First of all, conservatives have NEVER given us less government, they have given us MORE. Does that FACT escape you?
And there is no 'maximum freedom' without government. There would be chaos, lawlessness, and deaths.
But it is not surprising that you subscribe to social Darwinism, it was the strong beliefs of Hitler and Stalin...
Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke
Collectivists are the social Darwins numbskull. Republicans indeed don't reduce government, which they should, however name the two POTUS's who increased the government the most?
Collectivists believe in survival of the fittest/richest? REALLY????????
SO...collectivist must be the ones who want to end "entitlement" programs...
Collectivists believe in survival of the fittest, so long as they're the ones making the rules, thus ensuring their survival. So yes, they are the ULTIMATE social Darwinists.
Are you trying to prove you are an imbecile? Collectivist believe that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”
Social Darwinism is WHOLLY owned by the right...
The Tea Parties Bring Back Social Darwinism
The right-wing populism manifested in the movement is essentially the same old Social Darwinism that appeared in U.S. society in the nineteenth century.
Sumner believed that the fundamental law of the universe was survival of the fittest. So progressivism or socialism or any ideology that aimed to “save individuals from any of the difficulties or hardships of the struggle for existence” was pure folly. Like today’s right-wing populist revolt, Sumner’s brand of Social Darwinism propagated an unabashed but seamless defense of two groups that would seem to be at odds: the Captain of Industry and the Forgotten Man.
For Sumner, both of these figurative “men” had more to fear from the paternal state than they did from each other. Take the Captain of Industry. For Sumner, society depended on the creation of individual wealth; thus, social advancement for all depended on the financial abilities of the few. “If we should set a limit to the accumulation of wealth,” he wrote, “we should say to our most valued producers, ‘We do not want you to do us the services which you best understand how to perform, beyond a certain point.’ It would be like killing off our generals in a war.”