Social Darwinism

Post Reply New Topic

There is a such thing as anarcho-libertarianism, which I think is what some people think of when they think of libertarianism.

Very true.

Im not advocating anarchism, that leads to chaos. i suppose i mean "living beside" the government. i do not oppose government but i believe that if people want to live independently of the government, they should be able to without resistance. I would want to live away from everybody. people in groups of as little as 3 begin to develop a social hierarchy, thus limiting the freedom of the others in the group and creating a "survival/fittest" and competitive nature.

I know not everyone shares my viewpoint on this but, the ONLY authority i accept is the authority of God. btw, people, even God's people have no place administering God's justice system, we always turn it into a tyrranical power trip.

Last edited by thechadmaster on 11 Jul 2010, 3:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

First of all....I checked socialism. My position here is somewhat nuanced though. That is...I do believe that SOME FORM of capitalism may truly be the best we can currently do economically speaking. A libertarian socialist system would be IDEAL IMO, but no one (including Noam Chomsky who has openly said so) seems to be able to determine how, exactly, we could go about making such an idealized socio-political/economic system into a viable reality.


Still....if ANY form of capitalism is truly the best we can do as species, i'd say we'll always be dealing with an "evil" however necessary it may be. If the ultimate goal of a socialism is to provide every human being with the same access to good and services (both quantatively and qualitatively speaking) as the American middle class currently has, i'd say that's an impossibility.




The fundamental problem of scarcity would simply rule that out.

Now if all of humanity wished to drastically reduce our population and revert to primitivism, I think something which could be defined as socialism could work. But that would mean that NO ONE would have access to things like modern healthcare and travel. We would be little more than hunter/gatherers again with maybe some small-scale agriculture and animal domestication.


Therefore...I don't have a problem with those who support capitalism provided they do so from an entirely pragmatic perspective, because I would largely agree with them. This would be it's ONLY moral justification though IMO. Other attempt to provide moral justification for capitalism which is based solely on an opinion which may or may not have any validity in reality.


That is....the opinion that human beings have a quality which can genuinely be defined as "free will". This notion has NOT been clearly demonstrated by our current understanding of genetics, epigenetics, the human brain, psychology, etc....In fact....what we now know about all of these things at least suggests that all human thought and behavior is determined.


Therefore....even if we leave morals aside (which may or may not be subjective in any case) a conclusion that states capitalism is justified based on the premise that humans have free will is obviously invalid since said premise has not been proven to be valid.

The bottom line is this:


I believe capitalism is a fundamentally unjust and anti-social unless it can be proven that human beings (at least most human beings since few would argue that those with a certain degree of mental retardation/mental illness have a significant amount of control over their thoughts, behaviors, outcomes, etc....) possess a quality which could genuinely be defined as
free will.

For another thing, if humans are largely, if not entirely, self-interested creatures....a system in which one's QUALITY OF LIFE (notice I did not say HAPPINESS) is largely determined by the access they have to goods and services will always enable countless anti-social behaviors.


Unfortunately...it is part of the world's tragedy and irony that SOME form of this very system may be the optimal way (currently at least) of providing the "greatest good to the greatest number".

So one thing Winston Churchill said about capitalism and socialism may, sadly, be true enough.


"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.....socialism is the equal distribution of poverty".


Still....NONE OF THIS is an excuse for the KIND of capitalism which is practiced here in America. The gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" which exists in American society is unspeakably revolting. The things that "businessmen" and the rich in general (both large and small) in this country are allowed to get away with leaves me smoldering with rage everytime I think of it. My rage here is not just directed at the businessmen either, but at my fellow citizens who seem to passively and happily accept this monstrous and sociopathic state of affairs.


As far as i'm concerned....not one person in this country should be allowed to make over $250,000 per year or $10 million over a lifetime. In fact...most people shouldn't be allowed to make even half that amount. How can we justify the fact that a bunch of golfing lawyers and vacuous celebrities are allowed to live in superfluous opulence while people who literally put their lives on the line (like soldiers) barely make enough money to keep a roof over their heads?


This is yet another reason why I believe many on the christian right aren't morally serious people at all. The stench of the economic injustice and immorality in this country is noisome enough to nauseate the very angels of heaven and many on the christian right seem far more concerned about the sexual behavior of consenting adults.

Last edited by Horus on 11 Jul 2010, 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

remember what socialist Margaret Thatcher once said, Socialism works great until you run out of everyone elses money.

And a relatively rare breed among self-proclaimed republicans. Though i'm the furthest thing from a social conservative myself (as i'm 100% atheist, prochoice, pro-legalization of drugs and prostitution, pro-gay marriage, etc....) I do have a great deal of respect for your positions since I feel they are morally consistent.


The same cannot be said, IMO, for republicans/conservatives who think homosexuality is a grave immorality while also believing there's nothing immoral about our economic system and foreign policy.


Not to mention how many feel about environmental issues.

I'm almost certain you're referring to anarcho-capitalism.


I prefer to use the term "libertarian" in a context which is in no way related to economics.



A die-hard capitalism or communist can define themselves as "libertarian" and rightfully so IMO IF they are attempting to encapsulate their position on social/cultural issues in one word.

Then I really have nothing more to say to you.

Yes well....as little respect as I have for that war criminal (and social darwinist if there ever was one) I wouldn't disagree with that statement too much.


I'd agree with it grudgingly nonetheless since IN MY HEART AND IDEALS, I have always been and will always remain, a socialist.

I also respect your position, and your right to have that position. i am actually in favor of legalization of marijuana (i would never use it myself, but i feel that the governments time could be better used). i think it is a grave social injustice how the US government and economy do business.

Let me be clear, if the democratic party were more socially conservative i would join them in a heartbeat. I have great respect for Bart Stupak the Michigan Democrat. He is unique as a pro-life democrat, he also, being from michigan, understands the plight of the working class people, especially those affected in the auto industry.

Our founding documents make clear that we have unalienable rights: LIFE Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. we are not guaranteed happiness but we are guaranteed the right to pursue it. with the government growing larger every day, and the number of viable american taxpayers killed since 1973, it is becoming increasingly difficult to excercise one's rights.

I think that the "environment" should become a priority only after we address more pressing matters, lets get americans back to work before we start restricting emmisions that cost companies money, money that could be used to hire more people at a living wage.

What do you mean "without resistance"? Do you mean people should be able to declare themselves outside the law and be able to do literally whatever they want? The whole reason governments got invented in the first place (I am using "government" very loosely to include " chosen tribal leader" 10,000 years ago and everything after) is because people really do need a way to settle disputes and get things done. How exactly do you resolve the dispute of "you raped my wife, what shoud happen?" or "you burned everything I own- what should happen?" without government? You resolve it with revenge. And that's what happens wherever there isn't government. People just enter a cycle of revenge. You say you don't want anarchy (which is the starting point of the cycle of revenge). But what do you think will happen if people are able to live "beside the government without resistance?" In case you are about to use Native Americans in the U.S. as an example, they have a tribal government that is not in conflict with the U.S. government.

Anyway, people using the term "social Darwinism" are generally failing to understand that evolution acts at species level as well as at individual level. Behaviours which benefit the group can be taken up just as well as behaviours that benefit the individual. Attempting to justify greed by invoking "survival of the fittest" is a failure of logic, though most of the people who do so have, of course, no interest in that. Much easier to maintain the self-delusion that your greed is somehow to the benefit of society - though it transparently isn't in anyone's interest for a handful of people to dispose of the riches of the Earth - than to face the fact that you are a bad person.

Last edited by Ambivalence on 11 Jul 2010, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Learn from the BP gulf oil spill. When companies are freed from the restraints that protect the enviroment, they don't turn around and hire more people at a living wage. They pocket the savings. British Petrol could have spent money to make sure their oil rigs were safely maintained. They could have checked and double checked everything and made sure maintenance was a priority. But instead they cut corners and passed the savings on to...the top execs.

Now we have an enviromental disaster in the gulf. And guess what enviromental disasters do besides killing plants and animals? Well, if you put the safety of the enviroment at a distant second after jobs, then look at what ignoring the enviroment cost in terms of jobs? The fishing industry in the gulf has been mortally injured. So has the tourism industry. If you care about jobs, then the enormous number of jobs lost because the enviroment wasn't a priority should concern you.

yes, outside of US law. there is still natural law and (i believe) biblical law which both have concequences. as for your examples, that would require me to be in the presence of other people. if i am completely alone, it would be kinda difficult to commit a crime against someone else.

I dont dispute the fact that the rig explosion was the disaster of the century, but I see the it as an extremely isolated incedent, even if BP had taken every possible measure to ensure safe operation, this still could have happened, human technology is inherently flawed.

As for their business practices, i believe in the democratic process even for corporations, if every employee had one vote and the employees had become disgruntled, the bosses would have to change their practices if they wanted to keep their jobs.

Why is it that (Americans especially) put such a high value on our democracy and freedoms, but as soon as we punch the clock we accept total dictatorship? We know that the bosses hold our employment in their hands, and that is a threat to true freedom. If the top 1% hold 95% of a nations wealth, then they become the administrators of social darwinism, who will be allowed to succeed? who will be proverbially kicked in the groin?