LS: Couple of days ago you asked me to explain the meaning of “a lot” of violence that I believe a realistic model of human self-interest MUST take into account . “A lot” means “enough” to make a society of free human agents unsustainable without uniform laws and enforcement.
Refer to the following reactions:
Refer also to the uniform laws and enforcement that this (and every other) forum of free human agents REGULARLY has in order to make itself sustainable:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/forum-rules/124
Much in the same way I described is needed for a sustainable larger society, each agent participating in this forum is COERCED into giving up SOME freedom to the uniform rules and enforcement, for the sake of sustainability. Much in the same way I refered to the 1000+ experiments in human organization through history, there are also NO forums (among the thousands online) without moderators enforcing uniform rules over the agents participating in them.
I also just thought of a better way to explain what I mean. Consider “100%” agents containing 100% violence in their self-interest model (rabid wolfes, “shoot first ask questions later” lunatics, etc) on one end, and on the other end of the spectrum “0%” agents containing 0% violence in their self-interest model (“turn the other cheek” buddhists – not many other examples, but just imagine an evolved agent that would NEVER resort to violence). A society of “100%” agents is ONLY sustainable if they are ALL caged and chained so they don’t gouge each others guts out resulting in 0% freedom (100% coercion) . On the other hand, a society of “0%” agents MAY be sustainable without ANY limitations to freedom (including laws and enforcement of any kind) resulting in 100% freedom (0% coercion) or ANARCHY.
Well, place humans (with their current level of evolution) anywhere on this scale. I claim that they’d have to be pretty darn close to “0%” violence agents in order to make coercion-less society sustainable. If we agree on this, then the only thing we may disagree on is where exactly the humans are on this sliding scale. Obviously, my “x%” violence assumption in the model is higher than yours and that’s where our disagreements come from.
Z.