> At 11:13 AM 10/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Rob Schaap wrote:
> >
> > > >The equivocation of social darwinism with libertarian political
> > > >philosophy
> > > >is absurd.
>
> go right back to this point here. in the first place, i didn't make them
> equivalent. i told chris he was espousing utilitarian individualism AND
> social darwinism. you took me to be saying that they were
> equivalent. they're not.
I know. I was replying to Rob, not you.
> robert nozick, THE contemporary libertarian theorist, draws on spencer, the
> person who coined the concept "survival of the fittest". you go ahead and
> read the above and then maybe you might catch an errant klew.
You'll get your clue from following attributions. :-)
> >OK, I may be guilty here. There are very specific definitions for what I
> >would claim are very general phrases and I'm not aware of them, I suppose.
> >I took "utilitarian individualist" in the sense of utilitarian as a
> >model for morality, such that things defined as "good" are things which
> >are useful for protecting sovereignty of the individual and his liberty.
>
> but even on your definition, voting for any candidate is an individual's
> decision and none of your concern. you and only you can know what you want
> and need and no one has a right to judge.
OK. I took it for granted that it was recognized that Bore and Gush will deliver a presidency that jeapordizes the existence of the individual. So I guess I am judging those who vote for them, since if they are individualists then one might think they care about the concept of the individual.
> >>>>The robot is programmed for fear,
> > >
> > > is this dave you're channeling here or what!?
>
> "the programmed for fear" bit. i think you are capable of more complex
> thinking than to attibute people's apathy, etc to being programmed like
> sheep.
Those complexities are aberrations. Not all reactions of every person are based upon fear, but many and many are.
> >Social darwinism is the theory in sociology that groups achieve advantage
> >over others based upon genetic and biological "superiority", no?
>
> yes, but it has nothing to do with what you're typing about. how is
> affirmative action an illustration of social darwinism? social darwinism
> argues, as spencer did, that the gov't should keep its nose out of the
> natural processes and let the weak die and the strong survive. in other
> words, he was very much in line with classical liberalism or what you call
> libertarianism.
Can one subscribe to social darwinism without believing that it is "good"? What purpose does a.a. serve? Why does someone with a particular colour of skin deserve extra "help"?
Matt
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ A conspiracy theorist is the new name for what we used to call a journalist.
-Richard Theime