Libertarianism and Social Darwinism

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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.

No. The fact that most people are not selfish, bloodthirsty and lawless means that those who are automatically gain advantage over the rest of the population.

The fact that most people in any society are not in prision shows that an overwhelming part of any population is law abiding.

[Kuciwalker]

Still, simply being sbl (to shorten it for now) is not enough to make you rich. Obviously.

[GePap]

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

The continued existance of hunter-gatherer tribe today disproves such a silly notion.

so are small hunter-gatherer tribes.

So you think men appeared as individual atomes out of clay, and decided to fomr themselves into such bands?

Maybe you should closely study the other members of the primate family and look at their structures for a minor clue to where those natural human groupings would come.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
The continued existance of hunter-gatherer tribe today disproves such a silly notion.

Really, I'd expect better than blatant idiocy from you. The continued existance of children today disproves such a silly notion that children grow up into adults.

so are small hunter-gatherer tribes.

So you think men appeared as individual atomes out of clay, and decided to fomr themselves into such bands?

Maybe you should closely study the other members of the primate family and look at their structures for a minor clue to where those natural human groupings would come.

Small hunter-gatherer tribes are still created by people.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
UR is wrong about how people collect welath-at the samke time, that person's one talent may onyl be wealth accumulation.

Sadly, I cannot think of one person who accumulated great wealth did not start out being rich, or by playing outside the system - at least at some point in time, at somewhere.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Still, simply being sbl (to shorten it for now) is not enough to make you rich. Obviously.

Sure, there are degrees of sbl. Or perhaps we should add ruthlessness to the list of traits?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Really, I'd expect better than blatant idiocy from you. The continued existance of children today disproves such a silly notion that children grow up into adults.

:LOL: You know, this is starting to remind me of your actions in the social darwinism thread.

Lets get back to basic: you said perhaps coming to live in metropolises is "a natural prograssion of human society". If this were to be true, then ALL human sociaties would at some point become farming societies, then create larger and larger permanent settlements, then states empires and the whole bit. How long does the process take professor? After all, by the time Europeans arrived in Australia, the locals had been living for 40,000 years without any urbanization. Were aborigenes simply not human? What about the tribes of the Amazon? I haven;t seen much in the way of this "natural progression of human society" with them either- or the eskimo either- but I guess those are not human groups either..must be some other type of ape...

25,000 years aogt for some reason someone noticed that a living could be made hanging around some areas and living of some monocultures cause certain plants, iof cared for right, could sustain a group for a while. If that had not happened, you know what, humans would still be around this planet just fine in their natural groups.

You would think having read Guns, Germs and Steel would have destroted scuh an honestly silly idea from your head. I guess not.

Small hunter-gatherer tribes are still created by people.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Small hunter-gatherer tribes are still created by people.

I think you're confusing shopping and nightclubbing with hunter gathering.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Trajanus
Altruism as an evolutionary trait would be the best one ever developed if it weren't for the 'freeriders' who abuse this. That's why charity won't work. There will always be people who'll get off with something that was meant to be given to another person!
So basically giving charity will never get the job done to give everybody the best chances of life.

Freeriders aren't a major concern as long as they are kept to under 10% or so of beneficiaries. A 90% success rate is not equivalent to failure.

There's no need for perfection in human society.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

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.

I see nothing ethical or moral about "might makes right" and that is the basis for democracy.

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

Sure you can, it's just "legal". Government did not invent stealing by writing a law nor does legalised stealing turn theft into something other than theft; as Frederick Douglas said, slavery is "man-stealing". But according to you, slaves had no legal right to own themselves, therefore slavery stole nothing from slaves.
You didn't answer my question, Kid... Shall I repeat it?

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

You don't like the word "steal" in that question? Fine, I'll quote the first definition in the dictionary:

To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I don't see a mention of legality there, but I'll rephrase my question:

Would you still consider it moral to go around threatening people with violence to take their possessions without permission if no government existed?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

I see nothing ethical or moral about "might makes right" and that is the basis for democracy.

It's simply a fact that taking things from people and giving them to people who need them more is part of our society's ethical code. If you don't see that then you are simply ignorant of the fact.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sure you can, it's just "legal". Government did not invent stealing by writing a law nor does legalised stealing turn theft into something other than theft;

There is no such thing as 'legal' stealing. Stealing is illegal by definition.

Originally posted by Berzerker
as Frederick Douglas said, slavery is "man-stealing". But according to you, slaves had no legal right to own themselves, therefore slavery stole nothing from slaves.

Slaves were treated unfairly, inhumanly and exploited. There owners didn't steal them. They legally obtained them.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You don't like the word "steal" in that question? Fine, I'll quote the first definition in the dictionary:

To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I'm sorry, but that is legal right, not natural right, unless you are reading that crazy libertarian bible, err dictionary.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Would you still consider it moral to go around threatening people with violence to take their possessions without permission if no government existed?

That depends on the context. I do, as well as most people believe that taking things from people that they don't need and giving it to people who do, is a moral act, regardless of govt. However, it should be avoided when possible. People should be given every opportunity to provide for their own needs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
:LOL: You know, this is starting to remind me of your actions in the social darwinism thread.

This is the social darwinism thread!

Lets get back to basic: you said perhaps coming to live in metropolises is "a natural prograssion of human society". If this were to be true, then ALL human sociaties would at some point become farming societies, then create larger and larger permanent settlements, then states empires and the whole bit.

Right, at least under the right conditions (when agriculture becomes easier or better than hunting/gathering).

You would think having read Guns, Germs and Steel would have destroted scuh an honestly silly idea from your head. I guess not.

Uh, Jack Diamond would agree with me. He even says in his book that eventually the Aboriginal Australians would have followed this same progression (I can't find the quote right now, dammit ).

[Berzerker]

Kid -

It's simply a fact that taking things from people and giving them to people who need them more is part of our society's ethical code. If you don't see that then you are simply ignorant of the fact.

That is a "fact", but we are debating whether or not that fact is ethical or moral. Your argument is: we outnumber the people we are robbing and that makes it ethical.

There is no such thing as 'legal' stealing. Stealing is illegal by definition.

Hardly, read the definition I offered.

Slaves were treated unfairly, inhumanly and exploited. There owners didn't steal them. They legally obtained them.

How they were treated is irrelevant, the fact it was "legal" to treat them that way is another indictment of your "whatever is legal is moral/ethical" argument... We aren't debating whether or not slaves were "legally" obtained, we're debating whether or not slavery is moral. If you believe it's ethical or moral for the majority to steal from the minority simply by virtue of a "law" the majority wrote, then you have to argue that slavery is moral too if the majority voted to legalise slavery.

I'm sorry, but that is legal right, not natural right, unless you are reading that crazy libertarian bible, err dictionary.

And a "legal" right to steal = morality is an oxy-moron. You wouldn't argue that what the Nazis did to millions of Germans was moral, but it was "legal" nonetheless.
Your argument is: we can take what belongs to you because we outnumber you and we call that ethical because we call it legal too... A right is a moral claim belonging to an individual to act on their own behalf, you cannot create a "legal right" to behave immorally towards others.

That depends on the context. I do, as well as most people believe that taking things from people that they don't need and giving it to people who do, is a moral act, regardless of govt.

Which is a meaningless "context" because the people doing the stealing are the ones deciding who is in need and who isn't. How convenient...

However, it should be avoided when possible. People should be given every opportunity to provide for their own needs.

Avoiding "unnecessay" legalised theft once it's legal is a foolish endeavor, thanks to your "morality" corporations are ripping the taxpayers off. Why? Because the majority has decided it's ethical to "re-distribute" other people's property.

So, if you see someone you decide is in need, it's moral for you to go around taking other people's property in the absence of government? Okay, then why is it illegal for a poor person to steal from a rich person without the government's help? Isn't that law immoral, a law "society" has made? There's another paradox created by your argument.

[MrFun]

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?

I already pointed out some of the historical atrocities that resulted from social Darwinism.

Do I need to reiterate for your benefit?

[Al B. Sure!]

shut up mrfun... racism has nothing to do with social darwinism. didn't me and Boris already disprove this notion? do you intake any information?