Comments (5)

• Ed Smith

  As far as natural selection is concerned the desire is of course to develop a system that rewards individuals that think long term and constantly challenge even their most fundamental assumptions. Short term thinking and irresponsibility should not be rewarded. In the state of nature long term thinking and responsibility is rewarded. It is, however, the social systems combined with incorrect ideas about how a social system should operate that actually incentivizes short term irresponsibility.

  Published: June 7, 2009 1:01 PM

• Abhi Mallick

  I must say I disagree with Hoppe's conclusions on "social evolution." I dodn't think for human beings the existence of harsh climes has necessarily correlated with the development of civilization. This is evident from observation of the fact that many of the most ancient civilizations originated largely from central regions like the Nile Delta, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley; and this excludes many other notable examples outside this region.

  Also, I think current biological understanding dictates that human beings have not had long enough and been isolated enough from each other to differentiate beyond a trivial sense genetically; to allow us to speak of "social evolution" meaningfully.

  Thirdly, I think the development of civilization has been dependent on the fostering of societal conditions conducive to individual liberty and the protection of private property, than anything else. Europe, I believe was in this situation at a critical juncture of its history, when these conditions were largely missing from other regions in the world, promoting their decadence in comparison.

  Also, I think it is rather simplistic to assert evolutionary conditions on such a broad category of intelligence, as if this is homogeneous. The ability to understand Riemmannian geoemtry does not necessarily correlate with the cunning to catch a deer.

  I guess finally, a further problem I have would be more personal, although I know economics should be value free. This is that these kinds of remarks are often used to justify the ideology and prescriptions of many white supremacists and eugenecists; ideologies I personally abhor.

  Published: June 7, 2009 1:04 PM

• Martinf

  I had never thought of that thesis before. I don't know much about biology but I would say other factors may be more important such as religion. I don't think he has mentioned religion anywhere in his talk and for me it's obvious that it plays a role.

  But he may have a good point claiming that property rights protection and institutional factors weren't everything explaining the Industrial Revolution and why it appeared so late in history.

  Published: June 8, 2009 4:17 AM

• David J. Heinrich

  The thoughts of a friend of mine on the issue, in defense of Hoppe against the misguided criticism by Abhi Mallick:

  ----

  QUOTE: "This is evident from observation of the fact that many of the most ancient civilizations originated largely from central regions like the Nile Delta, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley; and this excludes many other notable examples outside this region."

  The people that made these civilizations as great they used to be were people that came from the west and north. Human migration didn't start recently. It has always been happening. I think you may be assuming stagnant populations that hardly move, but obviously many people were moving."

  QUOTE: "Also, I think current biological understanding dictates that human beings have not had long enough and been isolated enough from each other to differentiate beyond a trivial sense genetically; to allow us to speak of 'social evolution' meaningfully."

  Hence, evolution stopped or slowed down heavily fifty thousand years ago? That doesn't make any sense. There is a huge amount of human biodiversity. Two books to shatter your Mr. Mallick and other egalitarians' points of view are here (the second link has a book in an abridged edition)

  http://www.wspublishers.com/uhh.pdf

  http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html

  Other books that may help along these lines are the Affirmative Action Hoax, the Bell Curve(co authored by Charles Murray who identifies as a libertarian), and the Global Bell Curve(authored by Richard Lynn who has given a speech at the Property and Freedom Society). Obviously, anyone can use salient facts to oppress anyone. Communists used egalitarian fiction of all types to murder many more people than White supremacists and coercive eugenicists could ever think of. So one could easily state egalitarianism (not only of the racial sort) can, has, and will be used against murdering millions of people directly or indirectly. Finally I will leave you with this article on race and indivudalism by anarcho-capitalist at a different website

  http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/barnyard.htm
  

  Published: June 8, 2009 2:57 PM

• Abhi Mallick

  Do you think the work you've cited adequately accounts for the Flynn effect?

  Published: June 9, 2009 1:04 PM