The basic axiom of Evolutionary Pragmatist ethics (The continued survival, and proliferation of our Gene-Pool over the long-term, is "A Good Thing") is a highly individual concept. The "Gene-Pool" in question is my genes. No one else's (except as, and to the extent that, they are carried by my near and far relatives). The application of this ethical principle in the social environment, therefore necessarily translates into an Individualistic rather than a Collectivistic political philosophy. Politically, the basic axiom of Evolutionary Pragmatism that genetic survival (over the long run) is the highest good of Ethics is equivalent to the recognition that individual liberty is the highest good of political organization. Liberty is a necessary enabler to the good of the individual's gene-pool.
This emphasis is same emphasis that was pursued by nineteenth century ("classical") liberalism, and is now pursued by twenty-first century Libertarianism. Unlike Libertarianism, however, Evolutionary Pragmatism takes a pragmatic view of the purpose of "The State" (as you will see in further chapters). So Evolutionary Pragmatist political philosophy is more properly considered to be Classical Liberalism.
I can do no better at describing the Political Philosophy of Evolutionary Pragmatism, than refer the reader to -
Although somewhat dated at this point, this short work by a Nobel Prize winning economist accurately introduces many of the themes of Evolutionary Pragmatist political philosophy.
There are 5 truisms regarding wealth that some politicians need to pay heed to:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not
have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when
the other half gets the idea that it
does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any society.