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.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duke,

You're conflating result with process.

Central nervous systems are great for some organisms, which is why they have them, and not good for other organisms, which is why they don't. Human society is not anaologous to the cells of an individual organism. The cells of the organism all work together for a common end. Individuals all have individual ends, and those ends are largely conflicting, and the means to achieve them are scarce. A centrally planned structure works fine for achieving the common ends of the cells within a single individual, but a decentralized selection process is what organizes and harmonizes the disparate ends of disparate individuals. The individuals that make up society do not have common ends, nor can the information required to organize society actually be centralized (or indeed generated in the first place under some circumstances like communal ownership of the factors of production, but that's another thread).

The fact that government evolved from anarchy is neither here nor there. Religion evolved from the absence of religion, but that doesn't imply that religion is required. The common cold is hard to erradicate, but that doesn't mean that it is necessary or good or inevitable. If we can eliminate a virus like smallpox or religion or government, there is no reason for it to spontaneously regenerate. In the case of religion and government, these are memetic viruses, mind viruses. They can only take root in minds that have been prepared for them by cultures that make the soil fertile to their kind. If you can get to a culture where people don't believe in the necessity of a special class of people who are allowed to commit crime, there is no possible way for government to arise.

[MelchyBeau]

Boro,

why do you keep trying to discuss politics in the SMP forum?

[Borodog]

[ 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 ]

Because if you actually understood evolutionary theory and could apply the principles to political and economic theory, you would understand that it is actually the market that best protects the "stupid" and the weak, and that "the resulting economic inefficiencies" of government are exactly the costs which harm the less "privileged" individuals the most.

It is the competition amongst producers for scarce dollars that increases the supply of goods and services to the poor and weak. It is the competition of eyeglass manufacturers that allows those with poor vision to see, the competition of hearing aid manufacturers that allows the hard of hearing to hear, the competition of prosthetic manufacturers that allows amputees to walk, the competition of doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies that allows the infirm to survive and thrive, the competition amongst gun manufacturers that allows the weak to protect themselves, and so on for every conceivable good or service and the nearly infinitely varied producers thereof.

It is our reason, our language, and our hands, provided by the decentralized process of evolution that has allowed us to become ever more successful while becoming ever weaker, with ever smaller teeth and claws, by replacing the competition to consume scarce resources with specialization, the division of labor and exchange and the competition to increase the supply of scarce resources.

Government can do nothing but interfere with and damage this process, and the costs are borne by the poorest and the weakest among us.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Boro,

why do you keep trying to discuss politics in the SMP forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it so hard to understand that political, economic, and evolutionary theory belong in SMP?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
This is another comment that clearly misses the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly.

PairTheBoard

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that someone who actually understands the logic of evolution should be able to apply that same understanding to economic theory and arive, independently, at the correct result.

[ QUOTE ]
(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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is a correct biological origin of that species. And for those who understand that process they should be able to apply the implications thereof to their understanding of origins of social order. That's all I'm saying.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is any utilitarianism, implicit or otherwise. Is evolutionary theory "utilitarian" or is it natural?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it can go in the direction where people admit this this is actually the case. That anarchy is an extremely deep subject with a history and literature that goes back hundreds (indeed thousands) of years to some of history's most brilliant thinkers, and their knee-jerk "anarchy lol" default attitude just might be ill informed.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps true. Does this change the fact that the vast majority of people who so casually dismiss anarchy in their single paragraph posts have never studied it, or that there has been a steady stream of intelligent posters who have adopted the philosophy after months of argument and study? No.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

But you've never really been able to elaborate on any of this. Frankly, it makes little sense to me. The market is every bit as "dirty" (whatever this means) as evolution and vice versa. Clearly evolution can't be so "theoretically dirty" as to prevent it from operating. Why do you so nebulously assume that the market must be?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with Phil is that either the subject is beyond him, or else he simply isn't interested in an honest discussion on this topic. He has his preconceived notions, and his participation is limited to coming in to threads like this one and pissing all over them (like he did here), creating strawman caricatures of arguments and theory (as he did here), hurling insults and then feigning indignity or righteousness, etc. At no point in this thread did he actually quote anything I said and deconstruct it and attempt to show that it was wrong. Rather he constructed a fallacious argument and claimed that it was analogous to mine, thus claiming mine is somehow fallacious. I can never tell if he actually believes these kinds of things are legitimate arguments, or if he is just being intellectually dishonest and just arguing for the sake of arguing on the internets.

So either the subject is beyond him, or else he isn't interested in an actual discussion. Which is it? Probably some of both. Either way, he's a waste of my time. I would ignore him completely if it weren't for the possibility that the casual reader might take my non-response to his pseudo-arguments as some sort of concession inability.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what I'm here for. It's what Phil is here for that I have misgivings about.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've said anything about Social Darwinism.

[ QUOTE ]
Competition is the essence of evolution, are you implying that competition doesn't exist between the most powerful societies in existence today?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not at all. There's a reason that societies based on a norm including the private ownership of the factors of product (largely the west) outcompeted Stone Age societies that lacked this norm, as well as modern instantiations thereof (industrial communism).

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. There is no such thing as "its greatest achievement." A Great White Shark is certainly more powerful than a hummingbird, but is it actually any more "great"? I think not.

Again, just because smallpox and government have evolved to afflict mankind doesn't make them right or good or inevitable.

[Phil153]

You're much more interesting to read when you're lucid.

[ 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)."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a monstrous claim. A few of the problems I can see with it:

- You're isolating the act of consumer selection and comparing only that to evolution. There are many more factors not analogous to evolution that affect social order.

- You do not in any way quantify the time scales involved or the breadth of the trials. Evolution required a billion years and trillions of parallel trials to produce a single worm. A designer (or a tweaker) could do far better.

- The process already exists, in huge volumes. Businesses that can provide what people want grow and do well, those that can't, die off. We see it with hundreds of thousands of startups every year. You fail to explain how removing government from this process will greatly spur the system to becoming a supersystem, when consumer choice is already the main selection mechanism for the vast majority of goods and businesses. That's kind of off topic, but related to point: how do you explain the situation in Somalia? Surely they have a vast number of people willing to sell goods and a vast number of people wanting to buy them. HEAPS of selection pressure. And yet there is little social order, and it's far from a desirable place to live.

- You haven't demonstrated that the market is a better selector of fitness than the government. Isn't the government comprised of people as well? There are many different types of selection in evolution also, and some are highly beneficial. For example, the government may provide selection pressure for those that do business honestly, or that accurately report the weight of their products, or that don't collude, or that don't pollute the environment. They do this via regulations. I fail to see how many of these things are negative selection pressures. I also fail to see how consumer selection pressure is magically the path to social order and automatically superior to government choice. What you lack is hard evidence that the market can indeed produce the desirable kind of order. Which leads to my killer point:

- How do you define order? Evolution produces "staggering order". The market can produce "staggering social order". But what kind of order? Is a system where warlords roam over the country, collecting extortion money, "ordered"? Is a system where a tyrant rules over the land, "order"? What about one where society collapses, and descends into violent anarchy? Is that still "order"? In the evolutionary sense, such a system is analogous to what goes on in the body via cancer and the immune system.

What this basically means: The evolution analogue does not provide evidence that society will have any kind of order resembling something that people would want. Which is the only thing in question when it comes to AC.

In your reply to Mr. Blah:
[ QUOTE ]
Because if you actually understood evolutionary theory and could apply the principles to political and economic theory, you would understand that it is actually the market that best protects the "stupid" and the weak, and that "the resulting economic inefficiencies" of government are exactly the costs which harm the less "privileged" individuals the most.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't evolution kill off the stupid and the weak? Isn't that one of the main processes by which it works? The strong take the resources and breeding opportunities from the weak. Similarly, the market kills off the inefficient and those who can't appeal effectively to the whims of their fellow humans. I fail to see how this qualifies as protection...

If you wish to argue that the Eugenics is a noble goal, or that nature-induced eugenics is tolerable or desirable, then that's an interesting but separate discussion.

One of the functions of government (and one of its evils according to you) is that it subsidizes the weak. Unless you think the weak and sick suffer merely from lack of motivation, I don't see the case that the market will protect them. Unless you want to go with George Bush's "make the pie higher" philosophy, which is neither properly quantified nor particularly supported by any evidence IMO.