/liberty/ - Liberty

Libertarianism is compatible with Darwinism. Small government and limited intervention allow natural selection to take place. Let things run their natural course. Don't provide endless welfare and "assistance" to those incapable of taking care of themselves. The strong will thrive and the weak will die off and over time the gene pool will improve.

>B-b-ut that's mean! Think of the children!

Human evolution has pretty much halted and is actually in decline. People are less intelligent then they used to be, the number of people with crippling diseases and are a dead-end or net-negative to the human race is higher than it's ever been, the human race is damaging it's own gene pool. It's best for humanity and future generations if natural selection takes place. Nature isn't fair.

>>19233

I wouldn't support full-on eugenics, but a competitive environment that weeds out parasites, I'm all for that.

>>19234

I wasn't talking about eugenics, just not supporting and actively propping up the bottom of the barrel and allowing natural selection to do it's job.

>>19235

Ah, okay. I would still assist people with crippling diseases. Just not parasites.

Also, I would try and introduce a new body-culture to my country. Something like what the Indians had, before the British came and cucked them to death. Then I'd travel back in time and rape the tudors to death, because holy shit, everything bad in the world can be attributed to either the Brits or to socialism, and everything bad about the Brits can be attributed to the tudors. Fuck'em.

>>19230

But what is statism in this context? For Ancaps initiating aggression is verbotten, but Redbeard thinks it is awesome, and we should all go around killing the weak. Ancaps want peaceful market competition because it is based off self-defense not violence.

Logically, Redbeard's system would be statism, just lots of competing states.

>>19230

this is like communist 'meritocracy'

a bunch of people decide what 'merit' is

same for eugneics. a bunch of people arbitrarily deciding what passes and what doesnt.

what we need is empirical meritocracy

of course the best to do that is to not only let the elements evolve, but the very rules wich select.

and the of course the way to do that is to remove all exiting rules and just let things happen. some people might think of anarchy.

then you realize that isnt full pluralism, because other rules apply, like strength. so you add one conditions. no meddling with stuff. then you have ancap.

darwinism <=> ancap

social darwinism is subset of darwinism / evolution / laisez-faire economcis

Darwinism is broken as a concept as a whole anyway.

People don't care very much for being "Darwin'd" against. Lots of people - it's almost as if it's a rule of modern society that there will be vastly more losers than winners. They recognize that they can behave as a collective and make society work for them (generally through more statist methods.

With that, I say that "Ought there be Darwinism?" is a null argument, for the reason that there can't be Darwinism without upsetting the loser masses who will then make society non-Darwinistic.

This is similar to the argument I use against AnCaps as a whole - your belief can neither be right nor wrong if it simply can't exist. (Exception made for societies that can successfully isolate the winners from the losers)

>>19339

>This is similar to the argument I use against AnCaps as a whole - your belief can neither be right nor wrong if it simply can't exist. (Exception made for societies that can successfully isolate the winners from the losers)

This is not just intellectually lazy, it's also begging for another argument that we a) had a billion times and that b) isn't really relevant right now.

>>19340

Cute that you'd bring that up, and choose to completely ignore the rest of my post, then. "Intellectual laziness" indeed?

I won't deny your point a) one bit. But b) I think it is pretty damn relevant. Explain to me why the losers will take your Darwinning laying down.

And like >>19301 said

>darwinism <=> ancap

>>19341

>Cute that you'd bring that up, and choose to completely ignore the rest of my post

Because I don't care about refuting the rest of your post. I'm not a social darwinist.

>But b) I think it is pretty damn relevant. Explain to me why the losers will take your Darwinning laying down.

Darwinning is not a word. And no, whether ancapism is too utopian to ever work was NOT relevant at all.

>>19230

Because socialists have short tempers/shorter attention spans, and know that a liberty approach to socialism takes time, or that their ideas don't work in voluntary associations, so they try to subsidize it with force.

>>19344

>Darwinning is not a word.

You know damn well what the meaning of that statement was. You're being needlessly pedantic.

>And no, whether ancapism is too utopian to ever work was NOT relevant at all.

See - darwinism <=> ancap

>>19346

Look: You and the guy you keep citing are both incoherent as fuck. Deciphering what you actually said is an exhausting and timely endeavor, and from what I think I did understand, it isn't going to be very productive, either, which is why I'm not going to spend an hour trying to do so. Anarchocapitalism can't work because it's utopian? Heard that a billion times. Anarchocapitalism is kinda like social darwinism, except not really? That's something ALL laissez-faire philosophies have in common. Social darwinism can't work because fucking over 90% of the population does not lead to a stable system? Not exactly groundbreaking.

Incoherent + Uninteresting = What the fuck am I doing here? Also, learn some fucking english, for fucks sake.

One more thing: Whether a state of being is desirable and whether it's achievable are two entirely different questions.

Now I feel drunk. Holy shit.

>>19345

Ah, my appologies.

I read socialists instead of social Darwinists. This is why you should read things carefully, folks.