The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[Seth]

But if you substitute "gummit tax collectors" for "cats," it all goes to shit.

Not really. Anyone who wants to prevail over a cat or a taxman need only kill them. And the fact that most people don't kill cats and taxmen does not support an argument that either cats or taxmen are essential to survival and advancement of the species. After all, human beings could end up being just another Darwinian dead-end precisely BECAUSE it reveres cats and taxmen. We won't know that for a good long while I'm afraid.Now, nobody said it would be easy or safe to do so, but still...

Our social darwinism works long-term and it fluctuates back and forth as public opinion and willingness to voluntarily comply with government orders like paying taxes.

The systems to control the government exist and work fairly well in the long term, but each individual always retains the individual right to defend against an intrusive action by another in order to improve his or her chances of survival, just as it is in nature.

[FBM]

Your social darwinism is fatally flawed, riddled with logical fallacies and self-contradictions. Taxmen have the power to make you pay taxes or die fighting, and therefore, according to 'survival of the fittest' as (fallaciously) applied to society, they have a right to.

[Seth]

Your social darwinism is fatally flawed, riddled with logical fallacies and self-contradictions. Taxmen have the power to make you pay taxes or die fighting, and therefore, according to 'survival of the fittest' as (fallaciously) applied to society, they have a right to.

Yes, but only if they do. You falsely assume that they will win. They might not, which is one reason why our citizenry is armed, just in case we need to retake government and restore the Constitution from the hands of despots who use taxation as a weapon.

Oh, wait, we HAVE done that once already...

Darwinism, social or biological, is not a game of probabilities and predictions, it's a game of fact. Adapt or die.

[FBM]

If you, personally, which is what social darwinism says, choose to shoot it out with the tax-collecting gummit people, you will lose. And, the (failed) theory itself says that they have a right to do what they can do. They're forcing you to pay taxes, they can do that, therefore they are right in doing so. "Is-ought" failure.

[Seth]

If you, personally, which is what social darwinism says, choose to shoot it out with the tax-collecting gummit people, you will lose. And, the (failed) theory itself says that they have a right to do what they can do. They're forcing you to pay taxes, they can do that, therefore they are right in doing so. "Is-ought" failure.

Maybe, maybe not. Again, Darwinism of any stripe is not a predictive thing. It is by it's very nature, focused solely and only on results. Therefore it is irrational to say "if you do this, this thing will happen" because the point of Darwinism is that only the RESULTS of decision making or natural forces counts.

[Tyrannical]

So FBM,

If there was no charity or welfare system and the poor simply died, is that social Darwinism?

[FBM]

If you, personally, which is what social darwinism says, choose to shoot it out with the tax-collecting gummit people, you will lose. And, the (failed) theory itself says that they have a right to do what they can do. They're forcing you to pay taxes, they can do that, therefore they are right in doing so. "Is-ought" failure.

Maybe, maybe not. Again, Darwinism of any stripe is not a predictive thing. It is by it's very nature, focused solely and only on results. Therefore it is irrational to say "if you do this, this thing will happen" because the point of Darwinism is that only the RESULTS of decision making or natural forces counts.

"Maybe, maybe not" what? You might win a gunfight with teh gummit? Or maybe/maybe not that "survival of the fittest" means that they are right to do what is within their power, according to social darwinism? Something else?

I'm not making sense of the rest of that. Would you mind unpacking it a bit? Why is it irrational to focus on results ("if you do this...") and yet only the results matter? Seems like that would be the perfectly rational thing to focus on.

[FBM]

So FBM,

If there was no charity or welfare system and the poor simply died, is that social Darwinism?

You nailed it.

[Robert_S]

If you, personally, which is what social darwinism says, choose to shoot it out with the tax-collecting gummit people, you will lose. And, the (failed) theory itself says that they have a right to do what they can do. They're forcing you to pay taxes, they can do that, therefore they are right in doing so. "Is-ought" failure.

Maybe, maybe not. Again, Darwinism of any stripe is not a predictive thing. It is by it's very nature, focused solely and only on results. Therefore it is irrational to say "if you do this, this thing will happen" because the point of Darwinism is that only the RESULTS of decision making or natural forces counts.

So, you want to have enough of a social sense to know when to be a taxman and when to be a rebel. If there are too fer rebels, it's good to be the taxman. If there are a lot of rebels, then maybe not so much. It's a good survival skill set to have, but I wouldn't classify under morals and/or ethics.

My sense is that there is something close to Social Darwinism that's more defensible.

[Robert_S]

So FBM,

If there was no charity or welfare system and the poor simply died, is that social Darwinism?

You nailed it.

What if they kill off the rich?

[Tyrannical]

So FBM,

If there was no charity or welfare system and the poor simply died, is that social Darwinism?

You nailed it.

So how is that different from any other non-humans natural environmental pressure? That is classic survival of the fittest.

[FBM]

So FBM,

If there was no charity or welfare system and the poor simply died, is that social Darwinism?

You nailed it.

What if they kill off the rich?

According to SD, they would be right in doing so just because they could. Survival of the fittest = might = right.

So FBM,

If there was no charity or welfare system and the poor simply died, is that social Darwinism?

You nailed it.

So how is that different from any other non-humans natural environmental pressure? That is classic survival of the fittest.

1) Why the arbitrary "non-human" distinction? Are we not nature/natural?

2) The more scientists look, the more they find examples of cooperation (even altruism?) as being the basis for the survival of species. AFAICT, the more complex the nervous system, the more examples of cooperation (or altruism?) are found.

[Robert_S]

A person without compassion or with too much compassion will find themselves disadvantaged in most societies.

People will either avoid cooperation or take advantage.

[FBM]

I'm not fond of either extreme.

[FBM]

But the fact is, SD says that whatever a person can do, s/he is right to do. So, if the gummit tax people can make us pay taxes to support social welfare programs, then they are right in doing so just by the very fact that they are able to do so. People who refuse to follow teh gummit's laws are de facto rejecting SD. Doesn't matter which variety is in power; if you reject their policies, you reject SD.