Libertarianism and Social Darwinism

[Kuciwalker]

Nope - social darwinism is just like darwinism except with "survival" replaced with "success". Anyone capable of getting people to give money to them is successful. The "inferior" are the ones incapable of getting money.

[MrFun]

really??

[Kuciwalker]

no, I'm just messing with you

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
No -- would not the social ideological slant of the biological science behind "survival of the fittest" mean that to give any kind of charity to those in need of it is undermining better attainment of human society overall?

Let's keep in mind that "Social Darwinism" has very little to do with actual Darwinian evolutionary theory. There's nothing in biological Darwinism that precludes charity whatsoever. In fact, it's quite possible that altruism is an evolutionary trait designed to help the species.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Libertarianism and Social Darwinism

Originally posted by MrFun
It seems that libertarianism is a political adaptation of the ideology underlying social Darwinism in that if you play by the rules and you end up losing you are screwed and undeserving of any government assistance and/or protection -- even if you lost out due to some unfair or unjustified element of the system.



Or am I talking out of my ass?

They really have no connection. However, you might conclude that someone who believes in Social Darwinism would be more likely to be a Libertarian, but then they might be a Fascist or Republican too.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Let's keep in mind that "Social Darwinism" has very little to do with actual Darwinian evolutionary theory. There's nothing in biological Darwinism that precludes charity whatsoever. In fact, it's quite possible that altruism is an evolutionary trait designed to help the species.

You're preaching to the choir Boris -- I'm very much familiar with this part of history.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Nope - social darwinism is just like darwinism except with "survival" replaced with "success". Anyone capable of getting people to give money to them is successful. The "inferior" are the ones incapable of getting money.

Which is fine except that money is an arbitrary measure of success- as compared to a much more concrete one of # of children. A successful couple that dies childless has done nothing to advance the cause of the species or the society by default.

One reason social darwinist were such fans of eugenics

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Which is fine except that money is an arbitrary measure of success- as compared to a much more concrete one of # of children.

Well, then, the poor tend to have more kids, so they're more "successful" in an evolutionary sense. But the rich tend to acquire more influence, which is today's measure of success.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
You're preaching to the choir Boris -- I'm very much familiar with this part of history.

But then your comment that "would not the social ideological slant of the biological science behind "survival of the fittest" mean that to give any kind of charity to those in need of it is undermining better attainment of human society overall?" is easily answered by this, as there's no necessary biological reason for such an ideological slant.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by GePap
Which is fine except that money is an arbitrary measure of success- as compared to a much more concrete one of # of children.

Well, then, the poor tend to have more kids, so they're more "successful" in an evolutionary sense. But the rich tend to acquire more influence, which is today's measure of success.

Now the poor are a different species.

[Kuciwalker]

Huh?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Well, then, the poor tend to have more kids, so they're more "successful" in an evolutionary sense. But the rich tend to acquire more influence, which is today's measure of success.

Not for a social darwinist, which is the point.

[Kuciwalker]

Then a social darwinist is just somoene who's saying "let evolution take its course", because those who reproduce ARE more fit.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Then a social darwinist is just somoene who's saying "let evolution take its course", because those who reproduce ARE more fit.

A social darwinist believes that one type of person is superior to other types of people, and that the superior type should survive. It's not necessary for a social darwist to 'let nature take it's course.' In fact they often don't advocate that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Then a social darwinist is just somoene who's saying "let evolution take its course", because those who reproduce ARE more fit.

NO. A social darwinist is someone who thinks the notions of "natural selection" should apply to human beings in the sense that the "Fit" are allowed to breed- they differ from simply darwinists in that the selection categories would be socially created. Hence society should only let X group breed, and should actively discourage unwated groups (like the poor) from multiplying.

This is why Boris said Social Darwinism has little to do with real darwinism.