If you are an evolutionist . . .

[Borodog]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Count up your own. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am very civil to those who are civil to me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]

You propose to ask a bunch of evolutionary biologists or the like and see how many are anarchists. I asked you to also ask them how many have thought about it deeply, and you come back with the fact that they understand evolution, and completely ignore the other half of the discussion, political theory and anarchism.

See, most people who study and apply evolutionary concepts professionally don't spend a lot of time studying political theory. How do I know? Because I know their equivalent, professional physicists, and they don't either. I've never met a single professional scientist in person who has seriously studied the literature of anarchist thought and theory. Not one. So polling them and asking how many are anarchists is a waste of time.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

An outline of what I've said: "Those who understand how unplanned selection amongst competing variants leads to staggering order should understand that selection by consumers amongst competing producers leads to staggering social order without requiring any central planning (i.e. government)."

Your attempt: "Because the decentralized evolutionary process has yielded centralized command structure within individual animals, we should desire a centralized command process to run a decentralizes society."

One of these things is not like the other.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are conflating PROCESS with RESULT. I am making an analogy between PROCESS and PROCESS.