Juan Sebastian Ortiz: —“Britain´s approach to evolution has not been the selfi

Juan Sebastian Ortiz:

—“Britain´s approach to evolution has not been the selfish gene one but a value loaded social darwinistic one which raises an eyebrow of suspicion as it developed in the imperialistic era of agricultural-industrial domination over hunter gatherers throughout the world. If the data about the Ashkenazi jewish IQ is correct and the argument proposed by Gregory Clark in his Farewell to Alms is correct. There´s no reason to disbelieve that: given an unhampered market, sovereign private property society without a state and the consequent welfare programs that follow from it(military overproduction, affirmative action, minimum wage, etc included) the intergenerational tendency would be eugenic. EVEN controlling for higher availability of medical facilities, pharmaceuticals, etc. After all many of the genes responsible for immune processes are fairly recent….The [active] social darwinism of the 19th century is antiquated and unnecessary given the fundamental institutions of a free society. Having said that here are some Hegelian thoughts on anarcho-libertarianism as the millennial crusade for the Spirit of the world emanating the ultimate and final ethic.”—

Well said. Elegantly. My question is whether the NAP/IVP is a sufficient basis for that order anarchic order. Propertarianism would suggest that high performing groups adhere to much, much, higher standards, and then subjugate their masses by using lower standards, and trade with other states on even lower standards. I think that the NAP/IVP is too low a standard if we ask people to voluntarily join an anarchic polity. And we only think it’s OK because as libertarians we have a cognitive bias (moral blindness) that discounts the cost of OBJECTIVELY unethical and immoral actions as described by Propertarianism’s spectrum that prohibits free riding.

Free Riding is the negative claim and property the positive claim, but the two claims are identical under propertarianism. Where under NAP/IVP prevention of free riding stops at physical aggression. However, people with higher moral thresholds (and who are stronger) see actions such as blackmail, and ‘cheating’, as well as immoral behavior, as violations of the contract for cooperation which puts in place the prohibition on free riding.

I would never join a low trust polity, because it would be poorer than a higher trust polity, since trust determines the velocity of innovation, production and trade.

So I agree with your argument that all we need is an anarchic polity. I disagree that the NAP/IVP is sufficient for the formation of it. And while I haven’t done surveys yet to prove it (I will) science, logic and history, are pretty clearly on my side.

Anarchy is right. Sure. But the NAP/IVP is insufficient. I do not have the empirical evidence to demonstrate what level of suppression of free riding in the unethical and immoral range would be required for the formation of a voluntary polity, but I suggest that it will be far closer to the very limit of Propertarianism’s spectrum of prohibitions, than it is to rothbard’s NAP/IVP.

Hopefully within a year or two I will have that evidence.

But I’ll put money on the fact that only indoctrinated rothbardians choose the NAP/IVP level of suppression. That’s because it’s pretty clear that human beings prefer (logically) seller beware, rather than buyer beware. And propertarianism ensconces that in the legal code.

Thanks for great (rare) dialog.

Curt