[ExI] government corruption, was: RE: Social Mobility and Bioconservatism

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 12:26 AM 2/23/2009 -0500, Rafal wrote:
>
>> > I can see the same thing happening with a
>> > radical pro-free market regime holding on to ideology regardless of
>> > the effect it has on the people or the economy.
>>
>> ### It is impossible, since a "regime" is not free-market. A
>> free-market society by definition systematically eschews violence
>> which means that as soon as they lose their attachment to freedom and
>> non-violence (i.e. as soon as they go insane), their "free-market
>> regime" is gone and replaced by politics as usual.
>
> Ah, it's like god's grace. Rafal, can you point to some examples of this
> blessed condition in the world now or in history? Preferably examples
> without slavery, inherited aristocracy or other obvious social pathologies.
>
### Well, no. Humans are not designed by evolution to appreciate the
benefits of social network segmentation - we are programmed to fall in
line within an unsegmented hierarchy built by intimidation and
violence. It takes a slight impairment of this inborn programming
(such as I seem to exhibit) and many years of exposure to memetic
influences from other similarly impaired people like Rothbard or David
Friedman, plus thinking about things like the regulation of heartbeat
frequency (surprisingly, it does have implications for our society),
to finally come to the reasoned conclusion that a segmented social
network should be the best (i.e. most efficient and stable) form of
social organization. Just as with brushing your teeth or not farting
in public it goes a bit against natural human tendencies to have such
beliefs but in the long term that should not preclude their practical
realization.

Rafal