Evolution and Economy

[ZenitYerkes]

A simile:

Darwin's principles

1 - Variation: In the same environment, in the same species and even in the same families there are differences between individuals.
2 - Adaptation: The environment poses a series of problems to which the individuals' traits must have the solutions to. Those who can't adapt to the environment die.
3 - Competition: Resources are limited, and only the most capable of getting them will survive. Those which can't, perish.
4 - Heritage: Those who manage to survive share the "trait solution" with their descendants.

These are the principles on which the natural selection process is based on. I might add another one:

5 - Immunisation: Humans are the only species so far able to stay indifferent to this process; for they don't need to have this solutions in their nature, but can work them out through reasoning.

Just to put an example, imagine giraffes with a shorter neck, grazing in the steppes of Africa. One year the environment gets more arid than usual and the lawn disappears; but the trees remain. Taking in count not all individuals in the same species are the same: those who have a longer neck than the rest and, therefore, eat the leaves -survive. Those with a shorter neck die, for they can't simply eat.

These surviving giraffes with a longer neck reproduce; being their descendants born with a bit longer necks than the previous generation. As the environment got more and more arid, giraffes eventually could only eat from trees and therefore, only those with longer and longer necks survived.

Let's apply this to economy.

Darwinian Economy

1 - Variation: For the same market, in the same service, there are differences between companies; also, the employees' skills are different from each other.
2 - Adaptation: The market poses a series of demands and problems the companies and employees must have the solution to. Those who can't supply this demand properly, close.
3 - Competition: Both the resources needed and the demand is limited, and only the most capable and competent will manage to get them. Otherwise, they close.
4 - Heritage: The "solution tactics" to the problems the market poses are transmitted and copied. Old tactics and skills become obsolete and useless.

5 - Immunisation: Instead of closing or living in poverty, companies and people who can't compete are helped by the government through welfare benefits.

It's still the survival of the fittest.

Making this simile... I wonder, should we let the "economic selection" act freely?

[Isard]

Social Darwinism was rampant during the industrial revolution, the idea that the strong are successful and survive and rise if their strong enough does not work however. Simply because those on top strangled the masses in their attempts to garner more power. Currently, most economies use a variation of social Darwinism, with an added "safety net" of social services to aid those at the bottom.

tl;dr We tried it, it failed.

[Tsyal Makto]

Want to see how well this worked out? Go take a trip to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Want to see how well this worked out? Go take a trip to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.

...Somalia got that way from General Barre's regime.

Communism. Then it turned into a taliban-like state. Where'd you get the idea they're "libertarian"?

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

...Somalia got that way from General Barre.

Communism.

Its extreme libertarianism now. Total self reliance and self regulation. Anarchy at its finest.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Want to see how well this worked out? Go take a trip to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.

Anarchist, not libertarian. Huge difference

People who consider anarchism and libertarianism equivalent have zero understanding of either.

[Woodsprite]

Libertarianism... even "extreme" libertarianism isn't anarchy.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Libertarianism... even "extreme" libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Yes, the extreme end of Libertarianism is anarchy.

There are two main branches of libertarianism and each has a radical answer to the query. One group, the anarchists…holds that all government is illegitimate. The other group, generally called minarchists, maintains that government may appropriately engage in police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defense, but that is all.…[Murray N.] Rothbard himself is on the anarchist wing of the movement. Both by his writings and by personal influence, Rothbard is the principal founder of modern libertarianism.

The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought(Entry: Libertarianism); Edited by David Miller, Advisory Editors: Janet Coleman, William Connolly, Alan Ryan; Blackwell Publishers, Oxford(UK), Massachusetts(USA); 1987, Revised: 1991. Reprint: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000; ISBN 0-631-14011-5 ISBN 0-631-17944-5 (pbk)

[Woodsprite]

That's not true. Anarchists are inherently opposed to the ownership of any private property, while libertarians (even the far end) rest on the concepts of it. It supports individualism, self-ownership, and market exchange. Anarchism does not.

Rothbard has a serious problem with understanding the difference between the nature of market institutions and the nature of coercive entities. Libertarianism is against any form of coercion by an outside force. It is not, however, against government-rule, as long as the ultimate authority rests with the people to decide where it takes its decisions, where the state then does the best of its ability to carry them out. Though, this doesn't necessarily mean libertarians are for unlimited majority rule; that's where our Constitution comes in (but that's a whole other discussion that has nothing to do with Somalia).

Where Rothbard was confused was that market institutions have no involvement in the use of coercion. It was a misnomer on his part to assume that market institutions and coercive entities were related. Rothbard was wrong.

[Tsyal Makto]

That's ideal libertarianism, and you're comparing it to stereotypical anarchy. From an ideological standpoint libertarianism and anarchy are different ideologies (though admittedly similar, one more market-centric/with a 'lil more government than the other), but in reality libertarianism is pretty much just anarchy for rich people only. They want to get the government off their backs so they can have their way with the masses. The only difference is that the one screwing you over goes from being the government to being corporations. Same ****, different *******. Just like in Somalia, the power just goes from being in the hands of a central government to local warlords and gang leaders. When libertarianism is put into the real world, preferential treatment is given to the ruling class, while the predation still remains for the rest of us.

Anarchy in the real world is actually an interesting ideology. For it to work, all predatory centers of power must be taken down, whether it be governmental or not, including corporations and warlords. "Anarchy" that still allows centers of power (ie: libertarianism in the real world) leads to situations like Somalia. Anarchy were power is truly put in the hands of the people leads to places like Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, which actually became somewhat of a utopia.

I would venture to say that if Somalia truly had anarchy, and that the power was really in the hands of the people of Somalia, not in the hands of the warlords or gangs, and that the people could truly rule their own world and get what they wanted, things would actually improve. Though the three big obstacles to this are that: 1) The environment is totally shot to hell, 2) The people of Somalia are undereducated, and 3) religious extremism. With that said, Somalia needs a strong central government right now - to heal the land and the people, and squelch the warlords and religious extremists - so that maybe one day they could truly rule themselves, and be another Catalonia. Though the current system - where preferential treatment is given to the elite, who can freely continue to destroy the country - will never work.

So with all that out there, the two best political systems for a society that wishes to be stable, healthy and free, would either be one with a strong, democratically elected government (if it has predatory institutions that must be kept in check) or no government at all (if the society has managed to purge itself of all predatory institutions). However, a system that gives preferential treatment to the rich and powerful is not a system that will lead to a free, stable society for the people.

[Woodsprite]

I think the point here is not whether Somalia is in a state of anarchy vs. libertarianism. Libertarianism supports government while anarchy opposes it. They're polar opposites. Even when you go to their extremes, they both adhere to certain principles, and those principles aren't eye-to-eye.

The question we should be looking at is: how did Somalia get this way? The answer isn't "Libertarianism", the answer is "Communism under General Barre". Libertarianism had nothing to do with the state that Somalia is in today, as history shows.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

That's ideal libertarianism, and you're comparing it to stereotypical anarchy. From an ideological standpoint libertarianism and anarchy are different ideologies (though admittedly similar, one more market-centric/with a 'lil more government than the other), but in reality libertarianism is pretty much just anarchy for rich people only. They want to get the government off their backs so they can have their way with the masses.

Completely wrong. Libertarianism opposes everything from excessive tax and wasting of money by governments to censorship and interference.

The only difference is that the one screwing you over goes from being the government to being corporations. Same ****, different *******. Just like in Somalia, the power just goes from being in the hands of a central government to local warlords and gang leaders.

In one model of anarchism. In a true libertarian country, neither would have the power to.

When libertarianism is put into the real world, preferential treatment is given to the ruling class, while the predation still remains for the rest of us.

Do you even understand what libertarianism is? You're thinking of anarchism with power blocs.

Anarchy in the real world is actually an interesting ideology. For it to work, all predatory centers of power must be taken down, whether it be governmental or not, including corporations and warlords. "Anarchy" that still allows centers of power (ie: libertarianism in the real world) leads to situations like Somalia. Anarchy were power is truly put in the hands of the people leads to places like Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, which actually became somewhat of a utopia.

The point of having a single centre of power which uses its power only to protect the national interests where necessary and protect the rights of people to their private lives is the ENTIRE POINT.
Anarchy with true lack of power might work, assuming every single individual avoids taking advantage of it, which will never happen because it requires people to go against their nature.

I would venture to say that if Somalia truly had anarchy, and that the power was really in the hands of the people of Somalia, not in the hands of the warlords or gangs, and that the people could truly rule their own world and get what they wanted, things would actually improve.

Anarchy is a lack of central government or other single ruling authority. Fits perfectly to me.

Though the three big obstacles to this are that: 1) The environment is totally shot to hell, 2) The people of Somalia are undereducated, and 3) religious extremism. With that said, Somalia needs a strong central government right now - to heal the land and the people, and squelch the warlords and religious extremists - so that maybe one day they could truly rule themselves, and be another Catalonia. Though the current system - where preferential treatment is given to the elite, who can freely continue to destroy the country - will never work.

Now this part, I do agree with.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I think the point here is not whether Somalia is in a state of anarchy vs. libertarianism. Libertarianism supports government while anarchy opposes it. They're polar opposites. Even when you go to their extremes, they both adhere to certain principles, and those principles aren't eye-to-eye.

The question we should be looking at is: how did Somalia get this way? The answer isn't "Libertarianism", the answer is "Communism under General Barre". Libertarianism had nothing to do with the state that Somalia is in today, as history shows.

Exactly. Libertarianism can still promote a strong government, just one that lets people live their lives without interference where practical. Somalia is closest to a failed state. There is a government, but its lack of control is due to weakness and religious extremism rather than any active decision to be the way it is.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

snip

Maybe libertarianism means something different in Europe, here in the US it has come to mean basically what I described. Libertarians here want a weak federal government, and basically all it's responsibilities handed over to private industry. Grover Norquist said he basically wanted to "drown government in the bath tub." Rand Paul said he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act because he feels it should be up to private business to determine who they do or do not serve. So maybe libertarianism here has departed from it's textbook definition and is basically becoming like anarcho-capitalism (which is a form of anarchy that would not end well for the people).

[Spock]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

A simile:



Just to put an example, imagine giraffes with a shorter neck, grazing in the steppes of Africa. One year the environment gets more arid than usual and the lawn disappears; but the trees remain. Taking in count not all individuals in the same species are the same: those who have a longer neck than the rest and, therefore, eat the leaves -survive. Those with a shorter neck die, for they can't simply eat.

These surviving giraffes with a longer neck reproduce; being their descendants born with a bit longer necks than the previous generation. As the environment got more and more arid, giraffes eventually could only eat from trees and therefore, only those with longer and longer necks survived.

Let's apply this to economy.



It's still the survival of the fittest.

Making this simile... I wonder, should we let the "economic selection" act freely?

Biology is life.

[ZenitYerkes]

Anarchy lets the strongest rule.

Libertarianism lets those who have money rule.

Socialism lets the State rule.

On a side note: I for one am an Anarchist, but I don't pretend to tear down the State for those people who need a piece of paper to behave.