It is a necessity for ones political views to mature, to read publications, preferably in all forms, of other political schools. For most of my active political life libertarians were considered an allied group to a right winger. Certain events taking place in Europe and elsewhere, challenged the notion. Libertarian governments have proved themselves to be far more reliable at dealing with the right than left wing governments. Libertarian public administrators have brought higher numbers of illegal aliens than assertive left wing governments.
This observation made the writer think on a few things regarding the r/K psychological evolutionary theory as presented by anonymous conservative. First it should be introduced as it is and then as it was presented:
The r/K theory describes reproductive patterns and parental attention towards offspring. r selected organisms (rabbits) tend to be inattentive to their children and to reproduce in large numbers. Their strategy is to take advantage of a large amount of easily accessible resources in the least amount of time. For this reason their behaviour is generally cowardly, characterised also by low group cohesion. Children are raised by the one parent and they get emancipated at a younger age.
With K selected organisms (Wolves) the situation is different. High group cohesion high parental attentiveness, were both parents take place in rearing children, groups are tight and they number few loyal members. This strategy exists to take advantage of sparse resources in a highly competitive environment. Wolves also fight for the control of territory as losing it would lead to starvation.
Anonymous conservative, being more of libertarian due to American tradition, misunderstands the qualities of wolves and rabbits. While it is true that rabbits center on bigger groups they do that only to have lower chances as individuals to be picked off by wolves. Wolves gather in small groups to achieve feats otherwise not possible. He believed that when people show higher ingroup preference and lower individualism are characterised by rabbit behaviour while higher individualism is being seen as wolf behaviour. Both these statements are incorrect as we humans are a highly K selected species with tendencies to higher K (alternatively K weighted) or lower K (r weighted).
His mistake was egregiously serious as it leads to vast misreadings of the surrounding world and of the daily experience. Two examples should suffice as a provision of logical thought to truthfinding.
A good example is of a “rabbit” group of people, or wealth takers. Such a group will do anything to achieve, as a group, higher recipiency of government handouts, while actively voting to marginalise wealth creation groups, from the political sphere. This group is not rabbitish but wolfish! It tries to take advantage of fewer resources while protecting political capital, in place of territory, in the example. The individuals are rabbitish but as a group they are wolfish.
A “wolf” group would, of wealth creators would act differently. As a group they would not really participate in the fight for political capital as it would make them lose precious time for wealthmaking. Their way of thinking is that by working hard they ‘ll make themselves more rich. The group disregards also other groups attacking it as a group because it would lead to a loss of wealth on their part as a group. As individuals they appear wolfish as they create wealth, but as a group they are rabbitish as they respond by flight in front of an enemy and use numbers as a way to minimise losses.
Libertarians for all their drivel against taxation live today in more heavily taxed societies, where more money are being removed from the coffers of productive citizens to non-producing individuals, than the time they appeared. As a group, the libertarians, took advantage of a specific environment, legal and political, that was made by late monarchies and empires 200-300 years ago (Note 1) in order to maximise the monarch’s wealth while keeping taxes relatively low. This environment was perfect for allowing individuals to bring, trade, or create by industry, more new wealth in a controlled and managed environment. It is not to be put to question that with the rise of the democratic state that specific state was put to question and redistribution started. The big thing to be noticed is that the group most inclined to stop redistribution does not only care for politics (public matters) but offers no tangible resistance to it.
Hence Libertarians only provide wealth to redistributors, while whining about the result and fighting against any person who might want to attack the current redistributors. The reason is that the current environment still provides with enough opportunities for wealth creation while flight or fight conditions would cost more to them. For anyone thinking the libertarian rabbit as an ally to right-wing wolf, anonymous conservative’s misunderstanding should suffice as blackpill. For others more read on economics there might be a Minsky moment (note 2) for the said rabbits.
A moment in which inaction will cause more than any action has already reached some states in both Europe and the United States. Californians have been noticed moving to Texas as their burden becomes bigger. The result is that libertarians or liberals will choose fleeing to greener pastures never fighting back. So even when they ‘ll suffer their Minsky moment they ‘ll never ally with an enemy of the left. The good news are that they can be by-passed by the right as they are being by-passed by the left while anybody could take advantage of their wealth making in a market environment, as long as they do not overdo it and trigger their flight response.
Note 1: Now this was said as such for reasons of extreme simplicity, libertarianism was the reaction to early socialism in the 20th century demanding a return to laissez faire capitalism, while the time approximation does not take into account capitalism’s enforcement, which could have a book written on it, economic and political thought, esp. in England was developing to that direction.
Note 2: Minsky’s moment is when financially a subsequent loan will NOT cover the expenses of previous loans, hence leading to illiquidity. The reason for that is bad risk valuation. i.e. Due to good times more people consider risk to be low while it is high and as a result predictions go foul and a financial crisis starts. Here it is used in behavioural way. It was formulated by Paul McCulley in honour of Hyman Minsky