Survival Of The Fittest

 There may be a kernel of truth to be gleaned from the now discredited ideology of social Darwinism--that the smartest and fittest rise to the top of any hierarchy and end up with most of the wealth and power. This seems to be a natural trend for all people everywhere.

Now Jordan Peterson does favor individual effort and meritocracy, and he does insist that the smartest and most conscientious seem to rise to the top of any hierarchy that they work in. This seems acceptable and obvious, but Peterson, though a businessman and capitalist, as well as a psychologist, is no social darwinist.

I would propose that the young be taught to self-realize, individual-live and make a good living within our capitalist, constitutional republican system. We would still have the natural trend that the smartest would go a bit ahead of the more average in intelligence, but the bottom performance of an individuating person with an IQ of 94 would be so advanced and wealth-creating that the lead performance at the top of the hierarchy by a superachiever with an IQ 162 would not be a spread in wealth and power that should bother anyone.

Why? If the average individuators and achievers are individuator anarchists, they will reason well, be quite resourceful and willful, and competently run their own affairs, firmly rebuffing and rejecting any attempt by anyone on the top of any hierarchy seeking to run their lives for them, tyrannizing them and interfering with their self-sufficient independence.

Also, the superachiever on the top of the hierarchy will continue to seek his own wealth, power and amazing achievement, but not to rule those lower down in the hierarchy. 

 

With these two considerations included, hierarchies should remain small, powerful, relatively flattened and kept to a needed minimum for the good of society and all of its citizens.

 

Now I want to quote from Calvin Tomkins biography, Eric Hoffer, Page 38 (He quotes Hoffer.): "You see I always had the impression that there wasn't a single idea that I couldn't convey to these people. These men are so ingenious, so skilled, so highly intelligent--they can do anything. Look at the way they worked out that dispatching system all by themselves. Nobody helped them. They didn't need experts.  I believe the way to measure the vigor of society is by its ability to get along without outstanding leaders; any organization that can get along without outstanding leaders is a good organization. Once, a few years ago, a professor at Berkeley told me I was wrong there; he said the vigor of a society should be judged by its ability to produce outstanding leaders."

Now, under Mavellonialisim I propose to blend the best of Peterson and Hoffer, and add in my own unique elements. From Peterson, we accept that hierarchies are natural and inevitable, and that caste systems and ranges of merited performance will be stratified. Jordan advocates individualism so that is critical. 

Hoffer adds his experience-based observation that the average people, from the bottom up, can run businesses, corporations, organizations, and countries, without outstanding leaders.

To this I add Mark Levin's emphasis on constitutional republicanism, capitalism, limited government, personal obsession with getting and keeping personal liberty, an inalienable, natural, God-given right.

I add individual-living, a society of strong but small federal overlay of canton existence, ordered anarchy run by individuator supercitizens.

This would not be utopia, but it would be largely workable. The people run the hierarchies, the organizations and the government on all levels, and the leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and judges get their orders from the citizens, and rule with the consent of the governed. 

Under this system, Peterson and Hoffer can be reconciled.