26-07-2004 09:05									#121
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	26-07-2004 09:06									#122
	Put an end to popups!

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

	26-07-2004 09:07									#123
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	26-07-2004 09:10									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: so are small hunter-gatherer tribes.

quote: 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.

	26-07-2004 09:11									#125
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

	26-07-2004 09:13									#126
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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?

	26-07-2004 09:20									#127
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: Small hunter-gatherer tribes are still created by people.

	26-07-2004 09:36									#128
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Small hunter-gatherer tribes are still created by people.

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

	26-07-2004 10:33									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

	26-07-2004 18:07									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kid -

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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:

quote: 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?

	26-07-2004 18:43									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

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

quote: 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.

	27-07-2004 02:08									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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!

quote: 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).

quote: 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 ).

	27-07-2004 06:08									#133
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kid -

quote: 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.

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

Hardly, read the definition I offered.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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...

quote: 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.

	28-07-2004 00:02									#134
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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?

	28-07-2004 12:54									#135
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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?

	28-07-2004 12:56									#136
	Inflate your Upload Space

Why not? If you believe Bell Curve, surely certain "races" are inferior.

	28-07-2004 13:12									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

what the hell?

Spencer, the founder of social darwinism, made it clear that the transition from homogenity to heterogenity of the human species is a sign of our advancement and evolution. human diversity is considered a big plus to the social darwinists.

	28-07-2004 13:41									#138
	Inflate your Upload Space

How does that reconcile with the belief that inferior individuals needed to be weeded out?

	28-07-2004 20:26									#139
	Remove this text

Berz,

Arguing with you becomes so tedious. You define everything according to libertarian context. For example, you think that every time you see the work 'right' it means natural right. Only libertarians talk like that. The rest of us aren't obsessed with natural rights.

	28-07-2004 20:28									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer 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?

And I disagree with Boris. Even though people had already tried to find psuedo-scientific ways to justify racism before Darwin, they found his "survival of the fittest" idea to be very appealing as a new psuedo-scientific justification for racism.

	28-07-2004 20:34									#141
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Berz, Arguing with you becomes so tedious. You define everything according to libertarian context. For example, you think that every time you see the work 'right' it means natural right. Only libertarians talk like that. The rest of us aren't obsessed with natural rights.

If you talk about legal rights, then your discussion has no bearing on morality. Since you're arguing morality, of COURSE you're talking about "natural rights".

	28-07-2004 20:36									#142
	Re: Libertarianism and Social Darwinism Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MrFun It seems that libertarianism is a political adaptation of the ideology underlying social Darwinism in that if you play by the rules and you end up losing you are screwed and undeserving of any government assistance and/or protection -- even if you lost out due to some unfair or unjustified element of the system. Or am I talking out of my ass?

If there is an unfair or unjustified element in the system (i.e. corporate welfare, or loopholes in the tax code, or some kind of collusion at the top) then that should be fixed, and victims of it should be helped. Though some elements you may consider unfair, would be considered fair in a libertarian system. and vice-versa.

Also, no government assistance does not mean no assistance. Libertarians (at least in theory) are big fans of private charity and help and such.

So social darwinism doesn't equal libertarianism.

	28-07-2004 20:43									#143
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker If you talk about legal rights, then your discussion has no bearing on morality. Since you're arguing morality, of COURSE you're talking about "natural rights".

We were talking about a dictionary definition, and legal rights do have a bearing on morality.

	28-07-2004 20:46									#144
	Remove this text

No they don't! Unless your morality is "what's legal is moral, what's illegal is immoral", then the two are completely unconnected! What is legal is merely an empirical claim.

	28-07-2004 20:48									#145
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker No they don't! Unless your morality is "what's legal is moral, what's illegal is immoral", then the two are completely unconnected! What is legal is merely an empirical claim.

DanSed you.

What I meant to say is that illegal is unethical, not immoral. The problem is that Berzerker thinks that his morals are ethical, and that is ridiculous.

	28-07-2004 20:50									#146
	Remove this text

Thus, killing all the Jews in Nazi Germany was ethical.

	28-07-2004 20:51									#147
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious DanSed you.

Thus conceding my point...

	28-07-2004 20:53									#148
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Thus, killing all the Jews in Nazi Germany was ethical.

That's a tough one. The govt was captured by special interests. I don't think killing the Jews was culturally accepted, so I say no.

	28-07-2004 21:09									#149
	Put an end to popups!

Wait - so now, if killing Jews had be culturally accepted, it would have been A-OK in your book? Good to know...

	28-07-2004 22:05									#150
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Wait - so now, if killing Jews had be culturally accepted, it would have been A-OK in your book? Good to know...

Ethics is culturally accepted norms. How do you figure that genocide is ok with me from that?