r/K: The Evolutionary Biology of Left vs. Right

          “The time is near at hand which must determine if Americans are to be free men or slaves.”  – George Washington

 

          Greetings, my fellow Freedom lovers!

          I have often wondered why Collectivists (Liberals, Progressives, etc.) are the way that they are. Why they always seem to side with America’s enemies over their own country, or side with criminals over victims. Or advocate so fervently for policies which will inevitably destroy this great country, while at the same time claiming to love America. Why they invest so recklessly in illogical and destructive ideas like Obamacare. Well, I’m happy to report that I’ve found the answers! In a nutshell: They’re rabbits.

          There is a theory of evolutionary biology known as r/K, which delineates reproductive strategies of animal species which have evolved over time to ensure their survival. In the equation r/K, “r” represents maximal reproductive rate of an individual while “K” represents the carrying capacity of a given area or environment. r/K selection theory describes two distinct reproductive strategies that a species can use to exploit different environmental extremes: limited resources versus unlimited resources. Particular species can also be separated into “r-type” and “K-type.”

          For example, rabbits (r type) will start reproducing early and reproduce as often as possible, leaving one parent to care for the offspring and investing almost no effort in raising their young. Their food source is virtually unlimited, therefore rabbits have no incentive to compete for food or teach their young any skills beyond basic survival. Because their survival is ultimately dependent upon rapid reproduction, rabbits are unaffected by a predator feeding on their population. Each rabbit will, of course, attempt to preserve its own life; but employ a “better you than me” evolutionary attitude. “r-types” regard others as expendable.

          For wolves, on the other hand, resources are limited. Therefore they wait longer to begin reproducing, compete for the best mate, and both parents devote time to the care and training of their offspring. Wolves protect one another and cooperate to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the pack, because they do not consider each other to be expendable.

           You may already begin to see how r/K can be used to explain human behavior, but I will elaborate. First, let’s dispel a popular notion about predators: The word “predator” has negative connotations for us. We often describe criminals as predators; but they are not. Wolves, for example, contribute to their environment by maintaining equilibrium with other inhabitants, by keeping the r-type animals from overpopulating. Criminals and thugs do not contribute to society, because they are parasites.

          So, in terms of humanity, r-types are cowards. Why are humans cowards when rabbits are not? To put it succinctly, humans alone among all the animal species have the intelligence to move beyond simple evolutionary imperatives, to choose individually what he or she will be or do. In light of that fact, it boggles my mind as to why anyone would choose to be an r-type. I don’t merely mean in the sense of courage or cowardice, so let’s look at other parallels.

          In an r-type environment conflict and competition are unnecessary and avoided, which is what Collectivists are known for, hence their hatred for things like free market capitalism and guns for self defense. They abhor competition because they lack the skills and the drive to compete. Additionally, because they exist in a world free of competition, they display no loyalty to other members of their species; which makes something like abortion acceptable to them. Collectivists also promote low-investment, single parenting and efforts to get younger children into sexual education. The ever-growing trend toward things like trigger warnings, political correctness and participation trophies all stem from this r-selective pacifism.

          Collectivists consider themselves “citizens of the world,” as opposed to the patriotic Liberty-lovers who display fierce loyalty to America; because r-types have no loyalty. The very notion of the in-group is entirely foreign and appalling to them. It seems cruel and exclusionary. They simply cannot comprehend why we wouldn’t want our borders overrun by millions of illegal immigrants. Also, Leftists like to cozy-up to foreign enemies because they feel far more threatened by domestic strength and competition.

          What’s most interesting to me is one by-product, in particular, of the competitive K-type environment. Because K-types invest effort into producing and rearing better offspring to compete for resources, over time this produces evolutionary advantages over their r-type counterparts from increased intelligence and sentience, to loyalty and social skills. All of which is due to group competition and adversity.

          The common thread in this evolutionary political theory is resource availability. Those K-types on the Right understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and resources, while not scarce, are not unlimited and must be created. The r-types on the Left, however, believe that if they can just redistribute the resources from those who create wealth then everyone can live equally well forever. Their philosophy is essentially one of killing the golden goose. With that in mind, it’s also interesting to note that the most charitable people in the world are K-types; not these overly-compassionate Collectivists. That’s because what the Left really strives for is not compassion but control, without fighting for it.

          Think about it…

            Eric contributes at WordPress, Blogger and Rebooting Liberty; and you can find The Carr Show on YouTube and Twitter!

Victim Acquitting

            “If you think someone or something other than yourself is responsible for your happiness or success, I’d guess you’re not that happy or successful.”  – Rob Liano

 

---

 

            Greetings, Liberty lovers!

 

            I’m often accused of what some call “victim blaming” when I talk about personal choice, accountability and consequences. I suppose I am a little hard on people in general, if I’m being perfectly honest. I have long believed, and observed, that certain segments of our population indulge in self-victimization as a means of excusing a common lack of ambition. After all, it is much easier to lie about and blame the most readily available excuse for one’s station in life, rather than getting out there and making good things happen.

 

            Now, there have always been ne’er-do-wells and goldbrickers in any society, but this behavior was once frowned upon, whereas ambition and success were hailed as virtues. In this new millennium, it seems like everyone wants to be a victim; it’s excused, celebrated and subsidized. Conversely, success has become a byword: The “evil capitalist” and the “greedy 1%er” are demonized. They are portrayed as thieves by the very same parasites who feed on the wealth which these earners create, draining the lifeblood of our economy with their insatiable lust for handouts. What has happened to our society?

 

            If you understand human nature, you realize that a person is hardwired to seek out his own self interest, to find the path of least resistance which will lead most quickly to the fulfillment of his desires. We’re very like animals in that way. Of course, it is also within our nature to act altruistically, humbly, even heroically. However, if your desire is to live a life of leisure without ever accomplishing anything on your own merit, then the path of least resistance is not hard to find. Likewise, if you’re a politician seeking a ready-made voter bloc…   Well, it’s like a match made in heaven. It’s all too easy to promise and deliver more and more handouts to people who are convinced of their own entitlement, and when Joe Worker complains about the hand in his pocket, you just admonish him for “victim blaming” and tell him to get back to work.

 

            According to an article in Forbes, almost half of the U.S. population is now receiving some form of government assistance. Now, one might ask, “Eric, what’s the harm in a few (million) parasites leaching off of society’s working class?” Well…everything is wrong with it. First of all, it’s an unjust burden on the middle class; but that’s all the rage these days, isn’t it? That’s right; I’m lookin’ at you, Obamacare…   When injustice is allowed, or heavily subsidized in this case, then society suffers as a whole. Even worse perhaps is the devastating effect on the individual.

 

            Another aspect of our inherent nature is the necessity of dignity and self respect. When the majority of any population can reconcile self interest with self respect, then everyone in society benefits. However, when a great number of potential earners are out of work, especially when combined with poor education, we naturally see an increase in crime and civil unrest. When man is idle he loses that vital self respect which allows him to stand up straight and govern himself as a moral individual. When one fails to contribute to the benefit of civilization, he becomes a detriment to society and to himself. So, when you combine that low view of oneself with an exaggerated sense of entitlement, multiplied over generations, you get Occupy Wall Street, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Greece, etc.

 

            You know, I don’t mind being constantly accused of “victim blaming” by the entitlement generation, the “gimme” generation. I may very well be in error at times, by holding people to such a high standard; but I’m okay with that. I think there’s a worse error than “victim blaming,” and that is “victim acquitting.” I will gladly continue to shame the handout generation, because it is only through shaming that these lethargic masses can find it within themselves to accomplish something. If we continue to coddle these precious snowflakes, they will never have a reason to take pride in themselves and become contributing members of our society. So, let the shame begin.

 

            Think about it…

 

            Eric also contributes at CastOffChains.blogspot.com

and you can catch him Tweeting @Eric_Carr80

Free to Choose

            “I’m in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they’re illegal.”  – Milton Friedman

 

---

            Greetings, Liberty lovers!

 

            Why are we afraid to be free? Liberty is the highest ideal to which humanity can aspire, yet the more I talk to people, the oftener I hear something akin to, “Freedom is nice, but not too much all at once.” Liberty with limits…   Liberty doesn’t need limits, people do; but all of the limitations we require can be summed up in one phrase: Don’t be a jerk, and mind your own business That’s pretty simple, right? Just don’t be a jerk…and mind your own business   I can already hear the ‘you can’t do that’ crowd saying, “Eric, you simpleton. Liberty is much too complicated!” To which I reply that, indeed, living in slavery would be a lot simpler. In fact, freedom isn’t too complex; it only seems complicated because we choose to complicate it. There are important details, yes; but none which cannot be sorted out by the Golden Rule: Don’t be a jerk, and mind your own business.

 

            One cannot advocate for Liberty with any veracity unless he first understands what it is, and what it entails. Thomas Jefferson was aware of these “complications” when he wrote, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Essentially, he’s admitting that neither condition is perfect, but too much of a good thing is better than too little. Obviously, he’s quite right about that. Now, you may object to the simplicity of the Golden Rule by observing that some people are jerks, and will always be jerks. This is true, and that’s why we have common sense laws, which can be summed up by the phrase: Don’t be a jerk…or else. Simple, right? Just don’t be a jerk, or else you’ll wind up in the slammer.

 

            Like Mr. Jefferson, I would also prefer the problems inherent in liberty to those inherent in a controlled collective, because there are fewer problems to deal with when you have freedom, and you’re actually free to deal with them. If we are willing to open our eyes and take an honest look at our society, we will clearly recognize one plain fact: Trying to solve all the problems only creates more problems. Let’s look at a practical example, shall we?

 

            As a general guideline, I’m in support of legalizing anything that involves a free choice or a mutually beneficial exchange, so I’m in favor of legalizing prostitution. If a woman, or a man, freely chooses to trade sex for money then who has the legitimate authority to forbid that mutual exchange between consenting adults? Now, let’s not complicate it by asking why someone would choose to sell sex. The rationale or motivation is irrelevant as long as it really is a free choice. We may as well ask why someone would pay for sex. I would never choose to do either, but it’s none of my business, or yours.

 

            Ask yourself: What do we gain by criminalizing prostitution? Are we protecting these prostitutes by making the occasional arrest, or sting operation, and holding them in jail overnight? Are we making their working conditions safer by driving them into the shadows and creating a black market? One of the worst aspects involved in prostitution is the relationship between the pimp and the prostitute, which is often fraught with physical abuse, extortion, encouraged drug addiction…   It’s more slavery than employment. This could be alleviated, if not eliminated, by doing away with the criminality and the taboo. The only thing we as a society gain from keeping it illegal is a self righteous feeling that we’re morally superior, but we’re not.

 

            We already have legalized prostitution and I’m not talking about The Bunny Ranch in Nevada, I’m talking about the porn industry in California. I fail to see a significant difference between a prostitute and a porn star. Look, if I patronized a prostitute, but brought a cameraman and an accountant with me, would the transaction magically transform into legal porn shoot? I challenge anyone to point out a legitimate reason why the porn industry is legal and prostitution is not. The plain fact is that prostitution is a part of our society, but we are doing allowing harm to these women by pretending not to see it.

 

            The “drug war” is an even better example. Like prostitution, there is nothing intrinsically good about ingesting dangerous chemical combinations, and I’ve never personally injected, ingested, dropped, or smoked anything worse than a cigarette (which I quit in favor of vaping, by the way). However, it should be my choice to put whatever I want in my own body. Of course, I realize that there are public safety issues involved with legalizing drug use; primarily that of driving while under the influence. But that is an “inconvenience attending too small a degree of liberty,” to paraphrase Jefferson. But what of the problems involved with fighting the “drug war?” The cost of “keeping drugs off the streets” is unimaginably high in terms of freedom, money and lives. What’s even worse is the undeniable fact that we’re NOT keeping drugs off the streets! Why not legalize drugs? All of them. Do you honestly imagine that people who have never used illegal drugs would suddenly rush out and pick up a heroin habit because it’s legal to do so? Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol, and it’s not working with drugs.

 

            Label me a Libertarian if you like. I often refer to myself as one, but only because it’s typically expedient to do so. It is more accurate, however, to say that I’m just a guy who thinks about things and who loves liberty enough to accept the risk and responsibility involved. Sadly, those who know less or regard freedom less highly often call me naïve, or imply it because they haven’t the guts to come out and say it. When I talk about abolishing the IRS and the ATF and labor unions (all of which are Progressive creations, by the way, as was prohibition) I’m accused of wishful thinking, or magical thinking; as if I’m advocating houses built on clouds or marshmallow unicorn ranches. Do you want to know what “magical thinking” really is? It’s pretending that laws against prostitution and drugs are actually making a positive difference. It’s turning a blind eye to the abuses and governmental control which we allow in the form of the IRS, ATF, EPA, welfare, etc.

 

            Now, I’m not talking about simply abolishing all of these organizations overnight, or altogether, because that would indeed be naïve. Some of these programs can be salvaged but others could, in fact, be safely and beneficially eliminated. The IRS, for instance, only exists to enforce a ridiculously complex tax code, and to punish the occasional Tea Party organization that gets “a little too uppity.” Is the Fair Tax proposal a naïve idea? If we all paid an equal percentage, instead of a progressive tax, we could eliminate the mind-boggling tax code along with the IRS, and everyone would, in fact, pay his or her fair share. We could also eliminate tax breaks for the wealthy which would encourage employers to keep jobs and funds in America, and there wouldn’t be a tax burden because we’re only talking about 10% of one’s income.

 

            I could quite literally go on and on and on about this, but smarter people than me have done that and done it better. So, let me end with this: Liberty is not the foolish and unattainable fantasy that Collectivists would have us believe. My friends, liberty is a choice, and it’s the right choice. Let us decide now, the sooner the better, that we will choose freedom over this petty tyranny, and begin moving in that direction. Let’s work together to become daily more free and throw off the constraints of imagined moral superiority and government control. It can be done…we simply have to make the choice.

 

            Think about it…

 

            Eric also contributes at CastOffChains.blogspot.com

and you can catch him Tweeting @Eric_Carr80

 

Cowardice

“…if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.” 

– John Stuart Mill

On Liberty

 

---

 

            Greetings, my friends!

            I want to talk today about one of the most shameful characteristics of humanity: Our capacity for cowardice and acts thereof. I was recently acquainted with a woman on Twitter who identified as a Progressive. Let’s call her Angie…because that’s her name. Now, as far as Progressives go, Angie seemed pretty reasonable. The things she wrote, and the way in which she phrased them, led me to believe she was relatively intelligent. I commonly make the mistake of assuming open-mindedness where I observe intelligence, and it is rarely the case. However, she and I were able to exchange emails and conduct a civil, even enjoyable, conversation not limited to 140 characters at a time. Throughout the course of reading her first few emails I began to get an idea of her ideology, which was essentially that freedom was too dangerous to be allowed in great measure. When we disagreed over the importance of liberty rather than security, she stopped responding to emails altogether. Then, after a short but condescending exchange on Twitter I was blocked by her and every other Leftist within earshot…so to speak.

            In his book, On Liberty, Mill wrote about the importance of sharing one’s ideas with those who oppose them. After all, how can one know a good idea without some basis by which to judge its worth? If you are afraid to offer up your deeply held beliefs to the scrutiny of opposition, how can you be so sure they’re worth believing? John Stuart Mill wrote, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that…   Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations.”

            One of the mistakes we often make is to silence the opposing views. We do this because, over time, we become emotionally attached to our points of view, and it upsets us when those views are challenged; especially if the challenger is particularly sarcastic or condescending. He is essentially saying, “Not only are you wrong but you’re stupid, as well.” As I’ve mentioned in other posts, we must endeavor to divorce emotion from our thinking process. Only then can we hope to be truly objective, and pursue the truth honestly. Bear in mind, however, that the patronizing attitude you often encounter from so-called intellectuals is just another way of silencing the opposition. By attacking your intelligence they can upset you and bring you down to their emotion-clouded level, thereby shifting the argument from one of facts to one of insults. Then they can silence you, and feel justified in doing so because you were being childish. But know this: From personal experience I can assure you that nothing provokes a so-called intellectual more than remaining logical and objective, and it is only by being provoked that we are forced to reexamine our own ideas.

            I should point out that it’s not always an act of intellectual cowardice to ignore someone who disagrees with you. In fact, I suppose I should thank Angie for blocking me and preventing me from wasting any more time. But I can’t…because she blocked me. Seriously, though, it is sometimes necessary to ignore someone who desires only to provoke you for the sake of being contrary. You could say, “water is wet,” and they would argue that wet is a matter of opinion, and you just got that opinion from Fox News, or MSNBC, as the case may be. Just keep in mind that no one is more prone to error than he who is absolutely certain.

            To be perfectly honest, I dislike confrontation. Not that I’m afraid of it, but it depresses me more often than not. I would much rather be friends and, at the end of the day, I wish that Angie and I could have continued to have polite discussions, instead of deteriorating into snarky comments. She really seemed like a decent person outside of her political views and I continue to believe that she has the potential to be an honest and open-minded person. At this point, however, I can only hope that I’ve left a lasting impression and given her something to think about…

Eric also contributes at CastOffChains.blogspot.com,

and you can catch him Tweeting @Eric_Carr80