Do you believe and support Social Darwinism (the eonomic survival of the fittist)?

Do you believe and support Social Darwinism (the eonomic survival of the fittist)?

  • Don't Know/Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

Mustang

Gold Member
Jan 15, 2010
9,257
3,230
315
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
Many conservatives these days are proponents of a purer form of capitalism than currently exists. It was once known as laissez-faire capitalism.

In economics, laissez-faire (English pronunciation: /ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ ( listen), French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.

Under this theory, individuals would be free to rise (or fall) based on their own abilities.

Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think you would be more likely to benefit or be hurt under such a system?

Do you support the idea of a laissez-faire economic system?

If so, why? And please explain why you think you would either benefit or be harmed by this purer form of capitalism.
 
Arguments:

1. the alternative is communism/socialism, which never works
2. it worked since cave men, you work hard and adapt you survive, you don't you die
 
Arguments:

1. the alternative is communism/socialism, which never works
2. it worked since cave men, you work hard and adapt you survive, you don't you die

Number 1: That's patently untrue.

Number 2: I think you're confusing biological survival of the fittist which could result in the extinction of an entire species with social Darwinism which allows some people to thrive economically while other people fall into sustained poverty.
 
Many conservatives these days are proponents of a purer form of capitalism than currently exists. It was once known as laissez-faire capitalism.

In economics, laissez-faire (English pronunciation: /ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ ( listen), French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.

Under this theory, individuals would be free to rise (or fall) based on their own abilities.

Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think you would be more likely to benefit or be hurt under such a system?

Do you support the idea of a laissez-faire economic system?

If so, why? And please explain why you think you would either benefit or be harmed by this purer form of capitalism.

I would benefit from a purer form of capitalism (freer from taxes and tarrifs).
For instance, every pack of cigarretes I purchase contains over $1.50 in taxes and fees.
Every gallon of spirits I purchase has in excess of $13.00 in taxes, beer is taxed at $1.00 per gallon.
What right gives government institutions the power to decide that certain things are taxed simply because one engages in those specific activities?
 
Many conservatives these days are proponents of a purer form of capitalism than currently exists. It was once known as laissez-faire capitalism.

In economics, laissez-faire (English pronunciation: /ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ ( listen), French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.
Under this theory, individuals would be free to rise (or fall) based on their own abilities.

Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think you would be more likely to benefit or be hurt under such a system?

Do you support the idea of a laissez-faire economic system?

If so, why? And please explain why you think you would either benefit or be harmed by this purer form of capitalism.

I would benefit from a purer form of capitalism (freer from taxes and tarrifs).
For instance, every pack of cigarretes I purchase contains over $1.50 in taxes and fees.
Every gallon of spirits I purchase has in excess of $13.00 in taxes, beer is taxed at $1.00 per gallon.
What right gives government institutions the power to decide that certain things are taxed simply because one engages in those specific activities?

I suppose it's reasonable to assume that your taxes would go down if there were less gov't, but I'm not sure sin taxes would go down. The taxes that might go down would probably be the ones that fund the agencies that enforce laws and rules and regulations.

I don't know what you do for a living, and I'm not asking. But how do you think laissez-faire economics would impact your livelihood for the better or worse?
 
Many conservatives these days are proponents of a purer form of capitalism than currently exists. It was once known as laissez-faire capitalism.

In economics, laissez-faire (English pronunciation: /ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ ( listen), French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.

Under this theory, individuals would be free to rise (or fall) based on their own abilities.

Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think you would be more likely to benefit or be hurt under such a system?

Do you support the idea of a laissez-faire economic system?

If so, why? And please explain why you think you would either benefit or be harmed by this purer form of capitalism.

Honestly, the silliness surrounding the social sciences on this board is simply astounding sometimes.

Did you people ever really go to school? Do you folks live in caves or soemthing and have absolutely no idea the way your world really works?


No human economic system -- capitalism included -- is even remotely Darwinist in nature.
 
Arguments:

1. the alternative is communism/socialism, which never works
2. it worked since cave men, you work hard and adapt you survive, you don't you die

Number 1: That's patently untrue.

Number 2: I think you're confusing biological survival of the fittist which could result in the extinction of an entire species with social Darwinism which allows some people to thrive economically while other people fall into sustained poverty.

It's the same thing. The fittest, the most clever, the most adaptable survive, who can't falls into poverty, or dies.

As the weak winnow away, the people become stronger, more clever and more adaptable. Social Darwinism is at least as important, if not more important than primitive survival of the fittest. What do we owe the poor? Really, what are they OWED and what did they do to incur that debt?
 
Arguments:

1. the alternative is communism/socialism, which never works
2. it worked since cave men, you work hard and adapt you survive, you don't you die

3, You work hard, you adapt and then the guy too lazy to work hard picks up a rock, kills you and takes your property and wife for his own.

Since living in a state of nature with no laws, rules or regulations might makes right, and with a tool - rock, knife, gun -even a lazy wimp can win the day.
 
Arguments:

1. the alternative is communism/socialism, which never works
2. it worked since cave men, you work hard and adapt you survive, you don't you die

Number 1: That's patently untrue.

Number 2: I think you're confusing biological survival of the fittist which could result in the extinction of an entire species with social Darwinism which allows some people to thrive economically while other people fall into sustained poverty.

It's the same thing. The fittest, the most clever, the most adaptable survive, who can't falls into poverty, or dies.

As the weak winnow away, the people become stronger, more clever and more adaptable. Social Darwinism is at least as important, if not more important than primitive survival of the fittest. What do we owe the poor? Really, what are they OWED and what did they do to incur that debt?

Not necessarily. Not when it comes to social Darwinism. A person could be more intelligent and still fail because he's economically disadvantaged even as someone else who is less intelligent could succeed due solely to having greater wealth and economic power (as in inherited wealth).
 

Forum List

Back
Top