[Arleigh]

Singer’s argument boils down to this: the left will be better able to achieve its social and political agenda if it acknowledges and incorporates a more accurate understanding of human nature into its worldview.

I happen to believe that the Right needs to understand sociobiology to better further its social and political agenda.

I believe an arguement can be made that humans have an innate attraction to socialism. All primitive people practice a form of socialism - those who have share with those who do not. This is essential in hunter-gatherer societies, where luck plays an inordinate part in success. The lucky hunter-gatherer shares his/her good fortune knowing that tomorrow he/she may not be so lucky (and because it's hard for nomads to store foodstuffs). Also, in small tribes everyone knows everyone else, so it's easy to identify and punish the freeloaders who always take and never give.

Even today, even in America, most people think there's something wrong about some people having more things than others, or selling needed things for more than a "fair" premium over what you paid for them.

The concepts of individualism, self-reliance and capitalism are relatively recent. They clearly go against deep human nature. Those on the right need to understand this, so they realize what an uphill struggle it is to champion freedom and responsibility.

[nimdoc]

I believe an arguement can be made that humans have an innate attraction to socialism.

I believe that you are wrong. In a small (hunter-gather society), where resources are scarce, people will share because they expect the others to reciprocate. If one person is holding back, hoarding food or lack of effort, everyone will know and reciprocate in kind. In a larger group cheaters can and will survive.

Capitalism is the natural result of Darwinian evolution. I think that it can be shown that labor unions and a limited central government are also the natural outcome of evolution

The concepts of individualism, self-reliance and capitalism are relatively recent. They clearly go against deep human nature.

Individualism and self-reliance are inherent in human nature. (Ask any teenager.) We trade off what we have to in order to survive (or increase our comfort level). Cooperation is what we do because we are better off if we cooperate than if we go it alone.
Capitalism is as red in tooth and claw as any struggle for survival in nature.

[Cleburne]

But wouldn't evolutionary theory-science if you accept it as most do-dictate then that individualism and freedom are wrong and contrary to human nature, and thus must be replaced with a more balanced, communal nature? I can only imagine the glee liberals would feel should they stumble over some good idealogy mixing...