"The evidence you present seems to suggest anarchy, not libertariansm. Why do we need government at all if evolution already compels us to cooperate in a manner that benefits all to the greatest extent? Problem is, you're wrong. "

When I referring to 'self interested entities' I am actually referring to corporations. Not individuals. Although individuals can usually be considered to be 'self interested' they are not mechanistically self interested. A gene is, a gene does not think about it's decision and possible make a wrong one, it's behavior is dictated be the wholly mechanistic aspect of molecules and atoms interacting. I am certainly not proposing getting rid of all goverment, I am not an anarchist. I support personal freedom and economic freedom to whatever extent it benefits the whole and a cost of none to the individual. The limit to personal freedom is assaulting another individual. The limit to economic freedom is more subjected to interpretation. Obviously basic laws and rules would be in place and enforced by the government. But the absurd amount or regulations are better off left to the individual and the corporation to decide out of self interested competition for limited resources. That is recipricol altruism in its best form. The limit of government intervention in business is what is in contention for me. If a total free market economy is best for all involved while not violating the rights of any individual, then so be it. If a very limited regulated free market economy is the best, then so be it. If a heavily regulated ecomony (like we have now) is the best thing, then so be it. I am pointing out that the evidence suggests that corporations working in thier own self interest in a regulation free market will end up co-opperating (private regularoty companies) and making safer products cheaper. And if that is what the evidence suggests, then it should be supported by rational people. You may argue that corporations are not entirely mechanistic either, but A. they dont need to be, no system is absoloutely perfect, but many systems may be better for all involved then the one we have. (do you think our current system is the best that mankind will ever have? Or will some society be spawned from ours that removes the 'bad' things and emphasis the 'good'. That society will eventually spawn another, in a natural selection manner, the better societal traits will be passed on, mutations will occur, and things will generally progress in the direction of making every individual's life better) and B. corporations will be directed toward being totally mechanistic, they will be profit motivated. Those that are not mecahnistically profit motivated will be replaced by ones that are. In that manner corporations will always tend toward self interested behavior.

"An evolutionary stable strategy leads to stability, not everyone's greatest benefit."

And what do you mean by 'stability' What is stability in an evolutionary sense? The most stable evolutionary strategy is 'Tit for tat' which always tends toward co-operative behavior. Humans are no longer being subjected to natural selection, and therefore will not tend to any strategy, stable or not. But corporations always are, its called capitalism.

"That's why governments exist. The strategy that leads to everyone's greatest benefit is rarely stable. It is open to exploitation by individuals looking out only for their own short-term benefit."

Then it is obvioulsy not to everyone's greatest benefit if it leads to exploitation. How would a free market economy lead to exploitation exactly?

"Therefore, we need some mechanism to enforce the system that benefits everyone the most."

I obviously agree with that. The point of contention is what system exactly will benefit the most to the greatest extent while not violating the rights of any individual. Any idea?

"It would be stupid and pointless to institute governments, and then use them to protect a system that evolution naturally leads us to."

Evolution does not naturally lead humans to co-operative behavior (although it generally has) because humans are no longer being subjected to natural selection, a key point in maintaining any kind of evolutionary strategy. Which is why removing capitalistic competition and replacing it with common ownership and heavily regulation stifles innovation and encourages corruption. Capitalism is natural selection for markets and products.

Matus