Q1. I’m wondering: If laws are the new form of social aggression, does that make liberterians the least aggressive of the species?

A1. Laws are not a NEW form of social aggression. Whenever they are imposed, by a King, a dictator, or even a parliament, it is commonly for the purpose of constraining human behavior to suit the wishes of the ruling elite. Democracy is the only known method of minimizing abuse, and we have seen that it does not always achieve this end.

Though I personally don’t subscribe to Libertarian philosophy, I would think they are the least aggressive of the political class. They have the least tendency to tell people what they can and cannot do.

Q2. If so, does that imply something about liberterian intelligence?

A2.I don’t think intelligence is the issue. There are smart and dumb liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Now it is true that aggressive people feel superior to those they wish to dominate. Thus, liberals are prone to believe that conservatives and libertarians are not as smart as they are (Al Gore is considered a genius, while Sarah Palin is considered a cretin)(actually, in my view, neither is very bright).

Q3. Or can we say that aggression in a developed society is a misplaced instinct leading to a waste of our resources?

A3.In the political sphere, the purpose of aggressive instinct is not to utilize resources appropriately. It is to dominate.

Q4. And if liberals are the most aggressive of all, then why do they always talk about protecting rights and making the playing field level?

A4. Because it sells. In a democracy, it is a way to garner a reliable piece of the voting marketplace. If you can arrange for half of the public to get more from the government (as with entitlements) than they are required to contribute (as with taxes) then you have locked in permanent control of the political process. By the way, our country is just about at this breakpoint. The new medical reform bill that Obama wants will push us to that point.

Dominating fellow humanoids who refuse to be dominated leads to war, and most likely led to the extinction of certain early species of humans. This innate characteristic of human nature put enormous selective pressure on intelligent. Those who were the smartest were most likely to be the most successful in war.

When war is not feasible, as in politics in a civilized democratic country, dominance takes the different form of government edict. Power flows to those who make laws that everybody else has to obey. Thus, we reach the perhaps unexpected conclusion that the most aggressive people today are political, big-government liberals. As they acquire the levers of political power, they get to tell everybody else what they must do. Nobody but me, I suppose, would arrive at such a conclusion (and I hadn’t either, until now).

Anyway, that is my take. Reading E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology book might help, but I don’t think it has much on humans in it.

I appreciate your writings as you have thought out every government scheme for years. I think part of the problem is actuarial assumptions and marked changes in life expectancy. I know people will have to work longer, if there are jobs, save more and count on themselves and their relationships to medical providers.

I still believe a personified government would like its creditor/taxpayer to drop dead to avoid paying its unanticipated over promises.

This idea certainly seems, at least to a lay person, to have considerable face validity.

Would you have to take it to the point of researching for and ultimately writing the book to know how scientifically validate-able the idea is? Would you need to co-author with a biologist and an anthropologist in order to create scientific credence?

I couldn’t tell from reading the article how literally versus metaphorically you meant the notion of per se “collectivists genes”.

Thanks for doing the hugely important work that you do.

Individualism can be best realized in a cooperation with others is one belief… e.g. the Swedish Model.
Individualiam can be best realized without help of others or the state or community… e.g. major ethos of Texas.

Takes a village to raise a child .. who disagrees with this notion? Extreme individualist?

Family is a collective ..who disagrees with this?

A school is a collective response to an education of children ..who disagrees with this?

While most people oppose getting rid of government-run charities all together, I think many would be open to this idea. Anyone who opposes it risks being labeled lazy and irresponsible: they don’t care enough to choose which charity to give to and judge which charities do a good job. They want government to choose for them. How can someone with this preference claim to care about the people government charities are supposed to help?

I have friends that lived in Ireland for 8 years and had a circle of friends from all around Europe. A friend of theirs from Sweden related how nobody stops to help stranded motorists because they figure the government will be there shortly. Socialism absolves individual responsibility and that’s the way the secularists like it. They prefer to “donate” to government and take refuge that their tax dollars are their “contribution to society”.