THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE (nash vs pareto) (important concept) Women are suppos

THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE

(nash vs pareto) (important concept)

Women are supposed to be drawn to socialism. Men are supposed to be drawn to Aristocracy. These are words for the female reproductive strategy and the male reproductive strategy at scale.

Its when we compromise through markets for marriage, markets for goods and services, markets for commons, and markets for rule, that we achieve the best possible even if it’s not the ideal for each given man or woman.

Conversely, pursuit of ideals can only occur if we end the compromise between men’s and women’s reproductive strategies.

Which is what we have been doing for the past century.

In economic parlance this is the difference between a NATURAL NASH equilibrium that we evolved under, and the UNNATURAL PARETO equilibrium that the socialist state attempts to create through forcible redistribution – violating the contract for compromise between the genders: male and female and the classes: the estates of the realm.

Paring off into mates (and admittedly cheating now and then) is the optimum evolutionary and social strategy. It creates incentives for the worse performers, and disincentives for greed for the best performers.

There is a reason we evolved serial monogamy before we developed property and a division of labor, and we evolved monogamy after we developed property and a division of labor.

That reason is that markets (pairing-off) provide us with the BEST OVERALL solution to our differences in value and ability, even though it doesn’t provide the best solution for either the best or the worst. (and yes, there are bad people that shouldn’t breed).

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.