1) people are generally what you and I would consider immoral (they support murder/rape/slavery) but also 2) an immoral society can out compete moral societies
There's enough percentage of people who would sacrifice the long term for short term comforts, especially in an anarchy situation, that you'd spend a lot of energy on self defense.
I mean, certainly you could have a situation like some failed countries where everything has been stolen.
The current system incentivizes this by caring for these people, so we’re left with more of these people. In anarchy they would starve & be selected against.
Nope. The system incentivizes people to go on and stay on wellfare. They vote to get more free shit from there. If you have no wellfare people will find jobs, they wont starve.
sorry, meant the current system incentivizes people to sacrifice long term for short term. I agree with you. really meant they'd either get a job & change behavior or starve.
But I think there is an IQ issue which limits abstract thinking (ie planning for the future & what-if scenarios eg what if I need food in the future).
Hard to account for upbringing of people in all these places. If you wanted to prove such a relationship you'd have to see if it holds for kids of races raised in foreign places.
including Somalia to preempt the typical, "if you like ancap so much move to Somalia" argument
agreed. didnt mean to debate racial differences and IQ, just the best graph I had to show IQ differences across countries.
Not sure I agree here. With an anarchy there wouldn’t be a safety net. People would be responsible for their own actions and the consequences. E.g. buying a tv not food.
