the market isn’t sufficient for ostracization. this is one of the fallacies of l

the market isn’t sufficient for ostracization.

this is one of the fallacies of libertarianism. in fact, minor increases in transaction costs produce multiplier effects on the economy and property rights and as a consequence – demand for the state.

This argument goes back to one of the fallacies of introspection: which ‘man’ is ‘man’? Is he the superpredator that must be domesticated? The rational actor that we must limit to productive ends? The peaceful cooperator that was oppressed by the evolution of government or the state? Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau?

Must we use authority(hobbes), markets(locke), or caretaking(rousseau) to construct our society for most optimum ends?

or is it, as I have proposed, that man is a rational actor and that through domestication (eugenic reproduction by market means) we have limited the pool of humans to those that can function within the market order?

We make use of KIN SELECTION in the pursuit of opportunities, NORMATIVE ostracization as a means of depriving others of opportunities , and CRIMINAL prosecution in order to punish them for violations, and WAR when all else fails.

Because we must do so.

only children or those with the minds of children seek monopoly solutions. There are three methods of coercion: violence and its threat, remuneration/deprivation of opportunity, and rallying/shaming.

Lose any one and you merely open the door for predation by that means.