I have heard this point brought up in a couple of places. Walter Block is one proponent, he uses a bathtub snake analogy to introduce it. Basically, its the idea that we (humans) are not hard-wired to accept libertarian ideas and that this is the biggest challenge that libertarians have to overcome in convincing the masses.
What is the actual evidence for this idea? Is it mostly just a hunch that makes sense?
It’s an interesting subject of research, to be sure. Is the human brain, by the nature of its method of performing algorithms, biased toward accepting some ideas over others, on an a priori basis? Or is ideological bias merely a consequence of conditioning? I think the algorithmic bias is plausible, as it has been shown to exist in areas of logical processing due to flaws in hueristic shortcuts used by the brain (whether these hueristic flaws are inherent is another subject altogether). However do these hueristic flaws carry over to more higher-level thinking in areas such as political ideologies? And if so, how do they influence socio-economic ideas?
It seems to me if there is any logical bias against libertarian ideas, it’s Bastiat’s familiar statement of the unseen: People focus on what is rather on what could be. So long as the fallacy is prevalent, it’s easy for the state to show things like how printing money lowers the unemployment rate. What is not questioned, and what the state does not want us to question, is what would have happened had the state simply left the world alone.
Personally I think it’s a problem with the software rather than the hardware:
Instincts seem to do to a decent job of keeping the average human being alive.
After being taught (implicitly and explicitly) by parents, peers, and teachers that some humans can/should have power over other humans, the hardware simply runs that program. Garbage in Garbage out…
Clayton (I think, its been a while since I’ve visited the forum) would call that dual morality…
Collectivists (‘hurrah’-type automatons) have been plundering and raping individualists for so long now, that the collectivist genes are far more prevalent than the individualist genes in humanity’s gene pool today. Perhaps, if the individualists were left alone for a couple of hundred years our gene pool may have a chance, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Z.
is there a such thing as the ‘collectivist’ gene?
If you individualists were left alone if would be a hobbesian war of all against all and I doubt many genes would survive
Substantiate your (il)logic please.
And where exactly are the individualist and collectivist genes to be found?
Perhaps evolution is dynamically converging the indvidualist/collectivist ratio in humans to whatever value is needed for human sustainability. Perhaps a minority of individualist leaders and a majority of collectivist followers is the only mode for our specie’s existence. The shepherds need their sheep as much as the sheep need their shepherds, forming a functioning symbiosis by which everyone gets what they need/want. The choice for an average individualist being: Lead or get run over.
To address your reply directly, perhaps a world of only shepherds (and no sheep) would not necessarily converge into a war of all against all (you need sheep fodder for war, after all) but not having anyone to milk and shear may turn out to be a problem of existential proportions.
Z.
Joe, scineram –
No, most features of human nature are not (yet) mapped onto the human genome but we can still view them as products of evolution (what else?). Looking at human history and seeing who, how, and where survived/procreated should give plenty of insight into the evolutionary features that define us.
Btw, this is just a pet theory of my own and I’m no geneticist or an expert in evolution by any means. So weigh it accordingly.
Z.
I vaguely remember that in a thread on Myers-Briggs personality analysis a while ago, a lot of members claimed to score somewhere along the lines of INTJ, INTP, INFJ and so on, meaning that they belonged to the introverted, analytical spectrum of the population: the scientists and system builders.
This is not surprising, given that libertarianism is not the most intuitive political philosophy and requires some serious study to be grasped. Unfortunately for us, scientists and system builders only constitute about 5% of the population, and even this small group is not going to agree with our position in its entirety.
As far as I’m concerned, libertarianism will only win major victories if it can be transformed to appeal to the extroverted majority: the duty-bound, caring and socially concerned. It needs to become a populist movement that attracts a broader audience than just introverted political theorists. Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign is an excellent example that this can indeed be done.
My impression was that humanity was caught off guard by the realization of certain economic truths. Going from mass murer / conquest and rape, suddenly discovering that slavery was more profitable than this, and THEN (relatively quickly) discovering that free trade was more profitable still has got to play havoc with our psyches.
Its clear the vast majority of human beings are currently stuck in the slavery mindest (support of economic expropriation), while a significant minority is still stuck in the “kill em all” paradigm. From my experience, those involved in profit driven corporate environments are really pro free trade and anti expropriation.
Though human beings have great capacity to learn an adapt. This is our hope.
its also something that is really hard to gauge because of all the positive feedback loops that reinforce socialism. Namely, once they get in control of education. Anyone that was going to be apathetic towards politics is probably going to have a default socialistic stance merely from being immersed in it for 12+ years
I’ve heard some people complain about how “Darwinists” come up with “just so” explanations for ideological phenomena. I don’t think there’s any other way to look at it. After all, evolution gave rise to our mental properties and therefore must explain how they operate. Whether by conditioning or by a predisposed bias, evolution gave rise to brains that are easily conditioned by the enviornment or ones that have idea-specific tendencies. Or a mixture of both.
Etiher way, I’ve noticed that a ton of libertarians, as previously mentioned by Sphairon, are heavily involved in fields such as science, computer programming, engineering, etc. These people are definitely more analytical and understand systems and are less holistic in their thinking. I think they have a grasp of how emergent things, such as markets, can give rise to order and operation whereas the holistic thinkers are more arftul, musical, etc. and can’t see things in a reductionist manner. I think these different sets of psychological makeup can make us predisposed to accepting certain ideologies.
Is the question of a socio-biological explanation for human’s aversion to libertarianism a corollary of the question of a socio-biological explanation for man’s unique ability to reason? (… or perhaps not-so-unique?)
Is there a gene for reason?
Read Michael Shermer’s The Mind of the Market and Bryan Caplan’s The Myth of the Rational Voter.
I think most people are conformists rather than socialists, democrats, collectivists. In 1600 nobody was lobbying for 50% income tax and a sales tax as far as I know.
Theorizing about libertarian justice is not very profitable except you have extremely low time preference or subjectively value freedom/logic/truth a lot.
As gov’t gets worse (yup), marketing keeps improving (thanks Mises Institute) and ancap becomes feasible (semantic web in my opinion), it will start making sense for more people to get involved. I think. I hope.
Etiher way, I’ve noticed that a ton of libertarians, as previously mentioned by Sphairon, are heavily involved in fields such as science, computer programming, engineering, etc. These people are definitely more analytical and understand systems and are less holistic in their thinking.
Isn’t AE recognizing emerging systems the holistic thing to do? We are always stressing how PDAs would prevent chaos, how markets self-regulate, … = how the whole impacts the parts.
Why is it assumed that humanity has an aversion to libertarianism? Most people don’t grasp the complexities at work. But most people don’t grasp the complexities at work in any other system either. And are people here running the risk of thinking of Libertarianism as a utopian ideal where war, famine racial prejudice and gangsterism don’t occur? Because I would think that they would inevitably occur, yet libertarianism is better suited to deal with such things.
Checks and Balances. Checks and Balances. That’s the way things work. You have an irrational emotive response to something, potentially your neocortex goes to work and talks you out of acting without using your faculties to reason. Are we assuming that in a libertarian system everyone will be logical? Doesn’t work like that. But there are checks and balances so that the illogical actions of a few have less of a dramatic effect on the many.
Humanity is hardwired to be social. We have a pack mentality. Within the pack we try to achieve the greatest individual success in terms of procreation. We always have the principle of Dawkin’s “selfish gene” to fall back on when we cannot reproduce individually. We care for like organisms. The impulse to collective will is for the superorganism (the pack/the species) to thrive. But within the superorganism is you, and you are designed to compete with other members, because this competition breeds better fitness. If the habitat changes this ongoing competition provides the redundant checks and balances to keep the superorganism alive. And so, sociobiology is an extended order emerging spontaneously (to quote Hayek).
That said, I don’t see how this process could play out any better than in a libertarian society. Fact of the matter is that some people are lazy and will sit on their ass and collect if you give them the chance. Strike that, all people will. So we need to put into place leaders who won’t let people be comfortable in their poverty (to quote Franklin). But with the incentive to achieve more personal power many will strive and compete.
Maybe I haven’t said all I need to explain myself, so I hope you folks get the gist of where I’m going. I don’t think there is a socio-biological explanation for human’s aversion to libertarianism because I don’t think such an aversion exists. We just haven’t communicated the method of libertarianism to enough people for it to take hold.
But it can happen. There are languages in Africa that are complete. Meaning, there is no combinatroial system. No exponential principle. No way to combine words or sounds to make NEW concepts (Zulu would be an example of this). BUT - some folks in the areas where such languages are spoken may learn French, or even English (the language best suited for forming new ideas through new words and sounds because it hasn’t been perfected and the rules are still a little loose - optimal for a free market of competing ideas).
As Darwin taught us the language of evolution, we must teach others, especially those demographics that may pump out leaders, the language of Libertarianism.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
From my experience, people have an emotional aversion to Libertarianism. They don’t really look into it but will characterize it as being a selfish and greedy philosophy since the element in their life they are used to:government is being removed or weakened. They view government as a benevolent entity because of things like food stamps and unemployment insurance so naturally they would disapprove of something like libertarianism because they are only looking at the present and not alternative scenarios.
There are only a few of us in public who speak up for the philosphy compared to amount who represent the typical left and right who will speak out against the philosphy if it ever pops up. I believe Rachael Maddow tried to refute libertarianism by saying we should look at Somalia to see what happens when you remove government. People accept this without really thinking about it.They don’t want too. They are content.