When discussing politics the basic premise of the writer can be confusing. My basic premise has confused some of my readers at least according to the feedback I've gotten so here is my premise:

1. All creatures are descended from those creatures who produced offspring.

2. Therefore the only persistent trait is producing more offspring than competitors.

3. Humans as creatures engage in politics to get more offspring.

4. Since humans can process more information than other creatures larger populations can lead to better mating strategies than smaller populations.

5. Maintaining larger populations than the estimated 200-2000 person tribes that are believed to be the human default position takes a lot of work. (Since the end of group selection as an evolutionary psychology idea in the 70s not much work on default populations gets popularized. The most recent popular compilation of default population numbers I am aware of is "Corporation Man" by Antony Jay in 1971.)

6. Still the costs of political solutions is generally less than the increase in genetic revenues.

7. Political debates are about reaching the maximum genetic profit point where the genetic revenue of the marginal child equals the marginal cost of the political BS that must be endured to have that child.

8. Revenue per marginal child and the cost of political BS varies by individual.

What obscures the above tautology is that it is very hard to crunch these numbers. Genetic revenue usually cannot be easily expressed in some form that can be accounted for. Yes, a kid, on average, costs more than an average house. But how much will you as opposed to the average man/woman have to shell out in aftertax money for Sam before you can say, "Oh, what a cutey! Sam, I think the diaper needs changing, here let me hand her back to you."? That is one question. The other question is how much in taxes and mandated time at the DMV and/or the tax preparation office to get to that moment? What improvement in quantity/quality of grandkids do you get for shelling out that money?

All political debates revolve around that last question. Yeah, there are cross-currents and counter-intuitive results but that is the political questions. If sexual freedom leads to widespread death and/or sterility due to STDs without more offspring because of more effective birth control then interest in "immoral" sexual behavior will decline as prudes outbreed the swingers. If alcohol and other drugs kill off or sterilize those who like to get high then addiction rates will decline.

So another question is how much should morality be subject to political sanctions? It is much less of a concern to you that your son impregnates other people's daughters than that your daughters be stuck with babies and no husbands. Likewise drug legalization and pushes to reduce age of consent for alcohol and sex. If it is less likely to harm you and yours then decriminalization of victimless crimes is something you are likely to favor. But another factor is whether the cure is worse than the disease.

But that is simply a variant of the question of how much more genetic revenue do I get for how much political bull? Welfare and social security debates have an increasing undertone of Atlas Shrugged. The top 5% in income and wealth can move off shore if their taxes go up and they may just do exactly that.

Other methods of political discussions such as natural rights try to finesse that question and that is an error. I can be in China or India in a little over a day. Almost a century ago my (grand) uncle Frank needed more than a day to get from his base to a port to board the transport to get to the French trenches. All told it took more than a month to get to the training trenches where he was taught how to survive trench warfare. It took less than two weeks for dad to go from radio repair training camp to an airfield in New Guinea. In the Gulf war my son-in-law was held back because he was a recent widower but his buddies were in the field in less than 48 hours. This increase in mobility of labor and capital can whipsaw any political program yet it does not figure into political debates. The speed of effective response to political missteps is outpacing the ability of political institutions to respond.

Federal Reserve Board responses to the mortgage crisis are negated by the currency and bond markets almost before they are made. How much and how fast will the tax base shrink if the Democratic nominee tries to go for universal healthcare or reasonable facsimile thereof? Political campaigns based on the assumption that there is not a continuous and fairly accurate reassessment of political costs and genetic revenues are no longer in touch with reality. The current political framework will be gone within 15 years. It may be replaced with a police state or a more libertarian system but the current system no longer works.