I've yet to see a higher animal that can survive without its brain. Pretty odd that evolution would make something so vulnerable and centralized, where a tiny patch of neurons controls the fate of the whole body through hormones and nerve signals . Perhaps the system works very well?

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
doesn't dawkins have a passage where he talks about being an anarchist until...

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to quote it; I don't recall it. But he has several passages that show his political thinking is nowhere near as clear as his economic thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, then i'd have to find it

does it have something to do with riots in canada?

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
doesn't dawkins have a passage where he talks about being an anarchist until...

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to quote it; I don't recall it. But he has several passages that show his political thinking is nowhere near as clear as his economic thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, then i'd have to find it

does it have something to do with riots in canada?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that was him quoting someone else. It's come up before on the board. Chris V I think posted it. It was a straightforward fallacy. The local police goes on strike and there is an increase of crime, hence lack of government = crime. Except that the local police have a monopoly of protection, so when they go on strike there is a complete lack of providers, not a competitive free market of providers.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your post reminds me of Nielsio where he said that atheism, anarchism, WTC conspiracy and global warming conspiracy all fit together. He was equally as wrong as you.

You should take a poll of experts on evolution and see how many are anarchists.

It's kind of silly to compare evolution to the free market. You could equally argue that all of higher biology works via command and control, so any biologist should believe in government. I've yet to see a higher animal that can survive without its brain. Pretty odd that evolution would make something so vulnerable and centralized, where a tiny patch of neurons controls the fate of the whole body through hormones and nerve signals . Perhaps the system works very well?

[/ QUOTE ]

With the amazing amount of cooperation, symbiosis, etc, an argument could be made for socialism or communism.
Not a good argument, since there is no reason for a deduction or observation from one process to remain valid even within itself if there is a mere butterfly effect, nevermind trying to think it has messages for us in some other unrelated area. Stimulus to ideas, yes, but no lessons as such.

luckyme

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your post reminds me of Nielsio where he said that atheism, anarchism, WTC conspiracy and global warming conspiracy all fit together. He was equally as wrong as you.

You should take a poll of experts on evolution and see how many are anarchists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then ask how many of them have thought deeply about it.

[ QUOTE ]
It's kind of silly to compare evolution to the free market. You could equally argue that all of higher biology works via command and control, so any biologist should believe in government. I've yet to see a higher animal that can survive without its brain. Pretty odd that evolution would make something so vulnerable and centralized, where a tiny patch of neurons controls the fate of the whole body through hormones and nerve signals . Perhaps the system works very well?

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but I think the subject is just beyond you.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
doesn't dawkins have a passage where he talks about being an anarchist until...

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to quote it; I don't recall it. But he has several passages that show his political thinking is nowhere near as clear as his economic thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, then i'd have to find it

does it have something to do with riots in canada?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that was him quoting someone else. It's come up before on the board. Chris V I think posted it. It was a straightforward fallacy. The local police goes on strike and there is an increase of crime, hence lack of government = crime. Except that the local police have a monopoly of protection, so when they go on strike there is a complete lack of providers, not a competitive free market of providers.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh well.

i guess i don't really buy your argument anyways. perhaps you could clarify your analogy?

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's kind of silly to compare evolution to the free market. You could equally argue that all of higher biology works via command and control, so any biologist should believe in government. I've yet to see a higher animal that can survive without its brain. Pretty odd that evolution would make something so vulnerable and centralized, where a tiny patch of neurons controls the fate of the whole body through hormones and nerve signals . Perhaps the system works very well?

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but I think the subject is just beyond you.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's all you got?

I see the obvious parallels (in fact, I've mentioned them before), but the logic stretch from one to the other is LOL. It's something you do a lot - extrapolating basic concepts that you believe in way behind the point at which they run out of air.

Other people see this too, not just me.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
With the amazing amount of cooperation, symbiosis, etc, an argument could be made for socialism or communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but it's there; amongst insect species, like ants. Each happily living and working and dying for the betterment of the collective. Socialism: Great theory, wrong species (this is a joke; human socialism actually does work in very small groups, in tribal or family economies; it just can't work in larger groups).

A more marvelous example is an individual's body. What Phil fails to understand is that top down central planning indeed works beautifully when every member of the collective (all the cells of your body) do in fact inherently selflessly work toward the same goal, and all the information required for the central plan is available to the central planner (the brain). But that is the product of evolution, not the nature of the process itself. The process is completely, totally decentralized. The analogy is between the market process and the evolutionary process, not betwwen the organization of society and the organization of an individual animal. As much as Phil might want it, people will never become some New Socialist Man, tirelessly and happily toiling away for the collective. We aren't ants, nor are we the cells of our bodies, and evolution is not a centrally planned command process.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's kind of silly to compare evolution to the free market. You could equally argue that all of higher biology works via command and control, so any biologist should believe in government. I've yet to see a higher animal that can survive without its brain. Pretty odd that evolution would make something so vulnerable and centralized, where a tiny patch of neurons controls the fate of the whole body through hormones and nerve signals . Perhaps the system works very well?

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but I think the subject is just beyond you.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's all you got?

I see the obvious parallels (in fact, I've mentioned them before), but the logic stretch from one to the other is LOL. It's something you do a lot - extrapolating basic concepts that you believe in way behind the point at which they run out of air.

Other people see this too, not just me.

[/ QUOTE ]

See the next post.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are two kinds of thinking: simplistic and subtle. Simplistic thinkers cannot understand how complex and useful social orders arise from any source other than conscious planning by a purposeful mind. Subtle thinkers, in contrast, understand that individual actions often occur within settings that encourage individuals to coordinate their actions with one another independent of any overarching plan. F. A. Hayek called such unplanned but harmonious coordination “spontaneous order.” -- Donald J. Boudreaux

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are two kinds of thinking: simplistic and subtle. Simplistic thinkers cannot understand how complex and useful social orders arise from any source other than conscious planning by a purposeful mind. Subtle thinkers, in contrast, understand that individual actions often occur within settings that encourage individuals to coordinate their actions with one another independent of any overarching plan. F. A. Hayek called such unplanned but harmonious coordination “spontaneous order.” -- Donald J. Boudreaux

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Apart from the stupid binary classification, I agree with this quote.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With the amazing amount of cooperation, symbiosis, etc, an argument could be made for socialism or communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but it's there; amongst insect species, like ants. Each happily living and working and dying for the betterment of the collective. Socialism: Great theory, wrong species (this is a joke; human socialism actually does work in very small groups, in tribal or family economies; it just can't work in larger groups).

A more marvelous example is an individual's body. What Phil fails to understand is that top down central planning indeed works beautifully when every member of the collective (all the cells of your body) do in fact inherently selflessly work toward the same goal, and all the information required for the central plan is available to the central planner (the brain). But that is the product of evolution, not the nature of the process itself. The process is completely, totally decentralized. The analogy is between the market process and the evolutionary process, not betwwen the organization of society and the organization of an individual animal. As much as Phil might want it, people will never become some New Socialist Man, tirelessly and happily toiling away for the collective. We aren't ants, nor are we the cells of our bodies, and evolution is not a centrally planned command process.

[/ QUOTE ]
The concepts you're espousing are blindingly obvious, and I don't think anyone here disagrees with the basic ideas. I'm not suggesting that evolution is a centrally planned command process (lol?), I'm offering you reasoning on par with your own, in the hopes you can see the flaws in it. I guess I'm an eternal optimist.

Where we disagree is not about what evolution is, but with the blind application of these simple concepts to human affairs. In your world, with your way of thinking, the fact that governments and powerful religions exist and have always arisen has to be proof of the ability of humans to distort the social system to the detriment of freedom. I'm not sure there's an analogue in biology. Somalia and Iran and China is another of distortion to what we see in the West. In any kind of power vacuum, I think such distortions are inevitable given humanity's current level of enlightenment, which is why I think democracy is the best choice.

BTW, I'd consider myself a libertarian. I believe in the free market and lesser centralization. However, I've also travelled a bit and seen the dark side of a decentralized world.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

By the way, this post is a perfect microcosm of why I can't take you seriously, Phil.

1. <font color="red">Ad hominem and unsupported assertion</font>
2. <font color="green">Appeal to authorities that aren't even authorities on half the subject at hand,</font>
3. <font color="blue">A snide paragraph that reveals that you have completely missed the point.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Your post reminds me of Nielsio where he said that atheism, anarchism, WTC conspiracy and global warming conspiracy all fit together. He was equally as wrong as you.</font>
<font color="white"> . </font>
<font color="green">You should take a poll of experts on evolution and see how many are anarchists.</font>
<font color="white"> . </font>
<font color="blue">It's kind of silly to compare evolution to the free market. You could equally argue that all of higher biology works via command and control, so any biologist should believe in government. I've yet to see a higher animal that can survive without its brain. Pretty odd that evolution would make something so vulnerable and centralized, where a tiny patch of neurons controls the fate of the whole body through hormones and nerve signals . Perhaps the system works very well?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
In your world, with your way of thinking, the fact that governments and powerful religions exist and have always arisen has to be proof of the ability of humans to distort the social system to the detriment of freedom. I'm not sure there's an analogue in biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

Borodog is winning this thread handily.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. <font color="red">Ad hominem and unsupported assertion</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Count up your own. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
2. <font color="green">Appeal to authorities that aren't even authorities on half the subject at hand,</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
No, not at all. Perhaps you're just drunk, but your comprehension is weak tonight. You claim in the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an evolutionist . . .. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?
If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm suggesting a little empirical test - polling the people who understand evolution the best. Since they undoubtedly understand evolution better than an amateur like you, it would be equivalent to claiming that a disproportionate number are failing to apply the lessons learned...


3. <font color="blue">A snide paragraph that reveals that you have completely missed the point.</font>
Not at all. I completely get the point that the process of evolution and the process of the market are very similar, and produce amazing outcomes when given enough time. This is sophomoric, simple stuff man. No one is disagreeing with you on this point. I'm getting the point, and offering an example of the pitfalls of applying such logic too broadly. Understand? Here it is again:

Since the most advanced cell collections and cooperative systems on Earth, comprising trillions of cells, operate largely under a command and control structure, shouldn't society do the same? After all, society operates nowhere the timescale or trial scale of evolution, and is much closer to the human body on these points. Luckyme got what I meant.

BTW, to claim the brain/nerve/muscle/hormone system is decentralized is a big fat lol. The human body is very analogous to powerful government regulation and an overwhelming command structure. The only parts decentralized are low level functions - and even they are regulated.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

This works both ways, by the way.

You creationists still have my blessing to be statists.

gogogogo.

[/ QUOTE ]
statism evolved from anarchy

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, to claim the brain/nerve/muscle/hormone system is decentralized is a big fat lol. The human body is as controlled and centralized as you get.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say that I agree with you, but I still think that Borodog argued better. I'm not a fan of appealing to expert opinion, and like straight up reasoning.

If you look at either governments or corporations as super-organisms, they're behaving exactly like an individual human does. The CoG (Corporation or Government) does things at times that seem to be at odds with the constituency. It screws over large segments of the population for its own gain.

The brain does that too. Everyone does things that hurt their bodies because it feels good. The brain acts selfishly too.

If you go a certain number of levels deep, the evolution of government is following the same path as we did. And I guess that's the whole thing with evolution. Its constant struggle against entropy -should- result in a universal ecosystem. And we're just along for the ride at this point in time.

Think about what's artificial in either system. Is the central government an artificial constraint created by us, or is it a product of an evolutionary process? I say it's a product that keeps coming up time and again. To force anarchy from time to time would be the artificial constraint. Just because we named the result "centralized government" doesn't mean that it's artificial.

I say that we could wipe out government and go straight back to a free market anarchy, and within a few hundred years we'd be right back where we are. The details would be different, but the result would be the same.

Cliff's Notes: Centralized government is the natural evolution of anarchy.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

This works both ways, by the way.

You creationists still have my blessing to be statists.

gogogogo.

[/ QUOTE ]
statism evolved from anarchy

[/ QUOTE ]

I was typing mine while you posted, so I didn't copy. Good work - you're right.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

I believe in evolution because from what I've learned in school (which wasn't a whole lot) the theory seems consistent, can be observed empirically and I have no reason to doubt it.

I don't believe in anarchy as a proper political system because I want to protect the stupid and the weak (just because). The resulting economic inefficencies are just the costs for the protection of said less priviledged individuals.

Why is this inconsistent?

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in evolution because from what I've learned in school (which wasn't a whole lot) the theory seems consistent, can be observed empirically and I have no reason to doubt it.

I don't believe in anarchy as a proper political system because I want to protect the stupid and the weak (just because). The resulting economic inefficencies are just the costs for the protection of said less priviledged individuals.

Why is this inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever you have "just because" as part of your reasoning you're conceding that your ideas aren't consistent.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

Humans have astoundingly brought the process of evolution to a sub-generational process. We are impressed by our parents, our peers and the people that command our respect. Our species excels because of this open-endedness of the mind and the way we are shaped by our culture in our youth.

Stop me if I mischaracterize you Borodog. It seems you are denying social Darwinism outright. Competition is the essence of evolution, are you implying that competition doesn't exist between the most powerful societies in existence today? Is it a procedural problem you have with it or a philosophical one? You argue, 'our system is weak,' but is it possible for evolution to produce anything but its greatest achievement as the most powerful entity?

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

This works both ways, by the way.

You creationists still have my blessing to be statists.

gogogogo.

[/ QUOTE ]
statism evolved from anarchy

[/ QUOTE ]

i was playing around with a few different responses to the question but i like this one so i'll just /sign.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe in evolution because from what I've learned in school (which wasn't a whole lot) the theory seems consistent, can be observed empirically and I have no reason to doubt it.

I don't believe in anarchy as a proper political system because I want to protect the stupid and the weak (just because). The resulting economic inefficencies are just the costs for the protection of said less priviledged individuals.

Why is this inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever you have "just because" as part of your reasoning you're conceding that your ideas aren't consistent.

[/ QUOTE ] There is no ultimate goal for humans. Saying that it is our goal to maximize anyone's utility is just as valid as saying that we should help stupid and weak people to reach a certain standard of living at the expense of everbody else's utility.

That does not make me inconsistent, just willing to act inefficiently.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

whats a good book about evolution and anarchism in simple terms for leisure reading?

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an evolutionist . . .

. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

An embarrassingly idealistic post. I recommend cutting your losses now and stop bumping this thread.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

"statism evolved from anarchy"

Evolution, like the progress of humanity, is not a solid line, but rather a case of two steps forward and one step backwards. Statism is like the child born without a nose; it is a tragedy of "random" mutations.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

I'm an "evolutionist" and an anarchist, and understand your point Borodog. However, I can't quite get on-board here.

Sure, I agree that the mechanisms in evolution which produce complex, seemingly "designed" organisms are similar (or let's even say equivalent) to the action of the free market. Nevertheless, that identification doesn't justify accepting the truth of the latter *because* the former is true (or the converse). Each must be justified independently.

It is in general fallacious to make political or economic conclusions based upon scientific theories. (That doesn't imply the former shouldn't be approached rationally via the scientific method, however.) I'm an ACist because (I claim) it follows from man's natural rights, which in turn follows from man's nature. That argument holds regardless of the biological origin of our species.

I disagree with the implicit utilitarianism in your argument. Yes, the free market "works," but that is not why I'm in favor of it.

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
"statism evolved from anarchy"

Evolution, like the progress of humanity, is not a solid line, but rather a case of two steps forward and one step backwards. Statism is like the child born without a nose; it is a tragedy of "random" mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]
value judgements on evolution are a mistake. Nor is there any backwards and forwards.

chez

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
Then ask how many of them have thought deeply about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I wasn't taking part in this thread. I consider myself pretty on the ball wrt evolution and I'm certainly not an anarchist. But then you could just trot that out that little gem "You haven't thought enough about the other part." and where can the discussion go from there?

I've said in the past that you can have this kind of condescending color to some of your posts where it comes off like you think that you're the only person that have given these topics any real thought.

There are certainly large similarities between evolutionary theory and economics. However, many people that make these analogies use only a few aspects of evolutionary theory.

There's a lot going on there that they seem to minimize that does not fit the rigid logic (maybe the realpolitik of evolution?) that they see.

I've joked with you before about your damned physicist logic and I think it's your training as a physicist that gives you this view. I think AC works fine theoretically with a constrained set of information - much like certain evolutionary ideas do. However, when you look at the evolution behind our species' behavior, potential constraints, and evolution's "dirtiness" in getting to a solution for a problem (should have that in quotes too) then I see problems occurring.

[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but I think the subject is just beyond you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is unfair. I would say I have had some of the more serious, and occasionally ugly (although I think we've gotten much better) disagreements with Phil153, I think he's very intelligent and educated and I get a lot out of his posts - even when I disagree with them. Even the posts that I think he's most wrongheaded make me re-evaluate and defend my position - which I find very useful.
At no point (that I can recall - there may be a heated or drunken post or two out there somewhere) did I just dismiss the debate with something like the above. What are we here for anyways?

Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why?

If you aren't, I don't think you really understand evolution, or else you have an inconsistent worldview in which you have failed to apply the lessons learned in one field to the other.

This works both ways, by the way.

You creationists still have my blessing to be statists.

gogogogo.

[/ QUOTE ]
statism evolved from anarchy

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. So what?

This is another comment that clearly misses the point.