Eden and Evolution

Me: When someone says that there is a link between evolution and eugenics, but refuses to acknowledge a similar link between Hitler and Christianity, they are not being intellectually honest.

You: I never said such a link existed.

You did link Darwin with eugenics:

A direct link with Darwin: his cousin, who specifically credited Darwin with inspiring his own ideas.

I ask again: Do you acknowledge a link between Christianity and Hitler's crimes against Jews?

Hitler was an occultic pagan.

Hitler was an occultic pagan.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

My point is that the biology professor in the article made this statement:

Nazi Germany had taken Darwin's ideas about natural selection, the credo that only the fittest survive, and followed it to its extreme conclusions -- anti-Semitism, eugenics and death camps.

If she is going make such a link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's crimes then, by her own reasoning, she should also make such a link between Hitler's crimes and Christianity.

LOL!!! I see your vocabulary skills are on par with your knowledge of history.

A sure sign of a runaway argument is the proliferation of LOL, ROFL and their ilk. Your laughter is a defense mechanism against ideas that might undermine your position. In this case, it protects you from facing the fact that you're guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

The Italian Fascisti ceased to exist as a party after WWII. Even then, the word was used to refer to more than the actual Fascisti, since it was also applied to German National Socialists who were not literally fascist, but who resembled the Fascisti in certain ways. The third Reich has of course fallen, so even that stretched application of the term is essentially obsolete. Your implied definition of "fascist" is completely useless outside a discussion of mid-twentieth-century history.

In common parlance, and in my post, the word "fascist" was used as a general reference to authoritarians who, unlike the socialists, allow citizens to retain their private property but who, being authoritarians, control the citizens' use of their property. The United States government has enacted a good deal of legislation that is fundamentally socialist, and also a good deal that is fundamentally fascist. See for example Social Security on the one hand, and the Food and Drug Administration on the other.

If you fail to grasp the basic usage of a word, then of course the rest of the discussion will fly over your head. But the rational man remedies his vocabulary problems. The unthinking man laughs, mistaking his incomprehension for the other man's stupidity.

LOL... Yeah, Francis Galton was a "fascistic individual." I guess today, using your magic decoder ring, "fascistic individual" means "Victorian gentleman."

He specifically advocated that public policy should exert control over reproduction for the "improvement" of the species. It's abundantly clear that this fits within the common-usage meaning of "fascism". Of course you'll have lots of leisure to debate whether it's fascistic at all, since you will obviously be forbidden to breed under any rational eugenics program.

Darwin's work may have been a catalyst in Galton's case (or, more likely, may have been used by Galton to give his ancient ideas a modern, scientific cast), but they were a catalyst for him contemplating the application of artificial selection to human beings. If Galton "credited" Darwin, he simply didn't understand Darwin's work, anymore than you understand what the word "fascist" means.

I quote the paragraph in its entirety because excerpting it would be to deface a masterpiece: it's an incredible assembly of incorrect assertions that would be remedied if you'd read anything of Galton's at all.

Galton's core observation was one oft-repeated today: society negates natural selection by providing the means for unfit persons to survive. This observation links natural and artificial selection in a natural and obvious way. Namely, artificial selection is called for precisely because natural selection has ceased to operate "correctly". This extends the analogy of animal husbandry, by calling upon evolutionary theory as evidence that a problem exists, to which artificial selection is then proposed as the solution.

I've already described this as a misapplication of the theory of evolution, so you can leave out your straw-man suggestion that I somehow blame Darwin for Galton. However, it's equally important that you realize the natural (but incorrect) logic whereby natural selection suggests the notion that civilization is harmful to the species. The observation never fails to be made at about that point in a discussion of natural selection. It's the fascist mentality that makes one extra step, and decides government should rectify the situation.

LOL... Where did you get this supposed Ph.D?

I notice that each section of your reply begins with a fresh burst of laughter. You apparently have your mental barriers set at maximum. My PhD is in Mathematics, and was awarded by Syracuse University. That's why I focus so closely on the flaws in your logic; they glow for me like flashing neon signs.

You did link Darwin with eugenics:

A direct link with Darwin: his cousin, who specifically credited Darwin with inspiring his own ideas.

You misunderstood. A direct link between Galton and Darwin. If you reread my posts, it will be abundantly clear that I never blamed Darwin for eugenics. The original statement, to save you some time, was: "A fascist who embraces Catholicism starts inquisitions. A fascist who embraces evolution advocates eugenics." The accent is on the word "fascist", not "evolution".

Does that clear things up for you?

I'm aware that you never blamed Darwin for eugenics. My point all along has been that the biology professor in the article made a deliberate attempt to associate Darwin's theory with Nazi atrocities. If she's going to do that, then she better be prepared to associate Hitler's crimes and Christianity. Both ideas are below the belt attempts to smear by association, IMO.

It wasn't clear whether your comments were directed at the author or at me; they appeared to be directed at me. Thanks for clarifying.

A sure sign of a runaway argument is the proliferation of LOL, ROFL and their ilk. Your laughter is a defense mechanism against ideas that might undermine your position.

Actually, it recognizes the humor in watching you manufacture history, mangle logic and invent language. (Oh, tell us again, dear sage, of how Victorian fascists invented eugenics...) The fact that it is a common mistake to use the word "fascist" in the manner you do does not transform your improper usage of the word into a proper one; it simply means that a lot of people make that same mistake you do.

The unthinking man laughs, mistaking his incomprehension for the other man's stupidity.

Or, as in this case, the thinking man laughs as the stupid man displays his stupidity. Hence my laughter.

He specifically advocated that public policy should exert control over reproduction for the "improvement" of the species. It's abundantly clear that this fits within the common-usage meaning of "fascism".

Calling a tail a "leg" doesn't change the fact that dogs only have four legs. Describing a man who was not a fascist as a "fascist" does not make him one.

Likewise, the eugenicist who misconstrues and misunderstands the principle of natural selection--as you admit Galton did--is not "contemplating natural selection," he's contemplating a mischaracterization or caricature of natural selection coupled with a contemplation of artificial selection.

And the premise that "society negates natural selection by providing the means for unfit persons to survive" is such a misunderstanding of natural selection that it falsifies your assertion that it provides a "natural and obvious" link between natural selection and artificial selection. Since such a link does not exist in this context, then your initial assertion that eugenics arises from the contemplation of natural selection by those you mistakenly term "fascists" is simply false. They may be contemplating something, but it is not natural selection.

I notice that each section of your reply begins with a fresh burst of laughter.

Because your posts are so amusing. When dealing with people like you, smart people are often amused by your struggling attempts at rationality. It is a fleeting amusement, but amusing none the less.

Actually, it recognizes the humor in watching you manufacture history, mangle logic and invent language.

You keep repeating yourself, after being proven badly wrong. The term "fascist" refers to more than Mussolini's political party in mid-twentieth-century Italy. Your failure to acknowledge the fact, unfortunately for you, demonstrates clearly to anyone reading the thread that you are lacking in either honesty or understanding.

Likewise, the eugenicist who misconstrues and misunderstands the principle of natural selection--as you admit Galton did--is not "contemplating natural selection,"

Pure idiocy. The man who contemplates natural selection and decides that it's exactly like a hard-boiled egg, was in fact contemplating evolution, the stupidity of his conclusion notwithstanding. You show a fundamental difficulty comprehending elementary things.

The likeliest case is that you can't shake an emotional conviction that somehow, someway, I'm implementing some sort of attack on evolution. The resulting religious fervor makes you incapable of actually hearing what is said, because the actual content is lost in your own fog of antipathy.

It happens I'm not a creationist, nor a young earther. Would your ears start working if I fired a few earthy volleys at the flat-earth ID crowd to prove my bona fides? Probably, but in my experience it would be temporary. Your emotions are too bound up in the subject to sustain a rational discourse.

When dealing with people like you, smart people are often amused by your struggling attempts at rationality.

The absurdity of such statements is patently obvious to anyone reading the thread. You're only embarrassing yourself.

The term "fascist" refers to more than Mussolini's political party in mid-twentieth-century Italy.

Even if true, that doesn't mean that the term can be defined to mean anything you want it to mean. Things that are only "similar to fascism" or which "display traits in common with fascism" are not fascism nor, necessarily, even "fascistic." But things that aren't like fascism at all, except in your fevered imaginings, such as feudalism, Victorian England and the Food and Drug Administration, aren't fascism.

The man who contemplates natural selection and decides that it's exactly like a hard-boiled egg, was in fact contemplating evolution...

No, he only thinks he was.

The likeliest case is that you can't shake an emotional conviction that somehow, someway, I'm implementing some sort of attack on evolution. The resulting religious fervor makes you incapable of actually hearing what is said, because the actual content is lost in your own fog of antipathy.

LOL... No. No emotion but amusement. The earnestness in which you hold onto your contentions, even in spite of being blinkeringly wrong, is amusing.

It happens I'm not a creationist, nor a young earther. Would your ears start working if I fired a few earthy volleys at the flat-earth ID crowd to prove my bona fides? Probably, but in my experience it would be temporary. Your emotions are too bound up in the subject to sustain a rational discourse.

If it makes you feel better to believe that, if it fills some emotional need that you have, then go ahead and pat yourself on the head. My amusement comes from your earnestness in the face of your lack of rational thought, not your opinions on the subject of evolution.

Even if true...

I'm fighting the urge to use acronyms to express my amusement. "Even if true" implies that there is a shadow of a doubt. Unless you're posting from Mongolia, and only recently learned English, you've heard the word "fascist" used in a sentence not referring to any Italians.

The rest of your post is 99.9% pure ad hominem, which of course demonstrates better than I could that you've fully expended your intellectual arsenal.

"Even if true" implies that there is a shadow of a doubt.

Nope, it just recognizes the school of thought that asserts that the term "fascism" properly refers only to the system of government implemented by Mussolini, and is improper even when used in reference to such closely related movements as that in Hitler's Germany, let alone when referring to such bizarre examples as 19th Century Britain, feudalism and the FDA.

You're way too fixated on a minor point of nomenclature--even if you weren't simply wrong. For purposes of this discussion, all authoritarians are interchangeable, whether they favor (Mussolini-style) fascism, (Soviet-style) socialism, (Middle-east-style) despotism, (Medieval-style) Papal theocracy, or any other flavor. The most precise formulation of my original statement would therefore be:

Disbelievers in freedom contemplate natural selection and decide that they, or their preferred authority figure, can do it one better. Just as disbelievers in freedom who embrace (any particular) religion will generally favor aggression against heretics.

That reformulated statement expresses the original intent without using the word that confuses you (fascist), but it raises two new problems:

First, the new statement will be incomprehensible to you without knowing the definition of "freedom," and it's a virtual certainty that you don't know it. If you're a "conservative", you no doubt believe that "freedom" is limited by the State's compelling power to intervene--in other words, your sympathies are what I would call "fascist"--or, if you are a "liberal", you will imagine that freedom is about running around topless and urinating on crucifixes.
Second, if you manage to comprehend the reformulated statement, you'll realize that I really said, "People who don't believe in freedom contemplate X, and conclude that X implies a need to violate others' freedom." If you're really perceptive--so there's no danger in your case--you'll realize that my statement was an utter tautology: "People who don't believe in freedom tend to oppose freedom."

If you reach the zen level of comprehension, so that both of the above points are clear to you, then you'll realize that my original statement was so much a truism as to be almost trite. At which point, you'll grasp why I find you so amazingly obtuse for disputing it in the first place.

my statement was an utter tautology: "People who don't believe in freedom tend to oppose freedom." If you reach the zen level of comprehension, so that [this is] clear to you, then you'll realize that my original statement was so much a truism as to be almost trite.

It's worth pointing out that beneath the triteness lies a certain profundity. Namely, that Muslims are a pestilence not because they are muslim, but because they lack a fundamental belief in freedom. There's interplay, because their religion teaches against freedom, but with only that one change their religion would cease to be any part of the problem.

It also helps clarify why Dems so often find themselves on the side of the Muslim terrorists: they are united by a common rejection of freedom. The only point on which they differ is who gets to sit in the despot's throne.

I don't expect perfection. Ever. The idea of perfection in this world is a brain trap, always.

With decent education, strong cultural transmission of a tradition of liberty, backed up with technical reasons for the curious, those tribal instincts can be checked quite enough for people to live like civilized human beings, respectful of their neighbors' rights and tolerant of their differences, most of the time. Making this tradition means there will be pull back to it after chaos of the occasional upsets have passed.

As far as Galt's Gulch goes, I've read about half a page of Ayn Rand and couldn't tolerate her prose. Far as I can tell from my husband's reports of the plot and style, her only arguably decent fiction was _The Fountain Head_, and event that seems to be Gogol's _The Portrait_ swiped, bludgeoned to death, injected with the author's personal rape fantasy, and screeched through a megaphone. What remains of Gogol's perceptions probably has some value and probably still shines for some people (yes I'm aware Gogol was Christian, but human truths in good literature speak to those of various philosophical frameworks).

I have no fondness for utopias, libertarian or otherwise. I want a decent democratic republic that ensures basic human rights, so that people can live, feed and shelter their families, and have honest discussions, and build the things they like as they can personally afford to, without maniacs trying to enslave or kill them. I think this is quite possible, because I mostly see it around me, barring a few things like state education, or the Kelo decision. Those things, we can live with for the meanwhile, and we have a framework for fighting them peacefully.

With decent education, strong cultural transmission of a tradition of liberty, backed up with technical reasons for the curious, those tribal instincts can be checked quite enough for people to live like civilized human beings, respectful of their neighbors' rights and tolerant of their differences, most of the time.

I agree with your statement, but I think you're setting the bar very low: it's has been achieved by various societies over the past 10,000 years or so. The problem is that in each case, the achievement was temporary, because people revert to a tribal mentality which is at once socialistic and belligerent. The US is well on its way in the same direction.

True civilization is a long way away. By "true" civilization I mean one that's at least as civil as the US, England, Egypt for much of its history, ancient Iceland, etc., but which also survives for an appreciable length of time--say, at least 1,000 years--without reverting to socialism or totalitarianism, and without being destroyed by external enemies.

Since as you say, perfection is unattainable, I won't subtract points if this "true" civilization is cruel to foreigners (as Icelanders were), allows slavery (as Rome and every other example, including England and the US, did), or has some other such imperfection. So let's say that private property rights are sacrosanct for most of the population, but not necessarily everyone.

I have no fondness for utopias, libertarian or otherwise.

I don't believe one will be achieved, certainly not within our lifetimes and without divine intervention. However, it would be a false dichotomy to suggest that, since we can't have utopia, today's society must be good enough. It's seriously defective.

I think this is quite possible, because I mostly see it around me, barring a few things like state education, or the Kelo decision. Those things, we can live with for the meanwhile, and we have a framework for fighting them peacefully.

I disagree, because historically freedom doesn't ebb and flow. It steadily diminishes. Once in a while, a nearly miraculous revolution occurs, and substantial freedom is achieved somewhere--but even in those cases, it resumes steady decline immediately. The Whiskey rebellion demonstrates that freedom was being undermined during the term of the very first US president, and it's been steadily downhill since.

"Thanks for the clarification."

Man, you are a sneaky one. At least I'm saying what I think, not leaving it for you to infer. And, at least I'm overtly addressing what I think you think, not silently smugly assuming I can read your mind. I suppose that's the nature of honesty, relative to pride?

If you actually care a whit about human life, you'll get a lot more people killed by this sort of proud silent smugness, than by honestly discussing what I think.

"...I would once again dodge the entire question by pointing out that "designing social systems" is essentially an authoritarian exercise, and anyone who tries to do it is already the enemy--his precise goals are irrelevant."

Thomas Jefferson? The U.S. founding fathers?

This is one of the situations where no choice is a choice. The only result of dissuading citizens from discussing and altering social systems is to leave it in the hands of those who currently have the social power (in the Jefferson example, the British king). That is the true nature of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Bluntly, the US is a designed social system, yet it is not an authoritarian exercise, so you are wrong. The US was designed, but it was designed to secure individual liberty. It does this by detailing a structure which has both internal and external checks (different branches check each other, the people are armed and vote, respectively) on tyranny. This structure is good insofar as it serves as an immune system against anarchy, which leads to tyranny of the physically and socially strongest, and which is what you would get absent any design at all. This seems to be what you are promoting. Be honest about it, if so.

Man, you are a sneaky one.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

At least I'm saying what I think, not leaving it for you to infer.

Oh, we're back on that nonsense again are we? I said neither more nor less than I meant; apparently you're determined to read something into it, and then you blame me for the result. Why do you do that?

If you actually care a whit about human life, you'll get a lot more people killed by this sort of proud silent smugness, than by honestly discussing what I think.

Um, can I have some of whatever you're smoking? My posts in this thread are killing people? You seem.... er... rather excited. I suggest you lie down.

Thomas Jefferson? The U.S. founding fathers?

What about them? Here's the conversation as I envision it:

You: Allow me to introduce myself; I'm trying to build a society.
Me: You're on private property.
You: You don't understand! I'm trying to set up a government. Don't you want to discuss it with me?
Me: You know what "trespassing" is, don't you?
You: Well, don't blame me when my tax agent comes round here tomorrow...
Me: That's fine with me, as long as he knows better than to trespass on someone's private property.

In short, you implicitly believe the proposition that my property isn't mine, but is subject to the control of some agent of force. Which brings us back to my original statement: a fascist naturally gravitates toward exerting force on others. The main reason you can't process that, seems to be that you believe in exerting force on others, but don't consider yourself at all fascist, which causes paralyzing cognitive dissonance.

As for Jefferson, he regarded government as a necessary evil. That puts him in a different league entirely than yourself. I don't agree with Jefferson on everything, but he and I could definitely throw back a few companionable brews.

The only result of dissuading citizens from discussing and altering social systems is to leave it in the hands of those who currently have the social power...

Oh, you misunderstand me completely. I'm ready to defend my self and property, using deadly force if necessary. I advocate that 300 million Americans join me in this resolve. If they do so, then the "discussions" you seem to want would become entirely moot. You respect my property; I respect yours; violators are promptly shot; what's left to discuss?

That's what I meant when I said, "anyone who tries to 'design a social system' is already the enemy." I mean, a "social system" means a set of rules and an enforcement mechanism. It means you plan to tell me what to do, and you plan to send someone in a uniform to shoot me if I don't do it. You are therefore, by definition, the enemy.

That's dizzyingly crazy to you precisely because you believe the basic statist premise, that someone has to make the rules fer cryin' out loud. I dispute that premise.

"The problem is that in each case, the achievement was temporary, because people revert to a tribal mentality which is at once socialistic and belligerent. The US is well on its way in the same direction."

[...]

"I disagree, because historically freedom doesn't ebb and flow. It steadily diminishes. Once in a while, a nearly miraculous revolution occurs, and substantial freedom is achieved somewhere--but even in those cases, it resumes steady decline immediately. The Whiskey rebellion demonstrates that freedom was being undermined during the term of the very first US president, and it's been steadily downhill since."

The early US involved slavery of black people, and genocide of Indians. Until fairly recently, difficult or mentally slow people could be sterilized against their will, and couples had to take blood tests before they could marry. Home schooling, in very recent memory, was illegal in most states.

We've corrected a great deal, largely by deciding to follow, instead of flaunt, the structure laid out in the founding documents, and also largely by using US constitutional mechanisms (legislation and amendment, not misinterpretation by elite fiat) to fix flaws. Yes, we've lost a fair bit of ground as well, but the picture of a fundamentally downhill trajectory toward tribal instincts needs to seen in context of the above, apparently uphill, strides. It looks like ebb and flow, at the very least, on the surface. At any rate, I don't particularly think it is plainly obvious that we are degenerating into tribalism. I think we've always had a good bit of that, and now have more or less in certain areas. Maybe now more tribalism in certain structurally crucial areas, I don't know.

The current system may yet fall, maybe in the next few generations. I don't think the tribal mentality alone will be the cause, but, instead, that mentality working in conjunction with other factors. This is a significant distinction - your system seems to have it that the tribal mentality will always drag everything down into savagery. I think that variations in cultural content ("liberty liberty liberty!"), different structures of cultural transmission (no government-run schools), and detail of economic structures (money system in particular - Pharaonic Egypt, 3000 years (with a few blips), supposedly ran on barter*), work with with these tribal instincts in different ways, and play a real role in making or breaking the civilization.

If I remember correctly, many of the US founders didn't even expect this system to last this long. My thinking on this is that the good thing to do, if collapse does happen, is to learn by experience as much as possible, and work to make the tradition of the US Constitution survive the forces of anarchy and tyranny that will no doubt be powerful in the setting of recent collapse.

I'm not of the Egyptian mind that everything goes steadily downhill after the initial reign of Osiris, nor am I a believer in this idea's various Greek and American incarnations (the idea of 1787 being the height of America, and the time since primarily as downhill, I see in this vein). I don't think the facts back up this idea universally unless you look at them expecting them to, and I think the instances in which the facts don't back up this idea are instances to study and learned from. Further, I think this idea tends to resign people to slow collapse, and dissuade them from doing the hard work necessary for keeping a good system going (nominating people like Alito off the bat for SCOTUS, for example), or for fighting against the forces of tyranny and anarchy, when and if they arise, in order to found a decent system.

"True civilization is a long way away. By "true" civilization I mean one that's at least as civil as the US, England, Egypt for much of its history, ancient Iceland, etc., but which also survives for an appreciable length of time--say, at least 1,000 years--without reverting to socialism or totalitarianism, and without being destroyed by external enemies."

I don't know how far off "true" civilization is. If we can keep what we have going, it is "here". Encouraging people to think that the current civilization is currently simply doomed (instead of informing them that certain flaws will doom it if nothing is done to fix them) just means encouraging them to resign themselves to the current flaws, and to the eventual chaotic (and likely bloody) period of collapse, instead of working to identify and change those flaws.

If the flaws do cause the collapse of what we have, then, rather than resign themselves to thinking of "true" civilization as "a long way away", I would hope people would fight anarchy and tyranny in order to re-implement the US Constitution, or something similar (perhaps the US Constitution but with a few tweaks to fix some particular aspects, like those in the educational system and money system, that contribute most to its instability).

"Since as you say, perfection is unattainable, I won't subtract points if this "true" civilization is cruel to foreigners (as Icelanders were), allows slavery (as Rome and every other example, including England and the US, did), or has some other such imperfection. So let's say that private property rights are sacrosanct for most of the population, but not necessarily everyone."

The more people for whom you deny property and bodily rights, the more people you cut off an opportunity to make important, unique, and beneficial contributions to sustaining and bettering the civilization. So, no. Perfect isn't attainable, but better than slavery and cruelty sure is. Civilizations may well survive the sorts of imperfections you discuss, for thousands of years even, when their neighboring civilizations are in a similar state. When you are, say, fighting an arms race with the USSR, you'd better be damn sure that any kid with what it takes to contribute substantially to defense technology isn't having his mind rot on somebody's plantation, and isn't killed on the street for having a face the locals don't like. A good way to do this is liberty. These two sides, individual and civilizational, are on the same coin. This is, if I'm not mistaken, the major insight of "neoconservative" foreign policy, and has been since at least the Reagen years.

--------- * (According to a Dr. Brier. I am a bit suspicious, my guess is that it more ran on grain or other key agricultural goods as currency. This would interestingly differs from metal money, as well as fiat money, in having a direct popular use, and (I assume) an inherent expiration date. I suspect these features imply a good deal less possibility of money system corruption. I haven't looked far into this, though.)

We've corrected a great deal, largely by deciding to follow, instead of flaunt, the structure laid out in the founding documents...

There's truth in that statement. But it's helpful to recognize that there are two separate issues at work. One is the recognition of human rights in the abstract; the other is, essentially, the definition of "human". The founding fathers perceived no contradiction between "life, liberty, etc.," and slavery, because they viewed their African slaves as sub-human. They were right in their views on human rights, but wrong in the scope of their application.

Today, we've improved on the latter point. In fact we're in danger of going too far. We not only recognize that rights transcend sex, race, etc, but there is a growing notion that rights transcend species.

As pertains individual rights, however, there is an increasing belief that it is moral to expropriate the property of others because "someone needs it". The net effect is that, say, African Americans have much more freedom than African Americans of the 18th century--but both whites and blacks have less freedom that did propertied whites of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Merging those two aspects into one results in a deceptive picture.

rather than resign themselves to thinking of "true" civilization as "a long way away", I would hope people would fight anarchy and tyranny

I'm not sure what you mean by "fighting anarchy", but it sounds like you are talking about actively resisting the advent of true civilization. So long as a privileged class has the power to initiate force against the rest of the population, so long will we be a society of rats jockeying for a place at the top of the pile.

In true civilization, nobody has any power to aggress against another, and anyone who goes ahead and aggresses anyway will meet a swift and forceful response. Today, a privileged class is allowed to shoot you, and is granted the presumption that his shooting you was legitimate.

The more people for whom you deny property and bodily rights, the more people you cut off an opportunity to make important, unique, and beneficial contributions to sustaining and bettering the civilization.

I agree. We're talking about which imperfection is worse, which is a losing battle. You'd prefer limited but equal oppression for all; I'd prefer complete absence of oppression for a large majority. In the one case, we're all oppressed, and continue the human struggle to trade places with our oppressors rather than ending the oppression itself. In the other, we at least have an example of what we should be striving for.