Libertarianism and Social Darwinism

[Kuciwalker]

So?

How is it "unnatural"?

[Urban Ranger]

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?

If you don't see anything wrong with money worshipping, crass materialism, and a wrongheaded list of priorities, I have nothing more to say to you.

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it'll ensure that the only one's who thrive and reproduce much are the ones with traits that are beneficial to our society.

You can't be more wrong. People who have the traits to accumulate great wealth are by definition selfish, bloodthirsty, and pretty much lawless. Rockerfeller sent thugs to burn his competitors' oil rigs. Bill Gates engaged in serious anti-competition activities. How are these traits beneficial to our society?

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

None, except your idea of what is beneficial to the society is wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
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.

And here is were it all falls down, right here, with this one fallacy.

Lets take YOU for example. You have made it clear to us that you live in a poor, high crime area- are you implying then that you are of a lower genetic stock to begtin with, due to the end results of your family's socio-encomic position? Maybe you will take this personall,y BUt I am trying to point out the fallacy you have- in the service of what you just said, would you consider perhaps all those limo liberals to be smarter than you? After all, they were genetically superior to be rich whereas you are not?

To test this therory, of course, you would have to follow the lives of kids of the rich for decades- but importantly, you would have to make sure they did NOT start wealthy, cause of course money makes money, and the wealthy have an advantage to stay wealthy..so to test whether Carnegie's kids would have been as genetically "superior" as the old man himself, we would have had to stick them in a similar situation and await similar results.

The fact is ambition is more important to wealth than intelligence.

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?

It is invalid becuase human social systems are not, like wolve social systems, all the same. All beehives have the same general structures, the same classes, all through the world and time-their structure is predetermined becuase they are not sentient. HUman beings are sentient, and hence our systems are always different, hence artifical. For example, lets say we have a society in which you allow for debtors prisons, and then say no felon can reporduce. Lets say a young man gets rich of his work- but his partner defrauds him and runs..now the young man goes into a debtors prison, and is steralized. Would you defend this and sday tyhe kid was dumb becuase of his choice of partner?

[Kuciwalker]

You can't be more wrong. People who have the traits to accumulate great wealth are by definition selfish, bloodthirsty, and pretty much lawless. How are these traits beneficial to our society?

Because actually, they're generally selfish, bloodthirsty, lawless, and talented.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So?

How is it "unnatural"?

Because as I said to Speer, all social groups within non-sentient animals are predetermined and they within a certain set of parameters always look alike.

Mankind is sentient, but more importantly, has created for itself an artificial environment- how can a "natural" social mode come into existence in a self-created artificial environment? Answer: it can't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You can't be more wrong. People who have the traits to accumulate great wealth are by definition selfish, bloodthirsty, and pretty much lawless. How are these traits beneficial to our society?

Because actually, they're generally selfish, bloodthirsty, lawless, and talented.

UR is wrong about how people collect welath-at the samke time, that person's one talent may onyl be wealth accumulation. I doubt Bill Gates would have gotten far in Genghis Khan's society and not have much time to breed- if he made it out of infancy that is.

[Kuciwalker]

So your argument that such social groups are "unnatural" boils down to "they were created by man".

DUH!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So?

How is it "unnatural"?

If wealth is accumlated by smashing against each other sumo style, and social position is determined by who can jump the highest, there is a natural basis to wealth and social position. However, as it stands now, wealth and social position has absolutely nothing to do with any natural characteristics. Thus they are unnatural.

While we are at it, please show that wealth and social positions are natural, as opposed to being artificial constructs.

[Kuciwalker]

See above post.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So your argument that such social groups are "unnatural" boils down to "they were created by man".

DUH!

Actually, no.

A small huter-gatherer tribe is the natural human social structure. It was so for at least 95% of human existance.

99% of human beings today do not live in such bands. They live in permanent communities of sizes from a few dozens to tens of millions. These are artificial groups.

Artificial means created by man, as opposed to natural.

Sentience may have been arrived at naturally, BUT its fruits are not to be classified as such

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You can't be more wrong. People who have the traits to accumulate great wealth are by definition selfish, bloodthirsty, and pretty much lawless. How are these traits beneficial to our society?

Because actually, they're generally selfish, bloodthirsty, lawless, and talented.

Prove it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
See above post.

Where's the proof?

[Kuciwalker]

Because anyone can be selfish, bloodthirsty, and lawless. It takes a special type of selfish, bloodthirsty, and lawless person to be a successful robber baron or whatnot.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

See above post

Where's the proof?

Proof of what?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, no.

A small huter-gatherer tribe is the natural human social structure. It was so for at least 95% of human existance.

So? How is our time not natural too? It is the natural progression of human society.

99% of human beings today do not live in such bands. They live in permanent communities of sizes from a few dozens to tens of millions. These are artificial groups.

By this definition

Artificial means created by man, as opposed to natural.

so are small hunter-gatherer tribes.

Anyway, you conceded my point

So your argument that such social groups are "unnatural" boils down to "they were created by man".

DUH!

with this:

Artificial means created by man, as opposed to natural.