Say Anything Blog

Clinton said

if “younger women, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans went into science and engineering at the same rate as white men, America would have no shortage of scientists.”

Makes sense to me. What’s wrong with encouraging more applications from under represented groups? I bet a lot of women and minorities would make fine scientists and engineers...encourage them to apply I say.

MikeA: If those individuals made those choices, things might be different.  I guess Clinton really wants to mandate those choices, which is fundamentally un-American.  He implies, without actually saying it, that the difference is due to some sort of discrimination, but it is really freedom of choice.  We all make choices, and then most of us have to live with the consequences of those choices.

Why does any specific"group" have to be repersented? Why not encourage those with the educational foundations that will give them the best chance to succeed? Affirmative action, by any name, is racism. I have been talking to several college age kids in the last week, of 14 8 are volunteering for the military, not because they need money for college either. 4 are going to tech/business schools, computers and medical. 1 is going to work for his father as an electrician, 1 is taking her dead grandfather’s Harley and heading west, I figure she will be back in a couple years. Kids have seen college portrayed as a party-hardy liberal deadend for years on TV and in movies. Whether this is true or not is not germane to the discussion, it is what they have been taught. Many highschool kids are going to tech/business schools because they see it as a way to spend less money and time getting an education that will get them a job. They can go on to higher-education at some later date. Same with the military, 6 years and a college fund are not that bad, and they gain expierence and skills they otherwise would not get. The more important and relevent question is why are minority kids coming out of highschool unprepared to continue on to college? That is the very crux of the matter.

MikeAdamson said, Clinton suggested that since women and minorities choose the hard sciences at a lower rate than white males do that women and minorities might prove fertile ground for the candidates needed for these fields. Makes sense to me.

“Minorities”? Like Asians?

Anyways, I only took issue with your “under represented groups” claim. Just wanted to know why you thought vaginas and brown skin were “under represented”.

my spelling is clearly rusty as well.

lik provatively asks

Why would vaginas need to be “represented”?

There is no need for vaginal representation but it was suggested that there was a need for more qualified engineers and scientists. Clinton suggested that since women and minorities choose the hard sciences at a lower rate than white males do that women and minorities might prove fertile ground for the candidates needed for these fields. Makes sense to me.

MikeAdamson said, What’s wrong with encouraging more applications from under represented groups?

I was under the distinct impression that the study of higher math and engineering required intelligence, interest, and drive; not vaginas and brown skin. Why would vaginas need to be “represented”?

Well it just goes to show what happens when you’re away from your favourite conservative blog for a while...I’m clearly rusty in my thought process as I forgot to take Clinton’s argument as one favouring women and minorities over white men for places in the faculties of engineering and science.

The problem as I interpreted it was that there were too few qualified candidates in these fields and that a good way to attract suitable applicants was to encourage women and minorities to consider the hard sciences as vocational options. It seemed like a better solution than lowering the admission standards in order to get more engineers and scientists but I forgot about the most important thing...the politics.

MikeA:  Sounds like you and Clinton don’t respect the choices made by women and minorities.  Also, what “should” be their proper representation?  And finally, aren’t those individuals?  Why do you refer to them as “groups”.  It’s really a different kind of thinking.

Rob...the lower standards argument is common but rarely backed up by facts. I have seen situations where a qualified white and male candidate was beaten out by a qualified nonwhite and nonmale candidate because of their ethnicity or gender but situations where the admission standards are actually lowered are pretty rare and misguided when they occur.

The politics comes in because as soon as conservatives see the topic of minorities and women and and their advancement, they often yell quotas or unfair treatment. I see nothing in Clinton’s comments to elicit such a response.

It seemed like a better solution than lowering the admission standards in order to get more engineers and scientists but I forgot about the most important thing…the politics.

Colleges are already lowering standards for minority/female applicants.  That isn’t the solution.

Honestly, I don’t see where this is politics.  We need more scientists and engineers.  Why does it matter what skin color/gender they are?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

lik...I mean under represented in the statistical sense. If the candidate pool needs expanding then it makes sense to look to groups that don’t send as many applicants as others. Just as I might look to males if there is a nursing shortage or to women if there aren’t enough bricklayers or to whatever if there aren’t enough “occupation x”.

You either lower admission standards or find more recruits...with or without vaginas.

MikeA:  How about white players in the NBA?  Oh, that’s right; it’s a meritocracy.  Maybe math and engineering are similar.  Perish the thought.  No one ever has trouble asserting that tall black men are better at basketball, but if we say that white men might be better at math, then it’s evil racism.  See the double standard?

r108 asks

what “should” be their proper representation?

I don’t think there is a “proper” representation. I’m just thinking that a shortage of candidates requires a widening of the candidate pool is all. Yes they are individuals...from groups that statistically supply fewer candidates than would be expected. My usage was a little sloppy.

I don’t regard people as being assembled into groups, unless they do it on their own, like forming a football team, for instance, or the KKK, to mention another example.

So you never saw groups used in your reading of economics? I consider it quite common to talk of groups when analysing statistics but you have been quite reticent in discussing your intellectual sources and influences so perhaps it’s not as common in your circle.

As to the NBA/Math and Science double standard you put forward...let’s look at the data and see. I wouldn’t expect to see significant differences between white males and nonwhite males when it comes to Math/Science stuff but I’ve never explored the topic. I do know that good white basketball prospects are highly prized in the NBA so there does seem to be some interest in attracting under represented group members there.

MikeA:  I don’t think you were sloppy at all.  I have noticed that lefties think about people in a fundamentally different way from the way conservatives think about them.  I don’t regard people as being assembled into groups, unless they do it on their own, like forming a football team, for instance, or the KKK, to mention another example.  Just a different way of thinking.

And I still contend the problem is sub-standard public education. Again I ask, why are minority students pushed through an education system that leaves them unprepared for higher education? All the quotas in the world are not going to change the fact that students who are not equiped to go to college are not going to make it! Focus on education, forget what color or sex or nationality students are. Clinton only cares about scoring, in one way or the other. He does not give a crap about anyone’s children becoming anything. He spouts some mindless drivel, gladhands with the rich and famous, then toddles off to sodomize someones 19yr old daughter. The national discussion should be"why is our educational system failing so many of our children?”, not how many blacks,hispanics, or women are we pushing through the system merely because they are black,hispanic, or women.

MikeA: You make my point.  If you confuse statistics with knowledge, grouping people makes perfect sense.  Real world experience, especially in the free enterprise system, tells you otherwise.  Economic choices are made individually, which is why the “experts” are almost always wrong when they make economic predictions.  My influences are a lifetime in business and investment.  I have been both an employer and an employee.  I have worked a govt job, and I have started my own businesses.  I have also managed businesses for others.  I have been poor and homeless, all by my own choice.  I try to speak from my experiences; I don’t pimp for the ideas of others, unless I have tried them and have found them satisfactory and true. So much for background.
My point about the double standard was just that.  BTW, when you say “underrepresented group” you are talking quota.  You can’t determine whether or not a group is underrepresented except by comparing it with some standard of how things “should” be.  That, my friends, is a quota. Quotas are appropriate in some cases, but we should tell the truth.
I’m also not saying that white men are inherently superior at math and engineering. What is obvious is that they are attracted to those fields in greater numbers, and so they are successful in those fields in greater numbers.
The trick to getting some truth from stats is in examining the premises, the sample size, and the actual questions asked.  It also helps to know the agenda of whomever wanted the stats in the first place.

You can’t determine whether or not a group is underrepresented except by comparing it with some standard of how things “should” be.

That’s true.

That, my friends, is a quota.

That’s not and thus makes my point about politics. Under and over representation are very basic concepts in the field of statistical analysis. If you read my responses to likwidshoe then you would know that it was statistical analysis to which I was speaking. If you don’t feel comfortable or interested in discussing that then fine.

MikeA: I tend to deal in real terms, not abstractions.  Since we are talking about people, it’s a quota.  If I have underrepresentation, that is simply saying that there aren’t enough people in a certain classification.  In abstract stats, it’s one thing; in terms of people, they don’t have enough to meet the quota.  It’s not politics, it’s people. It’s not about being comfortable or interested, it’s just what is.  You have a “correct” number, and if that number(quota) hasn’t been met, you don’t have enough people.  I think you are avoiding that term for political reasons.

Then I will try a concrete example. For whatever reason, let us say arbitrarily that America needs 100 new scientists per year. There used to be no problem attracting enough qualified candidates but lately it appears that a shortage of scientists is developing. How do we go about getting more scientists? Obviously we need to train and educate more scientists than we are presently doing but the existing pool of science candidates is not providing enough bodies. I see two options.

1) We lower our admission standards such that we have enough science students who will go on to become scientists or

2) We attract qualified candidates who would otherwise not choose science as a career.

According to Iowa’s News Channel, Clinton’s point is that there are not as many foreign students studying in America post 911 and this deficit must be overcome through encouraging more Americans to choose a science education and scientific occupations when they graduate. He suggests looking for such candidates in places that do not traditionally provide as many science candidates as one finds in the white male population. He doesn’t say that 20 female scientists should be trained each year or that 30 minority group scientists should be trained each year...he says that if

“younger women, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans went into science and engineering at the same rate as white men, America would have no shortage of scientists.”

How is encouraging women and minorities to choose science setting a quota? Is it your view that America should just take the 100 best applicants who apply for science positions without regard for their ability or suitability? Would you, as an employer, hire the top 100 applicants for your business whether they meet your minimum standards or not or would you expand your talent search? Try to look past a kneejerk political response and I think that you will find that Clinton makes sense. His isn’t the complete solution but it’s a useful one.

Solution 1) doesn’t work, so the real question is: How to get more scientists?  We aren’t meeting our quota by the present means, so how can we meet that quota without sacrificing quality?  Why not court the most qualified people, regardless of group membership?  I mean recruiting them from other countries as well.  We should make US citizenship a requirement, and possibly speed up the process for such people, but selecting or targeting certain groups is not the answer.

BTW, MikeA, the sacred law of supply and demand is different from the invisible hand doctrine.  I’ll explain the difference if you want when you wake up.

If you offer special incentives based on race and sex you are being racist and sexist.  Why not offer incentives to everyone who can qualify?  Why the balkanizing into groups?  Also, we don’t know how many scientists and engineers we need, so that is, to some extent, a false construct.  In our system, which is free to expand, we can use all the qualified people we can get, and if we don’t have enough, the wages, in a free market, will increase(supply and demand) to call forth more supply.  So, the Clintonian socialism isn’t needed, or wanted, at least by me.

but selecting or targeting certain groups is not the answer.

Not the only or complete solution I agree but a useful and potentially fruitful suggestion nonetheless.

Why the balkanizing into groups?

It’s looking for candidates in places where you don’t generally look. It’s like losing your keys, searching the front porch, not finding them and looking somewhere else. If you find a key shaped stick on the porch then you can try to go with that but you’d be better off checking on the kitchen table and the bathroom as well. Too abstract I know but there it is. If statistics show that redheads and residents of Ohio and Republicans are also under represented then I say look at those groups as well.

As for the market’s Invisible Hand...I suppose it depends how patient you are. Off to bed for me.

Actually, market forces, when they are allowed to function, get the best results in the quickest order.

In reality, the main problem with training new scientists is purely and simply a cut-back in the number of science faculty positions at major universities that occurred during the ‘90s.  As a result, there are fewer graduate student positions available and fewer jobs post graduation.  These factors both discourage US students from trying for a post-graduate degree (due to the reality of a very tight job market) and prevent them from entering the field in other cases (foreign students, with better credentials, often shove US students out).

The person most responsible for this state of affairs?  Bill Clinton of course, through his cut backs in science funding.

Now he’s trying to solve the problem he created?  What a hoot.

Robert108:

Actually, market forces, when they are allowed to function, get the best results in the quickest order.

My biggest problem with allowing purely market forces to act unhindered by government, is the market will metaphorically eat its young.  This is a good short-term strategy, but not a good long-term one.

It seems to me that you are advocating laissez fair, which was discredited over a century ago.  In my opinion, there is a place for government, just not a government that centrally controls the economy.  One of government’s roles, in my estimation, is to prevent the eating of one’s young.  Another is to provide long-range planning that is necessarily lacking in market-place dynamics.

And before you chirp in with “but that’s just bad management”, I’ll simply say that when a pattern gets repeated enough times, it signals that this is human nature, not just poor business practice.

Carrick: Your second post identifies the problem as govt interference with the market.  I rest my case. I know the intentions are good, and the promise of social justice is a seductive one, but just about every time the govt interferes with a market, it f*cks it up.

Carrick:  “Eating its young?” Sounds like a socialist hit on the free market.  The 19th Century and early 20th Century saw the rise of competing systems which sought to discredit the basic principles of Free Enterprise by making broadside attacks based on its lack of social consciousness.  While it is true that Free Enterprise doesn’t embrace social goals directly, that is not its function.  It is designed to produce the maximum amount of wealth in the minimum time.  Social considerations are left to another sector of society.  Some management of the market is obviously necessary, but it should be kept to a minimum if you want prosperity.  Both Marxism and Keynesian economics have been discredited in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.
Long range planning is an integral factor in being effective in business.  Short range gain is also important.  To be good, you have to have both.  Your assumption that market dynamics only include short range goals is faulty.

R108...please do.

Carrick said

My biggest problem with allowing purely market forces to act unhindered by government, is the market will metaphorically eat its young.

My Marxist friends say that the welfare state doomed the development of a working class consciousness thus saving capitalism’s butt.

docdave: In a free market, cost is only meaningful in the context of value.  If the value of a college education has increased, so goes the cost.  It could be that your college education was undervalued at the time.  This is the consequence of govt interference in the market.  It’s called the law of unintended consequences.  When you mess with the price, you distort the supply/demand relationship.

MikeA: I’m still waiting for an explanation of the “eating its young” reference.  I’m mystified by that statement. I usually find Carrick to be very knowledgable and coherent, so am puzzled by this reference, as well as the “unhindered by govt” statement.  Free Enterprise is all about tradeoffs, not purity, like Marxism.  Which leads me to the Invisible Hand Doctrine(with apologies to Adam Smith).  It says that, while each participant in the market is motivated by self-interest, the system as a whole, as if guided by an invisible hand, produces the greatest good for the greatest number.  As I have written before, some govt “hindrance” of the market is obviously necessary, but keeping it to the bare minimum is best.  The sacred law of supply and demand simply states the mathematical and reciprocal relationship between supply, demand and price. Demand is the independent variable, supply is dependent on demand, and price is the outcome of the supply/demand relationship at any point in time.
I wouldn’t give too much credulity to what your Marxist friends say: their system doesn’t work, and so-called capitalism doesn’t need its butt saved, especially by any sort of welfare state.  Marxism, despite its claims, is the welfare state.

Reading all the posts I see that no one has commented on the high cost of education today as compared to say the 1950’s when I did my undergraduate degree in engineering.  Curiously back then there was no need to encourage minorities or foreign students to attend tech colleges as there was plenty of applications from the general population I think largely because education costs were a lot cheaper and many students were being enrolled on G.I. bill colllege benefits that were available at that time.  I was able to work my way through 5 years of college with a summer job and jobs on the campus without accurring any debt something I think would be impossible today.

Today it seems that colleges in general are more interested in attracting foreign students than local ones.  Not sure how foreign students fund their tuition and other college expenses.  I know from my sons experience that for local studients limited grants and loans are available but in his case he graduated after 4 years many thousands in debt which is a hard way to start out your professional life.

Rob, what happened to the spell checker?

robert108: “If the value of a college education has increased, so goes the cost.” No argument on that but does the typical person seeking an education look at the cost as an investment into future earnings?  I think not.  Besides most of the nations colleges being heavily subsidized by state and federal funds cannot be considered to be operating in a free market system.  While there are substantial numbers of private colleges, I think there are many who believe that they cannot afford to attend these colleges.  So perhaps there is some correlation between tuition expense and the supply of educated professionals.  From a economics point of view, the question is how elastic is the supply/demand of college graduates with respect to price (tuition cost).  Is there a cost even at subsidized colleges where the supply is greatly negatively affected?

MikeA: I want to encourage you to share your views on Carrick’s comments.  I am on this blog to share ideas, and for no other reason.  Agreement is not necessary.  I don’t use the term “capitalism”, since it is both inaccurate and was coined by Karl Marx.  I do understand what you mean, of course.  In a sense, all economic systems are capitalist systems, in that they deal with the use of capital for various purposes.  The differences between the systems are defined by who owns and controls the capital, and for what purposes it is employed. I generally use the term free enterprise to describe the US system. As far as the role of the State is concerned, I’m for what works the best for the most people.  I don’t think perfection is attainable with imperfect humans. A lot of misery and death has resulted from humans attempting to attain perfection.  I favor the greatest good for the greatest number.

Robert108:

“Eating its young?” Sounds like a socialist hit on the free market.

You have that mantra down pat.  “Now we see the violence inherent in the socialistic system.”

Actually, it was a biological reference intended to draw a well-known biological analogy.  I think you can fill in the dots.

Long range planning is an integral factor in being effective in business.

Perhaps in principle.  How well does it work in practice?  Not very well in many cases.  I regard that as evidence that we are dealing with a systemic problem, and not just “poor business practices” in some market sectors.

Some management of the market is obviously necessary, but it should be kept to a minimum if you want prosperity.

Well, that’s the rub.  The question is what type of management, and under what circumstances.  (I think we both opposed a centrally controlled economy.)

r108...thanks very much for your splendid explanation. While not the diehard of capitalism that you are I am a big fan of the notion of unintended consequences...too often overlooked these days. As for Carrick’s comments...having discussed the role of the State with you in the past I am quite sure that I want no part of offering my interpretation, discretion being the better part of valor and all.

Carrick: I don’t understand your explanation at all.  You need to give me some details as to what you refer when you say “eating its children” for me to be able to generate a reply.
Long-range planning is an actuality in business, not a concept.  Businesses that don’t use long range planning are eventually replaced by those that do.  This is how it works in practice.  Perhaps you could give some concrete examples of what you consider the “systemic problem” with free enterprise.
I favor a free enterprise economy, period.
docdave:  To quote Milton Friedman:  “The educational system is the most highly socialized part of our society, so it is the one that is in the most trouble.” I do think that the overwhelming majority of those who attend college consider it an investment in their future earnings.  Otherwise, why sacrifice the money they could earn by holding down a job right out of high school?  Not to mention the expense of college.  It’s obviously an investment in the future.

robert: “the overwhelming majority of those who attend college consider it an investment in their future earnings”

No denying your premise but I wonder if the investment mentality accounts for the overwhelming majority.  Be nice to see some real statistics on that.  Also be nice to know how many of the investment types are getting tuition money from their parents.  I think it can make a substantial difference if you have to scrap up your education cash on your own.  But consider this likely scenerio:  You have just graduated from high school and don’t know what career you want to pursue.  Also you want a car and have a girl/boy friend.  You get a minimum wage job or you enlist in the armed services.  After a few years you realize you are in a dead end job or your enlistment term is complete.  What to do now.  Well the higher paying jobs require a college degree so you enroll NOT particularly considering a degree as an investment BUT as a key to open some doors for better paying jobs.  You might say that the result is the same, that college degree you get is an investment on future earnings, but I think you don’t have that particular view if you get to college by this road.

Guys, I think you are agreeing to agree. Semantics seems to be the obstacle you are all circling. The reason I hear the most from kids for not going to college is the massive debt it incurs. Second reason, the liberal arts requirment, subjects they do not see a justification for. It draws money and time away from what they see as their real education. Right or wrong, that is what they see it as. So they go to tech/business schools, or enlist, or just get a job and move on with their lives. Forcing them to piss away a large chunk of money and time on things they hate/disagree with just pushes them into not going to college.

Peace, docdave.  Guess I’m just a stickler for definitions.  No worries.

docdave: With all due respect, you have described a distinction without a difference.  Maybe the word “investment” is the problem.  Anything done with a view to getting better results in the future, compared to what is expected without doing it, is an investment in the future. Whether it is done by the student or the parents, it’s an investment.  An investment is deferred spending on current consumption for some future purpose.  I doesn’t matter if it doesn’t pan out; some investments work, and some don’t.

Peace, robert, kind of thought that we merely had a symantics problem, that I was looking at it from a different angle.  Note I did say that “the result is the same, that college degree you get is an investment on future earnings”.

Good point, 2H9, some degrees are a better investment that others although the degree cost is usually based on credit hour irrespective of the degree.  For instance, liberal arts degrees are often not worth the paper they’re printed on with the degree candidates having a tough time finding jobs which justify the money spent getting the degree.

I hate to intrude with all this peace breaking out but just a quick note for robert108. Karl Marx never used the term “capitalism” in his writings although Proudhon certainly did so I’m sure that Marx was familiar with it. At any rate, I am familiar with the usage of “capitalism” as a synonym for laisssez-faire economics which is likely along the lines of your usage of “free enterprise.” I see it in that sense as an ideology or programme in opposition to Marx’s ideology of socialism as well as the feudal and guild based systems which predated it. The economic systems we call capitalist today are surely hybrid beasts and mixed economies to varying degrees and not capitalism in the unfettered sense.

I understand why you use “free enterprise” as it does bring clarity to your arguments and I will endeavour to use it as well since I hate typing out laissez-faire. I’m still staying away from Carrick’s post though.

MikeA: Sorry for the inaccurate reference to KM.  I thought it was him.  Both “capitalism” and “laissez-faire"(which means, let them alone) are meant to be negative.  I think this is resistance from the old-line monarchists and the newly-emerging liberal intelligentsia for the free enterprise system, which lavished money and power on people who were neither royal or intellectual.  Their bitterness is obvious, and continues to this day.  IMO, free enterprise is not an ideology, but describes the true nature of humanity.  Left unfettered, humans naturally act to maximize what they get back for what they put out.  It doesn’t require elaborate bureaucracy to produce and distribute wealth this way, which is why free enterprise works as well as it does.  The production of wealth needs to be used correctly, but should not be subservient to the social goals of a governing elite.  It is better, most of the time, to allow the majority of the people, through the marketplace, to make those decisions.  Marxism, don’t forget, has to be imposed on the people through the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.  It is never chosen freely.

IMO, free enterprise is not an ideology, but describes the true nature of humanity.

You believe that free enterprise describes the true nature of humanity thus free enterprise is your ideology.

Both “capitalism” and “laissez-faire”(which means, let them alone) are meant to be negative.

Do you mean negative in the sense of being derogatory? I would classify your thinking as almost textbook laissez-faire and I’m puzzled that you find it negative.

MikeA:  Ah! MikeA is back; good.  Yes, I should have said derogatory. They mean the same thing out here in CA.  Natural behavior precedes ideology.  You might concoct an ideology around natural behavior, but it is unnecessary.  Marxism, on the other hand, is an ideology designed to change natural behavior.  See the difference? My thinking is forged from what I learned in textbooks over forty years ago and forged in the furnace of experience in business and investment since.  The textbooks, in fact, led me in a different direction, but experience has brought me back to where I am now.  I think the term “laissez-faire” was intended to convey a sense of isolation of free enterprise from society, but I think the truth is that free enterprise is what people do when left to their own devices, free from govt interference.  The French were coming from monarchy, which led them to see everything through the lens of that way of doing things.  From that perspective, total freedom was indeed suspect.  If you set prisoners free, they do not suddenly become moral, upright citizens.  Witness the former Soviet Union and post WWII Japan.  It takes time.  On the other hand, the US started there when we were the 13 Colonies.

This has got to be the best comment thread I’ve ever read.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Natural behavior precedes ideology. You might concoct an ideology around natural behavior, but it is unnecessary.

That is true if everyone agrees on what constitutes natural behaviour but I know you and I don’t. I see a natural interdependence between individuals that creates a society that is more than the aggregate of its members’ individual interests. Man’s natural behaviour is social, not individualistic.

Laissez-faire originally refered to the State staying out of the affairs of commerce although I do agree with your take on the tendency to isolate free enterprise from the society as a whole. Now you’ll have to excuse me because I may be investing in some Pfizer shares this morning.

Mike: “ Man’s natural behaviour is social, not individualistic.”

I would say that mans natural behavior is BOTH social and individualistic but in varying degrees in different people.  Creative genious and entrepenuerism are mostly individual traits whereas leadership and community are mostly social traits.  However, mans social instincts are not general but specific to ones particular individual needs.  Social groups like tribes, cliches, clubs, etc. are exclusive to the members of the group, outsiders usually not welcomed or ignored.  For example, the names of many American Indian tribes translates to ‘the people’ effectively elevating them and excluding others not of that tribe.  Another and probably the most important aspect of social gatherings was the protection the members assured to
some degree by the number of members.

Yes, members of the human race can comingle with other members fairly freely but I think this is not based so much on social instincts as much as individual survival.

MikeA: I would argue that natural behavior, where it concerns the production and distribution of goods and services, is individualistic/concerned with immediate family, and other areas are largely social.  Marx even recognized this with the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, but erred when he sought to transfer that principle to the State.  You see, that is the principle within the family.  It doesn’t normally apply to those outside the circle of family and friends.  Big reason for the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, so necessary to implement the perfect communist state. 
“Laissez-faire” was an abbreviation for a general statement(paraphrase): “Let them alone to do what they want.” So, you only have two choices: All govt or no govt.  It is classic dialectic, leading to the choice of govt as opposed to no govt at all.  It’s a false construct designed to present free enterprise in a bad light as an essentially lawless philosophy, IMO.
docdave: I agree. Render unto society what society does best, and render unto the individuals what they do best, to paraphrase a famous man.