Social Darwinism

Post Reply New Topic

Lets get one thing straight from the start. I am not interested in debating the theory of evolution or the overall work of charles darwin. you may believe in his work, i do not, this thread is not the place to shoot down each others beliefs or theories, there are other threads for that.

Now, to business.

Does anyone believe that the US economy is a social darwinist institution? I have found that those who are wealthy, stay wealthy and succeed. the poor among us are constantly trying to claw their way up the ladder but are constantly being pushed back down. It seems that there is a "clique" in charge of this economy and by extension the country as a whole.

While there are charitable organizations out there, people are still going without. There seems to be a strong "survival of the fittest" theme going on. Of course to the NT world, aspies are seen as unfit. Ive always said the cards are stacked against the working poor.

It is understandable that the rich are not interested in giving up a single penny, they are smart enough to realize that they could lose their social standing.

Nor do i think that anyone is "entitled" to anything, but i still dont think that the "haute couture" has the right to constantly and relentlessly stomp on the "underclass"

I work in a convenience store, i am the bottom rung. I am outranked by the "blue collar" the "white collar" and the "welfare class". I have money taken from my paycheck to support welfare, in my job i am servant to the "collared classes", and i am not considered "working class" a term generally reserved for union workers.

Ive heard it said that the american economic system has no place for classism, but apparently the upper class never got the memo.

I think that both capitalism and socialism have MAJOR shortcomings, i do not believe that either one serves the people very well.

Does anyone have a better idea?

that's not true! i know a lot of people that are charitable. it improves their social standing if they are charitable, because they are seen as less greedy by more people. think: rockeffeller and the other "barons" of the industrial age. we love to demonize the rich for whatever reason, but there are loads of wealthy charitable people out there. if you aren't charitable, it's likely that you'd be seen as miserly.

If the CEO of bank of america were approached on the street by a homeless man begging for a cup of coffee, what do you think the CEO would say to him?

The rich are charitable for two reasons: Public bragging rights, and tax write offs.

I voted for living off the grid, I think that sound very tempting, since I feel like a lot of modern era inventions are worsening my condiiton, although I couldn't do it alone.

Capitalism.

Capitalism because I don't want to stand in line for 1 Salami.

I agree. Modern conveniences have made us weak as a people. Instead of having to go out and kill and clean your own food, we can go buy it prepackaged and ready to eat. Instead of walking or taking a horse-drawn carriage into town we can have a personal car and be there in minutes instead of hours or days. Instead of going to your brothers house and speaking to him, you can remain in the comfort of your own home and call him.

Im not against innovation, but i think that we must use it wisely. A little incovenience now and then reminds us of our humanity. I use modern conveniences but i keep in mind "how would i do this without..."

I do not have a car, therefore the perceived inconvenience of taking a bus or walking somewhere does not bother me. I buy prepackaged meat, but i still know how to kill and clean an animal, or be able to identify edible plants.

My goal is to be as independent of the government as possible, which in the US is getting more difficult every day, they want to know who we are, where we are and what were up to.

I just wonder what would happen to this country if we lost ALL electrical power for 24 hours. no batteries or generator either. my guess is that within 12 hours the military would be activated, curfews would be instituted, and martial law would be put into effect.

I smell some hidden angst. Anyway, I was hoping this would be a discussion about Social Darwinism and I was getting excited. Darn. I feel, however, that you have to choose your poison when it comes to economics. No one is better than the other.

I'm not so sure that a political affiliation can be lumped with "Social Darwinism". I voted "Other" as there wasn't the category of "Libertarian" specified in the listing.

Please clarify why the economic system "Capitalism" is specific to a political system, also.

Libertarians tend to be Capitalist.

I'm not the political type, so I don't have anything to add to this thread, without looking like a fool, except that I choose Unionism.

To me american conservatism is closely linked with a sink or swim darwinistic philosophy. (generalizing) conservatism tends to "hoard" resources, preventing anyone not in the "in crowd" from succeeding. liberalism, on the other end of the spectrum, tends to cry foul and take resources by force. to me its a darwinistic power struggle.

politics and the economy go hand in hand, the stock market can lose half its value if a notable politician expresses the smallest bit of uncertainty. business owns the american people by proxy, consider the lobbyists in congress who pay the reps (who are supposed to work for us) to pass legislation favorable to the companies' cause.

in congress is in on the game, they become a force attempting to extinguish the "unfit".

I partially disagree. i think capitalism is a close second for libertarians. what provides more personal freedom than living independently of any political or economic system? a libertarian who lives off-grid would have nothing to gain or lose if the government were to utterly fail.

I too am pro-union (i assume you mean labor union)

I am anomalous in that i am a pro-union republican. (socially conservative, fiscally, somewhat liberal)

I have to disagree with you. A government of some kind is needed, but that government shouldn't restrict any freedom that doesn't directly affect others in a negative way.

What you're attributing to Libertarianism is actually Anarchism.

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