Humans have been naturally selected for Free Market Capitalism

In Ayn Rand’s Anthem, a dystopian fiction novel, she describes a Communist society organized by a centralized bureaucracy called the World Council of Scholars. Children are raised collectively by the whole society and not their biological parents. These children are not given names, but rather numbers – the protagonist is referred to as Equality 7-2521. Roles are assigned to them once they become adults and they are expected to fulfill these economic roles. There is no concept of salary though; equal communal living arrangements (housing and food) are provided for everybody by the World Council. The workers are also fully expected to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the collective, if necessary.

Ayn Rand may have been describing a well-functioning colony of ants or bees. E.O.Wilson, the famous sociobiologist, once quipped: “Marx was right; he just had the wrong species”. He was referring to the fact that eusocial animals with reproductive division of labour like ants and bees exhibit traits remarkably similar to communist societies.

In eusocial species, brood care responsibilities are shared by the entire hive. Since the workers are infertile, there is no need for any genetic competition between them; they can all work together with communal ownership of resources. Since the workers are clones, there are no distinctions between them. The worker bees work as a collective to serve the Queen, who is their genetic clone sister capable of reproduction. Worker roles are typically assigned by the Queen at birth (based on dietery differences in feed to the larvae). And the workers often sacrifice their lives (they are infertile, their lives don’t mean much) for the sake of the hive.

Humans, unlike bees, are a parasocial species (but not solitary like some members of the cat family). We live together in a shared community and there is inter-adult male cooperation but we are not wired for communal child-rearing. We are genetically different and fertile, which means that there will be competition among us resulting in economic inequalities. But, being social creatures, we also trade and cooperate with one another.

The notion of property rights also seems to be genetically determined. Children often make distinctions such as “this toy is mine and that is yours!”. When a child’s toy is stolen, it creates an emotional outburst. Property rights are not a social construct; Adults often have to teach children to share. That implies that sharing is the social construct and property rights are genetic.

Successful farming and dairy collectives are in existence, but they are typically family owned affairs with genetically related members. The Free Market does not impose corporate structures; it gives participants the freedom to organize their enterprises any way they want. Organizing an enterprise as a collective would require a very high degree of trust among the members and such collectives do not scale well; enterprises organized as corporations scale up more easily. This implies that the social construct called ‘sharing’ only works in genetically related, small scale units.

One of the primary corollaries of Natural Law is that the legal constructs used to govern a species must closely match the intrinsic nature of that species. All mismatches between the legal constructs used for governance and the intrinsic nature of that species create social tension and disharmony, eventually leading to violence.

When property rights are not legislatively mandated, societies remain poor and dysfunctional. When Pol Pot attempted to raise children in a communal basis, parents protested, eventually leading to a mass genocide. The Free Market, which allows competition but also trade and cooperation, is easily the best way to organize human economies.

But, process patents seems to be unnatural. Children often copy one another in sports. A child who develops a better strategy to play a game might attempt to keep that strategy secret. But, if another child manages to figure it out and copy that strategy, it is accepted as a natural consequence and is not a source of any emotional outburst. I believe that removing process patents altogether will actually make us more prosperous. Companies can keep their best practices as a secret if they can, but they should not be suing one another if their strategies are copied. Process patents will just result in making lawyers richer and consumers poorer.

You can read the original at my blog here: http://humancivilizations.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/humans-have-been...

Views: 412

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Real Estate Property Rights make no sense for a nomadic people, yet I would say they had a civilization.

Civilizations are typically associated with visual and physical arts, especially architecture, as well as literature. Which nomadic "civilizations" do you have in mind?

They had/have a culture.  But not all cultures are civilizations.

"Recognized private property rights provide the legal certainty necessary for..."  Well, duh.  If nobody owns stuff who wants to make an effort to not own more stuff.  This amounts to "Property Ownership is good because it's property, and it's ownership."

"Clear property rights tend to make decision makers pay close attention to resource use..."  Because people with more money spend more thriftily than poor people, right?  All you (or whoever you're parroting) is saying is people with stuff will protect their stuff, and that must be good because wasting stuff is bad. 

"Property rights are the basis of exchange and the extension of ownership to capital goods..."  Just a continuation of the first paragraph in that ownership equals investment, and investment is good because... investment. 

"Secure private property rights, as indicated in the..." Just another restatement from the first and third paragraph of "When we have stuff, we can invest it, and that's assumed to be good because we have stuff so why not?"

I'm very much a capitalist, I can't think of a system that would work as well.  But the above arguments are 7th grade at best.

I'm very much a capitalist, I can't think of a system that would work as well.  But the above arguments are 7th grade at best.

I'm waiting to hear yours. 

Your turn...

"Property rights would seem to be a basic necessity for a civilization."

   Unseen,

    Civilizations are much like fishbowls where the occupants can not see out because  their own reflections block the view. By defining civil behavior in terms of commerce, a concept of ownership must be assumed, as commerce depends on trade, which in turn implies ownership. 

  Likewise , the sovereignty of national borders derive from a concept of ownership of the land

   "It would seem that a lack of a concept of property doesn't make a society better or lend it any degree of survival value,"   In many harsh environments, cooperative effort often provides much better odds of survival than any claims to property. Put another way, if you are lost in the desert and dying of thirst, which would better your odds f survival?  A bag of gold or a local tribesman willing to share his water and take you to the nearest oasis.

  Such social groups are not bound to the concepts of geophysical borders.  On the internet age many such groups are large and global. (e.g. Open Source)

 

Assume that the State makes murder legal and even encourages it; does that mean that murder is now moral? No, right. Why is that? Because there are higher laws than man made laws.

Similarly, the State can pass laws making theft legal but that does not mean that theft is moral.

Natural Philosophy is an attempt to create the higher laws of man, based on a deeper understanding of human nature. Natural Philosophy combines Natural Law (theories of Natural Rights & Natural Justice) with the theory of evolution through Natural Selection. Natural Philosophy is applicable everywhere, in economics, in culture etc.

What is this topic about? Economic "natural selection" (or Social Darwinism, if that's the aim) wrt human civilization is mostly incongruous with genetic science. Property rights are a construct of cultural evolution, and did not exist during the nature-bound, genetic phase of human evolution.

Assume that the State makes murder legal and even encourages it; does that mean that murder is now moral? No, right? Why is that? Because there are higher laws than man made laws.

Similarly, the State can pass laws making theft legal but that does not mean that theft is moral.

Natural Philosophy is an attempt to introspect and understand the higher laws of man, based on a deeper understanding of human nature. Natural Philosophy combines Natural Law (theories of Natural Rights & Natural Justice) with the theory of evolution through Natural Selection.

Natural Philosophy is applicable everywhere, in economics, in culture etc. And it does not require a God as part of its assumptions.

I think I see, now... it's more like philosophy than science? The discussion looked at first to me to be a lot more about certainties than propositions. I'll back out now, and just watch the show.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Philip Jarrett 15 minutes ago. 155 Replies

Blog Posts

Dead man's Switch

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 11:29pm 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service