This is an interesting article written from the perspective of social Darwinism as the driving force behind the so-called invisible hand of Adam Smith, which Smith himself never articulated in that way.
Arnhart essentially argues that crime is simply pursuing rational interest and government should get out of the way and let natural order arise spontaneously.
Most of the economic development in the developing world–particularly in Latin America, Africa, and many parts of Asia–is through the economic self-development of the illegal economy. In Lagos, Nigeria, the largest city in Africa, over 80% of the working people are in the underground economy.
Much of the global trade between the developed and developing countries is through the illegal economy. For example, poor people in Nigeria working in illegal markets can save enough money to travel to China, where they buy Chinese goods illegally and then have them smuggled back into Nigeria for sale, avoiding restrictive trade laws and huge import duties. There are some estimates that as many as 300,000 Africans are living in Guangzhou, the south China trading city formerly known as Canton.
This confirms Adam Smith’s insight that the evolved human propensity “to truck, barter, and exchange” is so strong that it can be expressed in a complex economic life even without the support of a legal system, because people can solve their own economic problems for themselves through self-organizing social orders.
For example, Neuwith describes how street merchants in Lagos have set up their own private courts for settling disputes between dealers and customers. One arbitrator explained: “Arbitration is our work. Most often we arrive at a peaceful solution. This is how we have harmonized the market.” This is what one should expect from human beings who have evolved natural instincts for cooperation.
Smith thought illegal economic activity could be seen as an expression of the “system of natural liberty” or “natural justice.” So he suggested that we should identify a smuggler as “a person who, though no doubt highly blamable for violating the laws of his country, is frequently incapable of violating those of natural justice, and would have been, in every respect, an excellent citizen, had not the laws of his country made that a crime which nature never meant to be so” (Wealth of Nations, Liberty Fund edition, p. 898).Let the free-for-all begin.
Smugglers are part of the greatest evolutionary story of humanity, which is the progressive improvement in human life that comes from human beings asserting their freedom to trade.
Evonomics
What Bernie Sanders and David Sloan Wilson Should Learn from Adam Smith
Larry Arnhart is a Presidential Research Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University
17 comments:
I'm constantly amazed by the stupidity of libertarians. In his own circle jerk freedumb piece he writes:
"For example, Neuwith describes how street merchants in Lagos have set up their own private courts for settling disputes between dealers and customers. One arbitrator explained: “Arbitration is our work. Most often we arrive at a peaceful solution. This is how we have harmonized the market.” This is what one should expect from human beings who have evolved natural instincts for cooperation."
So these people establish a form of self-government to create \ administer rules and settle disputes, doesnt that sound familiar? Almost like every major first world country on Earth. These crybabies just dont like to follow society's rules, because they cant stand the reality that the vast majority of people think their ideas are crazy. I bet if this moron lived and worked in Lagos he would be complaining that the private court settlements were tyranny and unfair, unless of course they ruled in his favor. In fact, if Lagos is such a shining example of freeedumb and liberty, how come this jackass hasnt packed his bag and got the fuck out. Oh wait, he's not going to leave his cushy goddamn Govt fucking paycheck and retirement at NIU for a third world dump like Lagos you stupid piece of shit hypocrite libertarian moron. The fact that my tax dollars go to pay this scumbag is so insulting (I live in Illinois)
Libertarianism is fully compatible with Darwinism (both based on the concept of "no One in authority...")
Matt-
What do you mean no one in authority? This guy just celebrated that the Lagos people are creating their own authority to create\administer rules and settle disputes. So he's talking about how humans dont need no stinking govt at the same time he's describing the Lagos black market people creating their own "Govt". Humans always create a govt, thats the thing libertarians ignore.
A, I'm not arguing with your point... I'm saying Darwinism as "order out of chaos" ie "natural selection" which Darwin himself said and I quote "natural selection IS survival of the fittest" is congruent with libertarianism...
So if you believe Darwinism is true, I dont see how you could effectively argue with the libertarian principles... the guy has a point here but to your point he is not arguing it effectively by pointing out how the Lagos people in effect formed their own authority system in which the arbitration tribunal had the authority to impose judgements... iow you are correct that doesnt make sense to argue we dont need govt and use as an example a small community that formed their own local govt...
BUT, his basic argument that libertarianism is congruent with Darwinism I think is pretty good... he just needs a better supporting example (if there is one...)
I see what you're saying Matt. And through that lens, you and he are correct, Darwinism and Libertarianism are congruent.
With that said, its the most immoral and nightmarish philosophy.
Survival of the fittest aka Libertarianism can only lead to monopoly and dictatorship by force, as the strongest wins. And lets not sugar coat what "strongest" means here, killing the most people. Ghengis Khan was the fittest, so was Caesar, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.
Just think about Lagos, so the court makes a ruling that one party disagrees with, how can you enforce the judgment but through force? And if your wealthy enough to have more mercenaries than the arbiter you can just ignore them. If you competitors gang up on you, maybe your big enough to kill all them too. Now your the boss. Nobody can get rid of you unless they kill you. Get big enough and it takes a revolution where afterwards the people try to create a representative system where you can throw the bums out if you dont like their policies. I just described the entire history of the human species in one short paragraph, and yet still libertarians would think that Darwinism leads to the best outcome.
Off topic but... Apparently Finland is ready to scrap benefits and do a BIG. Small homogenous country but none the less, interesting.
Yea, Finland!
Survival of the fittest aka Libertarianism can only lead to monopoly and dictatorship by force, as the strongest wins.
That's the reason for the non-aggression principle, which is the basis for the social contract in their view.
The big problem, however, is that it is not natural or there would be no need to assert it. If it is not natural, then it hinders the spontaneous arising of natural order.
Basic contradiction that is dealt with on the principle of minimal government being closest to spontaneous natural order.
The fundamental assumption is that spontaneous order is optimal because it is natural. But if a non-aggression principle is added, then optimality supposedly decreases.
But what's to argue that the introduction of successive principle are unneeded or would not produce ore optimal effects than fewer.
Lots of assumptions to buy into, just like any world view.
He should go to Lagos and explain the non-aggression principle to them. We'd never from hear him again.
So if you believe Darwinism is true, I don't see how you could effectively argue with the libertarian principles.
Because the biological order that evolves form natural selection is a rough and bloody world of violence and predators and death and fear.
Similarly, a world forged by libertarian principles without intelligent government would also exhibit a form of order - it would be a pretty savage and unfriendly place of economic "nature red in tooth and claw".
Darwinian evolutionary biology is not a normative framework; it is not the revelation of
some inherent moral teleology that we are bound to obey. It is just a description of what actually happens in the biological realm when subjected only to the forces of random mutation and natural selection. Only a small part of that realm is anything we have any control over a small part of which we have any control over. Why anyone would take what happens in the broader biological realm as a normative model for the organization of society is perplexing.
"Social Darwinism" makes no more sense than "social nucleogenesis". Just because celestial bodies are constantly crashing into each other, blowing up, gravitationally collapsing and supernova-ing in massive conflagrations doesn't mean that we should permit a traffic system in which cars careen everywhere, crash into each other and blow up.
Is this really serious? Talk about sub optimal. Imagine the 8th Avenue Good Guys and the 10 Avenue thieves. Whose rule shall we all follow or settle the issue with guns. I bet guns. Enough of this nonsense.
One problem with the way too many people speak of survival of the fittest is that there isn't just one definition of fitness. Fitness is completely dependent on starting conditions. The polar bear is not "fit" for life at the equator. Humans are "fit" for everywhere, although there are obviously preferences amongst individuals.
Additionally the concept of social evolution (social darwinism )does not hold up to the same type of analysis as does biological evolution. I CAN fully adapt socially to every culture on earth if I put my mind to it, you will never find a polar bear species emerging at the equator. Our minds are products of biological evolution (via our brains) but we can violate, with our behaviors, what would look like evolutionary principles when applied to speciation. IOW ideas can go anywhere, traveling from mind to mind.
So social darwinists are playing a little loose with evolutionary language in order to advance their agenda. There is never a question of whether its right or wrong for a polar bear to be at the equator. IF a polar bear species were to spontaneously emerge at the equator it by definition must the right conditions. We however already know that there are some ideas that are right or wrong, worse or better for our fitness.
Most of these libertards that talk about evolution don't have the first clue about evolution other than its popular mis-label of "survival of the fittest"
Is tiresome to fight this idiocy. A few hints when encountering this type of "non sequitur" arguments:
1) Everything is natural, there is no divide between 'natural' and 'artificial', is just a cognitive construct we humans use to explain/understand reality, but is meaningless: everything we do takes place is our physical universe and is subject to the same 'natural laws'.
2) Point one is relevant because 'social behaviour' including cooperation, social structures and hierarchies, communication, empathy etc. are all NATURAL. They are also the result of our nature, there is absolutely nothing "artificial" about them.
3) The definition of "fittest" social darwinist use is completely loaded and meaningless. Fittest depends on context, fittest does not necessarily mean to be the "strongest" or the more "ruthless", or outright sociopath (which more often than not looks like what they want/imply). Fittest can be the best at cooperating amongst individuals in the specie, the smartest to adapt to the environment, or yes, in some cases the best predators. But what is "fitting" in one context can be non-fitting in any other context.
4) Given that our best advantage is probably superior intelligence and self-reflexion (with advanced language) the libertardians would be good to use it to arrive to some useful conclusion instead of demonstrate they have more in common with chimps than the rest of humanity: the most 'fitting' thing humans have is our fastest adaptive rate due to (HINT HINT) longer nurture periods and increased socialization, with higher development of language which in return allows us to both analyse and categorize the environment in more abstract ways and (HINT HINT) come with social strategies to adapt at faster rates.
Humans as individuals are useless (which is a more brutal environment would be our weakest point, as a human baby and child take very long to nurture, and probably would end up our specie), is precisely because we come with the necessary institutions and organization that we can achieve better outcomes.
5) There is ample evidence of very successful species which are fully cooperative and much more 'collectivist' than humans, this is all "natural". Evolution has nothing to say about inter-specie competition. remember: organisms try to reproduce themselves amongst THE SPECIE, this is the end-result that matters to the organism (just if we follow on their premises and take this sort of 'naturalism' to its radical conclusion, they are not even wrong, as their premises are false), not the individual outcome. So whatever strategy the specie adopts to perpetuate is irrelevant as long as it works, and that includes any form of social organizations (including the formation of governments and hierarchies where tribute is paid, hint hint).
Governments are as natural as any other form of organization, those idiots should stop trying to come with excuses to dodge taxes and do their fair deal of drop off society and go to their own little Robinson Crusoe fantasy world.
sounds like their governments are pursuing 'sound' finance policies and that is crushing their economy.
Excellent comment Iggy!
I said much the same but not as well or completely
I guess I assumed humans would have agreed by now that government is necessary, but I guess not. :)
I stopped reading when he diagnosed someone's "moral psychology" because I new self-aggrandizing libertarian shit was to follow. The people who bring up Social Darwinism as if its the natural order and not a human construct always imagine themselves to be the lion.
Post a Comment