The very much established - just to get that out of the way - field of evolutionary biology has already found its way into libertarian political thinking (see Michael Shermer: Mind of the Market), and there is quite rightly so an affinity between the ideas of Darwin's self-regulatory nature and Smith's self-regulatory market system. Even religion has lately come under scrutiny by evolutionary thinkers (see Daniel Dennett: Breaking the Spell); and for some time now the wonderful theories of Maxine Sheets-Johnstone on the evolution of Thinking and Experiencing have been out there (see Sheets-Johnstone: The Roots of Thinking and Sheets-Johnstone: The Primacy of Movement).
An idea behind libertarian thinking (originating in writing with Adam Smith) is that human interaction naturally falls into certain - often beneficial - patterns so that our societies and our markets tend to be the result of the coalescence of diverse, sometimes antagonistic, interests. Libertarians (and I am such) tend to believe that this proces produces just, happy and productive societies and individuals if just simply left alone; that societies form properly from the bottom-up, and that they are more often than not disturbed or even destroyed from the top-down.
There is a parallel to the creationists of modern day. They, like socialist politicians, believe that because they cannot fathom the complex bottom-up operations that create the equilibria of organic and economic systems, it must have then been created by a outside agent operating for the good of all. The fundamentalist religious people view god as the great creator of order and good in the world, just like socialists view the state as the creator of organised society. No such thing, they postulate - be it about organisms, markets, or societies - could just have happened without some supreme guidance.
Now, there is somewhat of a challenge in this way of thinking - that we as a species tend to organise ourselves and our interactions from the bottom-up. The challenge is that I simply don't believe that free societies arise naturally. Judging from history, it seems to take a great deal of effort. Historically, it has involved writing constitutions and contracts between free men (sorry, not between free women), establishing non-partisan courts and arbitration system, dismantling the men (again, not women) in power and often dismantling their heads as well. Free societies - or the constitutional approximations that we see today - have taken the courage of a million soldiers and the minds of a thousand thinkers. That, to my mind, seems to be the case, anyway. Societies, left by their own devices at the mercy of the ignorance of men, develop horribly seen from the vantage point of individual freedom: They become riddled with dictators, pharaohs, kings, lords, shoguns, and caliphs. Freedom takes an effort. Right?
Here's my problem: If it takes an effort to create (approximations of) free societies, does it not also take an effort to maintain free societies? And what shape does this effort take if not that particularly ghastly top-down popularity contest called parliamentarism with all its lobbying, all its interpretations, all its laws and adjudications? All its modern America, and Britain, and Europe.
Anyone?
It requires steadfast conviction and willingness to endure more pain than your statist adversaries. The person who outlast everyone else will win. This is a matter of personal conviction, not of how ethical your position you are.
For example, my dad got fussy about my room being messy so he demanded that I clean up. I put up with some beating and other assorted effort to convince me. Than he said that he will not leave my room until my room is cleaned up. So I offer him a compromise that I will clean up after he leave the room. He refuse to accept the compromise.
Eventually after about 45-60 minutes he gave up. I did as I promise to make sure he didn't get fussy next time. The victory goes to me.
Sure, I took lot of pain and could have gotten my father out of my room hours much faster by doing as I told but that doesn't suit with my desire to become an independent young adult(I am 17).
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Rytz: An idea behind libertarian thinking (originating in writing with Adam Smith) is that human interaction naturally falls into certain - often beneficial - patterns so that our societies and our markets tend to be the result of the coalescence of diverse, sometimes antagonistic, interests. Libertarians (and I am such) tend to believe that this proces produces just, happy and productive societies and individuals if just simply left alone; that societies form properly from the bottom-up, and that they are more often than not disturbed or even destroyed from the top-down. There is a parallel to the creationists of modern day. They, like socialist politicians, believe that because they cannot fathom the complex bottom-up operations that create the equilibria of organic and economic systems, it must have then been created by a outside agent operating for the good of all. The fundamentalist religious people view god as the great creator of order and good in the world, just like socialists view the state as the creator of organised society. No such thing, they postulate - be it about organisms, markets, or societies - could just have happened without some supreme guidance.
I've thought about that. And I think it's the wrong conclusion.
Evolution (beginning with the Big Bang) states that the modern universe was evolved from the bottom-up by forces of nature over billions of years. Particles evolved into atoms, atoms evolved into molecules, molecules evolved into cells, and primates evolved into humans.
Intelligent design simply states that the cosmos could not have come into existence without an intelligent designer, be it a god or an extraterrestrial-being. (Even Francis Crick, who helped discover the structure of the DNA molecule, stated that it was to complex to have been developed by natural forces, and must have been created by some sort of alien being.)
How does this compare with Austrian economics? The Austrian school stresses the importance of living, conscious beings deliberately maximizing utility on the free market. That makes it closer to ID the evolution, in my opinion. Economic schools that pretend that all economic activities are the inevitable result of complicated theories and formulas and downplay the importance of individual choice are closer the evolution.
I'd also like to point out that evolution is promoted using a highly elitist tone that is antithetical to liberty and the free market. Many evolutionist refuse to debate creationists publicly so as not to give the "credibility". The attitude is "I have a Nobel Prize, and you don't."
I read a few years back in Scientific American about a team of scientists working on a project involving atomic physics. Some of the scientists won the Nobel Prize, and a few did not, even thought they all worked together on the same project. The difference? Some were high-ranking members of Creationist and ID organizations, and the others were not.
I'd like to point out evolution is highly subsidized by government. Universities and laboratories staffed with evolutionists are given billions of tax dollars, ensuring that the latest discoveries are always interpreted from an evolutionist point-of-view. Students are then indoctrinated to accept the evolutionist theories through free and compulsory education. It's no wonder that intelligent design theorists have difficulty combatting evolution; the evolutionists, after all, have every resource at their disposal.
My point is, if we had a free market in science and education (completely voluntary funding), intelligent design might becoming the prevailing theory.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi: Intelligent design simply states that the cosmos could not have come into existence without an intelligent designer, be it a god or an extraterrestrial-being. (Even Francis Crick, who helped discover the structure of the DNA molecule, stated that it was to complex to have been developed by natural forces, and must have been created by some sort of alien being.)
Who designed the designer?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron:Who designed the designer?
Ask Mr. Crick.
Why, the undesigned designer!
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
What it takes is the elimination of fear, and the endowment of responsibility. Things tend to work okay the less rules there are. By "okay" I mean that they are always full of vitality and progress. Dictators and authoritative states always fail because of disobedience. When all must be directed to pursue a goal, everything must work as a machine, with nothing going wrong regardless of its size or importance.
As far as these states and empires are concerned in view of evolution, they are all dead ends. They have not obtained their objective to continue their empire(offspring) into eternity. This is so because machines such as empires are ruled from the top down, from the finish line to the starting line. They define a goal and then pursue it. But authority needs to be there to keep people focused on that goal. If one worker strays, the goal can not be accomplished.
That is what is wrong with utopian societies: they and their people have a goal to pursue. When people have no goals to pursue, that is what keeps a free society free. But nothing is going to stay free because man has desires and the ability to put them into action. There will still be murder and theft, but maybe not war and taxation.
If children just create a task too have fun, no one will lose. But when things become as to have point, rules are needed to pursue that point. And those rules keep the task stagnant and atrophic. The children may have more fun when they see what has become of them just creating a plan with no purpose, or they may not.
So to keep a "free society" free, will itself become a state in order to pursue that goal of liberty. We must give up goals and pursue creation, for the sake of itself, with no goal in mind.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Sorry, reading Nietzche lately.
ama gi:I've thought about that. And I think it's the wrong conclusion.
ama gi:Evolution (beginning with the Big Bang)
ama gi:states that the modern universe was evolved from the bottom-up by forces of nature over billions of years. Particles evolved into atoms, atoms evolved into molecules, molecules evolved into cells, and primates evolved into humans.
ama gi:Intelligent design simply states that the cosmos could not have come into existence without an intelligent designer, be it a god or an extraterrestrial-being. (Even Francis Crick, who helped discover the structure of the DNA molecule, stated that it was to complex to have been developed by natural forces, and must have been created by some sort of alien being.)
IOW: you're not helping your case.
ama gi:How does this compare with Austrian economics? The Austrian school stresses the importance of living, conscious beings deliberately maximizing utility on the free market.
ama gi:I'd also like to point out that evolution is promoted using a highly elitist tone that is antithetical to liberty and the free market.
ama gi: Many evolutionist refuse to debate creationists publicly so as not to give the "credibility".
ama gi:I'd like to point out evolution is highly subsidized by government. Universities and laboratories staffed with evolutionists are given billions of tax dollars, ensuring that the latest discoveries are always interpreted from an evolutionist point-of-view. Students are then indoctrinated to accept the evolutionist theories through free and compulsory education. It's no wonder that intelligent design theorists have difficulty combatting evolution; the evolutionists, after all, have every resource at their disposal.
ama gi:My point is, if we had a free market in science and education (completely voluntary funding), intelligent design might becoming the prevailing theory.
One must wonder in what possible world would ID supplant the theory of evolution due to a mere absence of the state.
Hahaha "ID".
ID is creationism. There is almost no difference.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Don't be silly; creationism is scientifically proven!
I have several pages of Hovind's "dissertation" as PDF. In case anyone is a masochist and wants it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology.
Yes it does.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And statists, especially those of the Hobbesian bend, think that civilization/co-operation can't happen without a government, especially a Supreme Sovereign. The sovereign makes everyone co-operate and provides them the framework in which to have their good lives, rather than the sum of the interactions providing the framework.
I understand that. My point is, Austrian economics emphasizes the importance rational economic actors that think and choose. Evolution, regardless of whether you are dealing with "cosmic evolution" or "biological evolution" (which are both the same concept, and differ only in place and time) only deals with unthinking atoms and molecules.
The only difference between ID and Austrian economics is the number of thinking, choosing agents.
Jon Irenicus: One must wonder in what possible world would ID supplant the theory of evolution due to a mere absence of the state.
Maybe one where 51% reject evolution and likely would not fund institutions that promote it, if given the choice.
ama gi:Yes it does.
ama gi:I understand that. My point is, Austrian economics emphasizes the importance rational economic actors that think and choose.
ama gi:The only difference between ID and Austrian economics is the number of thinking, choosing agents.
Well, perhaps in that microcosm. Naturally, majority assent means nothing for the theory's credibility, and I am dubious as to whether the relevant demographic, i.e. academia, will change their minds on this. Natural sciences are not as pliable as social sciences are, and thus there's far fewer incorrect theories to be consigned to the dustbin with the death of the state. Besides, what possible advantage does the state have in spreading evolutionary theory? It is an anachronism itself.
Jon Irenicus:....I am dubious as to whether the relevant demographic, i.e. academia, will change their minds on this.
And yes, I do think the majority opinion matters in this case. Who is going to shell out for these overpaid, professional Ivory Tower navel-gazers, anyway? Methinks that without tax-funded universities and public schools, Darwin will go the way of the dinosaur.
"The average university is a sanctuary in which exploded systems and obsolete prejudices find shelter and protection after they have been hunted out of every other corner of the world."-- Adam Smith
ama gi:And yes, I do think the majority opinion matters in this case. Who is going to shell out for these overpaid, professional Ivory Tower navel-gazers, anyway? Methinks that without tax-funded universities and public schools, Darwin will go the way of the dinosaur.
Ok, then tell me: how will schools that teach evolution thrive in an economy where 51% of the consumers/investors disapprove of evolution? At best, Darwinism will only fill a niche market.
ama gi:Ok, then tell me: how will schools that teach evolution thrive in an economy where 51% of the consumers/investors disapprove of evolution?
When I said a microcosm, I meant it. You must be referring to areas of the USA. In most of Europe, the Darwinian theory of evolution is widely accepted.
ama gi: Ok, then tell me: how will schools that teach evolution thrive in an economy where 51% of the consumers/investors disapprove of evolution? At best, Darwinism will only fill a niche market.
I would have think that the scientific theory of evolution would survive largely unaffected without the state with scientists being at the helm in their respective insitutions. Academica tends to consume their own work. The general public usually don't and will generally ignore those scientists.
Evolution is one of the fundamental tenent of biology. To destroy that tenent is to destroy several field of inquiry, many which may advances technology or have practical application.
Hayek had a great quote from Why I Am Not a Conservative:
I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories.
But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called 'mechanistic' explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position.
I sincerely hope not since ID is not a scientific theory - in that it makes no testable claims about the world. That being the case, though, I find the reasoning behind your statement intriguing and it ties nicely in to my question in the above. How, for instance, do I as a free individual obtain the means to maintain my health and the health of those near to me in a society where the very cornerstone of modern biology is somehow frowned upon in favor of religious boo-haa? I would simply have to move, or influence my fellow citizens to once again embrace reality. And how do I go about doing this other than embracing whatever communal systems there would be to try to transfer funds (my own and theirs) into reality-based research instead of ill-supported fairy tales? Is this a challenge to the ideals of libertarianism? (just to stay on track - the whole ID/evolution-debate is covered at great lengths everywhere else on the web)
Rytz:That being the case, though, I find the reasoning behind your statement intriguing and it ties nicely in to my question in the above. How, for instance, do I as a free individual obtain the means to maintain my health and the health of those near to me in a society where the very cornerstone of modern biology is somehow frowned upon in favor of religious boo-haa? I would simply have to move, or influence my fellow citizens to once again embrace reality. And how do I go about doing this other than embracing whatever communal systems there would be to try to transfer funds (my own and theirs) into reality-based research instead of ill-supported fairy tales?
If abandoning Darwinism causes endless destruction and ruin, I think people will be demanding to have it back. Otherwise, good riddance.
Rytz:Is this a challenge to the ideals of libertarianism?
No, it is not a "challenge" to the ideals of libertarianism; it is libertarianism. If people do not approve of X, they do not have to support X. Those who do support X will not have subsidized institutions to advance X, so X will have to compete for support on a level playing field. That's libertarianism.
What is a "challenge" to libertarianism is when libertarians are so quick to doubt the free market if it does not do what they want it to do.
ama gi:If abandoning Darwinism causes endless destruction and ruin, I think people will be demanding to have it back. Otherwise, good riddance.
To misquote Rothbard: ""It is no crime to be ignorant of evolutionary biology, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be difficult to grasp' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on evolution while remaining in this state of ignorance."
And you are in that state of ignorance. Please educate yourself.
The whole debate is based on a false premise: the idea that ID and evolution theory are mutually exclusive.
In fact, ID doesn’t refute evolution theory and ET doesn’t refute ID.
We have all been taught that since the state runs our schools and whoever controls the state will control education then we must only allow the one “true” idea to be taught.
Without the state, schools could teach that indeed, things do evolve over time, while this doesn’t nullify the potential of an intelligent creator.
I have no problem with private schools teaching whatever they want. However, if the kids are to have a firm grasp of reality, then they should be taught the facts, and not some myth. It would be no different from wanting kids taught that 2 + 2 = 5. Sure, they can do it, but they'll be screwed up in math until they learn the truth.
It would be more accurate to teach the kids that 2 + 2 = 4 and that there may be an intelligent creator...
No, since there's no evidence for the latter. Why not teach them that there may be elves and pixies as well?
There are elves and pixies… In HELL!!!
Just kidding.
I guess I just wanted to point out that this is an unnecessary disagreement.
I believe deeply in creation and I also study evolutionary biology. If you leave out the whole bit about apes turning into people there are no core conflicts between the two viewpoints. In fact, that evolution works so beautifully highly implies (to some) intelligent design.
But we could both agree to respect each others wishes as to how we educate our own children correct?
So what if they believe in intelligent design?
MatthewF:I believe deeply in creation and I also study evolutionary biology. If you leave out the whole bit about apes turning into people
MatthewF:But we could both agree to respect each others wishes as to how we educate our own children correct?
Knight_of_BAAWA: MatthewF:But we could both agree to respect each others wishes as to how we educate our own children correct?Of course. I'm simply commenting on how the children will deal with reality when they've been taught a fantasy.
Interesting. That gave me an insight.
I have a good buddy that is a total statist. We argue constantly (over beers). Neither one of us can understand why the other just won’t accept REALITY. And we both secretly wonder why the other believes in their FANTASY…
Rytz:Here's my problem: If it takes an effort to create (approximations of) free societies, does it not also take an effort to maintain free societies? And what shape does this effort take if not that particularly ghastly top-down popularity contest called parliamentarism with all its lobbying, all its interpretations, all its laws and adjudications? All its modern America, and Britain, and Europe. Anyone?
At first I enjoyed your likening evolutionists to libertarians, but then you gave us this last paragraph, in which you admit that a free society must be created. Doesn't this contradict your analogy?
I would argue that "we" don't "create" anything arbitrarily. I think freedom is the *emergent* behavior in the absence of group coercion.
Which begs the question, if we don't see liberty, then there must always be some form of group coercion. What makes this scenario predominant throughout history?
Yes, and I would like to add that the appalachians will keep copulating with their livestock in a free society.
ama gi:How does this compare with Austrian economics? The Austrian school stresses the importance of living, conscious beings deliberately maximizing utility on the free market. That makes it closer to ID the evolution, in my opinion. Economic schools that pretend that all economic activities are the inevitable result of complicated theories and formulas and downplay the importance of individual choice are closer the evolution.
Well, I'm afraid you won't get much love here, friend. The atheists on these boards are quite deeply religious and take great offense at anyone expressing doubt at their faith in the lack of god(s) and the sufficiency of chance and necessity. Of course, naturalistic evolution is utterly preposterous, and of course the "spontaneous" order of markets can only exist because its subunits are conscious, rational beings, but you will never get through to them. They fancy themselves intellectuals, see, and such intellectuals think it's kewl to not only discard anything that might reek of "primitive" superstition, but also be complete assholes about it.
Order can come from the top down or from the bottom up, but its source is always one or more intelligences. At least, in every case where we have perceived the ultimate origin of a novel and meaningful order, that is so. Also, expect them to talk to you like you're a Christian even if you're not, because most of their pathetic arguments are based on weaknesses in Christianity, not theism itself. This is particularly in regards to insisting that ID is basically identical to biblical "creationism". Also expect them to ask patently ridiculous questions like "who designed the designer" because they can't accept that we have only observed that orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer. We are unable to observe the creation of a mind/soul, therefore we don't know how it works.
Their reasoning is such that if they were right, they could never be sure, because their thought would be adapted to maximizing survival, not solving metaphysical dilemmas.
The best is when a keynesian tries to shut down a debate with "we use the scientific method", this is just pure demagogery it actually makes them look like complete idiots to think that economics is a natural science (of course macroeconomics isn't a natural science)
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
JCFolsom:Well, I'm afraid you won't get much love here, friend. The atheists on these boards are quite deeply religious and take great offense at anyone expressing doubt at their faith in the lack of god(s) and the sufficiency of chance and necessity.
Since you're deeply offended by our not believing your myth, you can leave. Never come back. In fact, never leave your house. Never watch TV. Never do anything where you might have the possibility of someone not agreeing with you in any manner. You're just too sensitive for such things. And I'm such a humanitarian that I want to help you not be offended, especially since your pouting indicates that you believe you have the right to not be offended.
If you don't want to do that, I suggest you grow up.