Thanks for elaborating.
I agree with the point about utilities, and the fact that for utility-like services (more specifically, those with overwhelming network effects and economies of scale) it should be illegal to prevent access unless the person to whom service is being denied is doing something illegal.
Thanks for this very comprehensive review. It raises many interesting questions.
If people needed self-actualization, why choose anti-technology crusades? Why not self-actualize through invention, or art?
I think part of this is that you react against a system that doesn't give you much status. If the social system allocates most status and resources to people who can master the creation of technology and the allocation of capital, but you're not capable of that, then you will tend to criticise that system. And of course, most people are not capable of invention and art, or have never been given an opportunity to develop those faculties.
A stable social system needs to have a way of giving everyone access to meaning, especially those who don't succeed in a conventional, material sense. Valorising technological progress and consumption can provide meaning for some, but not for those who don't succeed materially. In contrast, a religion like Christianity gave extra meaning to those who suffered, and in this way counterbalaced unequal material outcomes. That's my interpretation, anyway. As for how one might give everyone access to meaning in a postmodern world, I have some thoughts on that here (Section 11.1).
According to a study conducted by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, the cost of the U.S. tort system consumes about two percent of GDP, on average.
It would be very interesting to compare this to other countries. My loose impression is that the number of cases relating to tort law increased quite dramatically in Ireland over the past twenty years, such that it has had a big effect on the price of insurance. There are regular news items about such cases. But I don't see those in the media of other European countries.
In Ireland (and maybe in the US), this problem could be solved by two actions. First, imposing maximum damages via legislation. Consider whiplash. According to one article, "the average amount paid out in Ireland for whiplash was 4.4 times higher than for similar injuries in England and Wales" so "if whiplash claims were capped at a maximum of €5,000, average premiums would drop from €700 to between €550 and €590 for most insured people."
Second, moving away from punitive damages which seems to have been embraced by the US system but rejected in most European systems.
While there is probably is value in getting the broader population to become more risk-tolerant, I agree with the general gist of your first point.
Regarding your second, something that prevents people from speaking freely is the fear that unorthodox opinions will prevent them rising in hierarchies where selection is performed by those above them. Most people like to be flattered and have unquestioning followers, and will promote those in turn. This could also be the case in non-organisational hierarchies, such as academia. I try to address this problem in Ch. 6 of my book by designing a different mode of selection: one where those at the top have little or no power to decide who gets positions and resources.
As for people moving money without restrictions, I haven't really thought about that very much. Is there a particular example you are thinking of?