Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Maniac]

Another short reply to Drogue:

Well, it doesn't mean always passed on, but there is a strong correlation between attributes of the parents and those of the children.

Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic

http://www.swcollege.com/econ/mankiw/student/ch20/links.html

That should be enough to show that Poverty isn't increasing.

I'll try to read it this weekend when I find some time between other activities this weekend such as studies, ACDG, Diplomacy games, SMAC PBEM games, reading of a book about the Chinese civilization... If not, my two-week christmas holidays start in a week. Then I should have sufficient time.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic

http://www.swcollege.com/econ/mankiw/student/ch20/links.html

That should be enough to show that Poverty isn't increasing.

"It is true that the United States continued to suffer increases in inequality of family income (rather than individual earnings) over the past decade."

This quote is from the first article linked to... combined with the rise in "temporary" employment (i.e. not insured, no retirement, etc.), this fact points to actually increasing disparity. There are no laws against laying off temps here in the U.S.- a laborer can have his loyalty ruthlessly exploited and be disposed of at the drop of a hat- homeless before he knows it and despised by ignorant children of privilege watching the marginals.

[Maniac]

It's only about the US? I believe it's true the income graph has changed from a pyramid to an onion over the last hundred years (the middle class) in the western world due to socialistic measures, but I thought the extremes had widened too. Also that is not taking the entire third world into account...

[lucky22]

Yeah... this one is only about the U.S. I don't know about "temp" employment in the Commonwealth and western Europe... Of course protection for labor is virtually non-existent in the rest of the world.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
That only is true when customers have full knowledge of the corporations' policies, which is impossible as mentioned in my answers to Archaic.

Exactly. Hence why I said it could be argued, I personally do not believe it, or at least that it is outweighed by other factors. I think even when people do know corporations policies, they don't act upon them (examples, GAP and Nike, both heavily publisised human rights issues, both very successful companies). People do not choose where to buy by human rights records, they choose to buy by who has the best product, at the most competative price. Therefore, if a company has a better product, or cheaper means of manufacture (and a cheaper price) it has more power. Yes perfect FM is not American corporatism, but GT's idea of FM is very close IMO. If this is wrong, please show how they differ (late 20th Century American and GT's FM idea for the UNPK).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

How so? I'm not saying that the children improve on the parents, just that, if a parent has a talent, then their ofspring is more likely to have that talent than the average person. If 2 'intelligent' people have a child, it is likely that child will be intelligent too, but it may or may not be more intelligent than it's parents. That is the essence of Darwinism I believe, and has been shown to be most likely in many studies. That is all I meant by

Well, it doesn't mean always passed on, but there is a strong correlation between attributes of the parents and those of the children.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac
Another short reply to Drogue:



Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

Due to inbreading, which is an unrelated external factor.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue

If 2 'intelligent' people have a child, it is likely that child will be intelligent too, but it may or may not be more intelligent than it's parents.

Exactly. The word 'likely' is mandatory here. Also that it may be more intelligent, may be just as intelligent, or may be less intelligent. In other words, though a set of genes for better cognitive abilities are probably passed on, it is not at all certain those latent genes come into action. There is a lot of variation between individual cases, and therefore a darwinist system is quite unfair and inefficient compared to a meritocratic one.

Due to inbreading, which is an unrelated external factor.

So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?


I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac
So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?

When not taking the factor for rearing for leadership into account? Then they would have no higher percentage than the average. They are just average children. When you factor in the inbreeding, those children become below average.

The great majority of the influencing factors in social darwinism have to do with the environment the child was raised in. A successful family can raise a child in a better environment, giving them more and better opportunities than the average person.

Originally posted by Maniac
I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

Let's see......

Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear, Guilt By Association, Hasty Generalization, Personal Attack and last but not least, Poisoning the Well.

[Pandemoniak]

@ Archaic

Nasty. Simple. Efficient. But Dirty.

[Archaic]

I'm not going to repeat the fallacies again Pan. Everyone already knows the ones you keep pulling by rote now.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Exactly. The word 'likely' is mandatory here. Also that it may be more intelligent, may be just as intelligent, or may be less intelligent. In other words, though a set of genes for better cognitive abilities are probably passed on, it is not at all certain those latent genes come into action. There is a lot of variation between individual cases, and therefore a darwinist system is quite unfair and inefficient compared to a meritocratic one.

Um... what do you mean by Darwinist? All I mean is survival of the fittest, natural selection. Darwinism and meritocracy are not mutually exclusive, as I happen to agree with both. I however, do not see the need to make society 'unnaturally fair'. I think we as humans have evolved far enough to have a fair society by choice, and not hav it imposed upon us. If however, we haven't, and we are still primarily bound by greed and ambition for ourselves, then I would not support laws to artificially impose fairness upon the people. I support Eudaimonia, meritocracy and fairness by ethos and democracy, rather than by inforcement. How can we have a fair society if in our hearts we are not fair ourselves?

Originally posted by Maniac
So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?

No, nobles do not necessarily have the genes for leadership. Just because their forefathers were leaders, and had practice, does not make them good leaders. You cannot pass on experience in genes.

Originally posted by Maniac
I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

That's going a bit far ! What have I (or Archaic for that matter) done that even slightly supports that? Just because I believe in Darwin does not mean I agree with race purifying, and we are both Libertarians, the antithisis of Fascism. I have to say I'm surprised you would stoop to such a comment Maniac.

Indeed, as my original post on Darwinism states, I was advocating a centre left, Libertarian meritocracy, using Darwinism, and human nature, as its founding principle. I believe it is the closest to 'fairness' you can get without imposing unnatural strong laws, and that is sustainable. This happens to be the opinion of the economist I was quoting too.

Pande: While I, along with you, disagree with Archaic on many things, including his debating style, he has a point. The debating mistakes he posted (Appeal to Fear et al) are correct.

[Pandemoniak]

Pande: While I, along with you, disagree with Archaic on many things, including his debating style, he has a point. The debating mistakes he posted (Appeal to Fear et al) are correct.

Most certainly. All kind of eugenism make me vomit though.

[Drogue]

True, however no one, to my knowledge, has advocated eugenism in any form yet.

My personal feelings are, if it is unnatural, then it is not a good thing. Natural eugenism (ie. people choosing who to mate with for their characteristics, is fine, but unnatural eugenism, (ie. 'breeding programs' for humans) is not, although there is an argument in support of such a measure.