Libertarianism and Social Darwinism

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, it is natural selection, it's just natural selection by means of selective mating

That's not Natural Selection, that's Sexual Selection, which is considered a different beast.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Wealth is a natural characteristic?

Why not?

I'm interested in finding out how many queen bees you think have Swiss bank accounts because of all that expensive Royal Jelly that's sold through health shops.


What an absurd notion, that wealth, which is an artficial human concept, is somehow natural, or occurs in nature.


Social position in the animal world differs from that of the human world- unless you think Diana, Princess of Wales was there because she secured choice bits of wildebeest for the Royal pride or was the offspring of a particularly successful aristo wolf pack alpha male and female.

[Al B. Sure!]

wealth isnt a natural characteristic... intelligence (or some other attribute which leads to wealth) is a natural characteristic.

now, of course, the end of wealth is artificial... it isnt a natural end (the only natural end being survival to procreate)... i'm not seeing how the fact that wealth is an artificial end is of significance. those with traits that help them acquire wealth are bio-socially better (bio-socially in that they possess a biological trait which helps them succeed in society to acquire the specific society's end) than those who don't have traits that help them acquire wealth. a society under social darwinism will, thereotically, only have people who possess the traits which help the society (and humanity) advance.

i'm not understanding this naturalistic fallacy and how the fact that the end of wealth is artificial means Darwinism doesn't apply to society... animal societies only allow the alpha males to reproduce... thats the animal society creating a limited social construct. but if humans create social constructs, suddenly darwinism is invalid? what?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Albert Speer

those with traits that help them acquire wealth are bio-socially better (bio-socially in that they possess a biological trait which helps them succeed in society to acquire the specific society's end) than those who don't have traits that help them acquire wealth.

Ah, yes, those well-known bio-social success stories, Emperor Bokassa, Mobutu Sese Seko, Papa Doc Duvalier and Alphonse Capone.

What tremendous assets to society they were, as they accrued their wealth.

[Kidlicious]

Albert Speer,

Let's forget for a moment that you have already said that the rich are not smarter than the rest of us. Another point that no one is questioning you about is your claim that wealth creation is beneficial to the species. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the greatest determinant of wealth creation is wealth itself, not some kind of intelligence that you are talking about.

[Al B. Sure!]

look the fact is, we live in a capitalist society. the acquisition of wealth is our replacement of mere survival... those who acquire wealth, by whatever genetic talents they have, become the alpha males... why do yall question human social constructs but not animal ones? should wolves allow non-alpha males to reproduce?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
look the fact is, we live in a capitalist society. the acquisition of wealth is our replacement of mere survival... those who acquire wealth, by whatever genetic talents they have, become the alpha males... why do yall question human social constructs but not animal ones? should wolves allow non-alpha males to reproduce?

Wolves act by instinct. There is no question about how they act. Humans make choices, specifically humans with the power to make decisions for the rest of us make the choices. Those humans can not be expected to make those decisions without bias. That is human nature.

[Al B. Sure!]

frankly, i'm not seeing how the passivity of social darwinism is so harmful. why not let humanity duke it out trying to get money? why not? it'll ensure that the only one's who thrive and reproduce much are the ones with traits that are beneficial to our society. what does the fact that our idea of what is beneficial to society is socially-constructed matter?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
frankly, i'm not seeing how the passivity of social darwinism is so harmful. why not let humanity duke it out trying to get money? why not? it'll ensure that the only one's who thrive and reproduce much are the ones with traits that are beneficial to our society.

We do let humanity 'duke it out.' The strong always win. That is, the wealthy always stay wealthy. The only problem is the there is no evidence that these wealthy people have this trait that you have made up since they were largely born wealthy in the first place.

Originally posted by Albert Speer
what does the fact that our idea of what is beneficial to society is socially-constructed matter?

Ummm.. Duh! Read a history book. This crazy stuff is dangerous.

[Al B. Sure!]

Kidicious:

some social darwinists like Carnegie (he himself a man born from poverty who became wealthy) emphasized public education in order to allow more non-wealthy people to become wealthy... and the wealthy staying wealthy isnt all that bad considering that the wealthy probably pass on their positive genes to their offspring... of course, the nature of Spencer who believed acquired traits were passed on, was proved wrong, meaning the wealthy do not so clearly pass on their wealth-causing genes but some genes (intelligence perhaps) are still passed genetically

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Kidicious:

some social darwinists like Carnegie (he himself a man born from poverty who became wealthy) emphasized public education in order to allow more non-wealthy people to become wealthy...

Public education doesn't make opportunity equal.

Originally posted by Albert Speer
and the wealthy staying wealthy isnt all that bad considering that the wealthy probably pass on their positive genes to their offspring...

What about Carnegie? Look, poor people are so much better at managing money that it's absurd. I don't even know where to start with this assumption of yours.

Originally posted by Albert Speer
of course, the nature of Spencer who believed acquired traits were passed on, was proved wrong, meaning the wealthy do not so clearly pass on their wealth-causing genes but some genes (intelligence perhaps) are still passed genetically

Of course it's not proven. You can't prove something like that. They never will be able too. The rich are rich because they were born that way. Even if they did isolate that gene it would only prove that these wackos are exactly what they are.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
frankly, i'm not seeing how the passivity of social darwinism is so harmful. why not let humanity duke it out trying to get money? why not? it'll ensure that the only one's who thrive and reproduce much are the ones with traits that are beneficial to our society. what does the fact that our idea of what is beneficial to society is socially-constructed matter?

That's the most oblique suicide note I've ever read.

[Berzerker]

Why do you hate morality so much?

Did I say I hated morality? You sound like Sean Hannity... I dis-approve of your morality and you
dis-approve of mine. So the relevant question becomes:

would you still consider it moral to go around threatening people with violence to steal their possessions if no government existed? If not, this puts you in the position of arguing that government turns what is immoral into that which is moral, an ironic position given that many religious folk believe their
"god(s)", or more accurately, their convenient interpretation of their "god(s)" will, also turns what is immoral into that which is moral...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Did I say I hated morality? You sound like Sean Hannity... I dis-approve of your morality and you
dis-approve of mine. So the relevant question becomes:

You mean that you disagree with our ethics. Every democracy in the world has some sort of welfare system. You're the one with the strange morals.

Originally posted by Berzerker
would you still consider it moral to go around threatening people with violence to steal their possessions if no government existed?

You can't steal from someone who has no legal right to ownership.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Come on! Herds of animals have social positions!

Not all of them, just some, such as wolves, sea elephants, and gorillas. The thing is, these social positions are ultimately determined by physical characteristics such as size and strength, not because of who they know or who their parents know.