GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan Rudolph said:

Moreover, the problem with giving ‘free’ welfare is that it interferes with natural selection. In my opinion, the weakest among us SHOULD feel the burden of survival strongly, as this will provide a de-incentive not to reproduce thus increasing the overall health of the genepool.

Is everyone here seeing this? I don't ever want to hear anyone say that this type of thinking doesn't go on in "libertarian" circles again.

Beyond that, what else can be said? Appalling. One would have hoped that the Third Reich would have been the final nail in the coffin of eugenics and social Darwinism. But sadly, it was not the end of such thinking by any means. And for every individual like Ryan who is at least honest enough to come out with it openly, there are ten thinking it silently and a hundred or perhaps a thousand thinking it subconsciously. Mortifying.

Ryan wrote:I think you are missing Nick's point that the affects of an out of control liberal socialist type of government are far worse than the affects of out of control CEOs in large companies.

No, I didn't, which is why I acknowledged it as a possibility. I think you are both missing my point, but I'm not overly concerned about it.

Nick wrote:I also second what Ryan said, that even if the scenario you described does happen, the damage is far far less than any damage the Government can inflict when it gains too much power.

But you were talking about a socialist government, not just government in general, and then you compare it to an individual CEO? Apples and oranges.

I also second what Ryan said, that even if the scenario you described does happen, the damage is far far less than any damage the Government can inflict when it gains too much power. When you read history books you don't read about tyrannical companies(even though they existed and still do), you read about tyrannical governments.

No, you moved not seconded it.

Here you just say government---do you mean socialist government?

So, these history books and all these tyrannical governments were socialist governments? Has there ever been a capitalist government in any of them there history books of authority?

Leyla,

The capitalism-fueled genocide of Native Americans and the capitalism-fueled enslavement of blacks and landless whites (through indentured servitude) do not count. Genocide, oppression, and enslavement of millions are only bad when socialist governments do it.

Jeez, didn't you get the memo?

Feel like I’m talking to a blender about the properties of whole fruit.

"But . . ."
"Z-r-r-r-t"
"Well, . . ."
"ZZ-rr-t"
"The---never mind."
"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZrrrrrrrrrrrr-tttt!!"

Is everyone here seeing this? I don't ever want to hear anyone say that this type of thinking doesn't go on in "libertarian" circles again.

What makes you think that Ryan is a libertarian? I think he's more likely a fascist.

I consider myself libertarian and I find Ryan's post pretty disgusting. But I do admit that there are libertarians who go that far.

-

I don't know that he's necessarily a fascist, but he's clearly a social Darwinist, which is just as bad. The Nazis, for example, were both.

I assume he's a libertarian of some sort because you'll rarely see social Darwinism in any other context these days. Again, the Nazis were (and are) a notable exception.

Leyla Shen wrote:But you were talking about a socialist government, not just government in general, and then you compare it to an individual CEO? Apples and oranges.

Leyla, chill out on the caffiene and re-read/think everything I've said. This time take it reaaaaaaaal slooooow.

Unidian wrote:The capitalism-fueled genocide of Native Americans and the capitalism-fueled enslavement of blacks and landless whites (through indentured servitude) do not count. Genocide, oppression, and enslavement of millions are only bad when socialist governments do it.

Manifest destiny was something the Government instilled in people giving them incentive to wipe out populations of Native Americans, obviously this wouldn't be a problem in a country were Government had little influence. Enslavement is not the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of bad morals and lack of enforcement of the Constitution and Law. You still seem to be missing the point that type of society I advocate, which is based on Life, Liberty, private property, limited government and limited taxation combined with the Rule of Law is the best system when it comes to dealing with the human animal.

Unidian,

Beyond that, what else can be said? Appalling. One would have hoped that the Third Reich would have been the final nail in the coffin of eugenics and social Darwinism. But sadly, it was not the end of such thinking by any means. And for every individual like Ryan who is at least honest enough to come out with it openly, there are ten thinking it silently and a hundred or perhaps a thousand thinking it subconsciously. Mortifying.

You have a problem with your emotions Unidian, which you have demonstrated over and over on this forum. Emotional outrage is mortifying in my view.

I don't ever want to hear anyone say that this type of thinking doesn't go on in "libertarian" circles again.

Do you see how you are reacting here with moral outrage?

The truth of the matter is that it is appalling to give the most unintelligent and mentally weak among us financial incentives to reproduce without limit? Do you not see the danger in this? Statically, the majority of people that live off of welfare usually have emotional problems, mental disorders, physical disabilities, genetic disorders, and so they represent the type of offspring we don’t want in future generations, and this can be done in a humane way by implementing policies that discourage these groups to reproduce. You see, I think everyone here would agree that Down-syndrome adults should not be encouraged or taught how to reproduce, so why not take it one step further, and include other unproductive, mentally inept and unintelligent groups?

I’ll give you an example – there are a quite a few women from my community that are very unintelligent, emotional and promiscuous, but they enjoy raising children. However, they lack the judgment to pick a good mate, as they usually choose some of the worst criminal men in the community. And the problem is that the welfare system provides them an incentive to keep having children with these types of guys, so they have the attitude that they are getting a free ride. She basically believes that she can stay home and have lots of kids because the government will take care of her, but she has the worst type of offspring you can imagine. So if we really care about humanity, we need to stop supporting policies that destroy the girth of the genepool over time.

I see the ‘welfare’ system as a very immoral policy that should be abolished as soon as possible, or the intelligence of the genepool will continue to suffer for generations to come.

Its called cruel love, true compassion for humanity is usually always interpreted as heartless by the emotionally hearted.

H.G. Wells and others had the same line in the early twentieth century. Too bad there is no evidence that people are actually getting less intelligent (although there is some that they are getting less educated, which is not the same thing).

Philosophaster,

Too bad there is no evidence that people are actually getting less intelligent.

It is difficult to do such a survey because civilization is very complicated and diverse, and no single test can measure intelligence. However, the truth of the matter is that most people on welfare are unable to do any sort of job in any capacity because they have some sort of emotional problem, physical problem, genetic problem, or health problem. So my argument is that the welfare system makes it too easy for these individuals to reproduce without limit thus passing on their inferior traits to offspring.

I don’t believe that these individuals should be killed like the Nazis believed, but what I think would help the strength of the collective is if these individuals felt the pressure of survival like everyone else, and therefore they wouldn’t feel like they could reproduce without any sort of economic consequences to themselves. Moreover, if these individuals were forced to leech off of family, friends, churches, non-profits, food banks and so on then they would feel the pressure of survival constantly, and so they would be less likely to reproduce, which is the ultimate goal in my view because if we are concerned with the overall health of the genepool, we need to be concerned with not allowing inferior traits to spread rampant without limit, which the welfare system clearly does.

Moreover, I’ll admit that at first glance, a safety net for the poor sounds like a very sound moral decision, but if you analyze human nature, and you understand how the system is widely abused by the weak, the cold truth is that it actually hurts the strength of the collective over time. And I do believe the intellectual elites have a responsibility to govern in such a way that doesn’t degrade or destroy the strength of the genepool.

In America, they have a huge problem with thousands of unintelligent, and uneducated Mexicans skipping the borders, having children in the United States to gain citizenship, and then living off of welfare system that the middle-class is paying for. An abused welfare system does not help the economy to thrive, as it actually decreases the standards of living for those that are working hard to keep the economic system intact – The Middle-Class.

So there are economic reasons to abolish the welfare system, as well as biological ones.

Nick Treklis wrote:Manifest destiny was something the Government instilled in people giving them incentive to wipe out populations of Native Americans, obviously this wouldn't be a problem in a country were Government had little influence.

I don't think it is accurate to say that the notion of Manifest destiny was something that was instilled by the government. It was a popular idea that was floating around at the time.

Maybe we could just be open about it. Combine a few factors (physical health, psychological health, intelligence) into a "fitness score." When a couple has a child, you take the two scores of the parents and average them. Couples with a combined score well above average receive a large sum of money when they have kids. Everybody else receives nothing.

Philosophaster,

Maybe we could just be open about it. Combine a few factors (physical health, psychological health, intelligence) into a "fitness score." When a couple has a child, you take the two scores of the parents and average them. Couples with a combined score well above average receive a large sum of money when they have kids. Everybody else receives nothing.

A ‘fitness score’ that measures physical health and emotional health is a great idea, and if it is implemented properly, then couples with an acceptable fitness score could qualify for a parenting license, which would make them eligible for government assistance. And those with a poor fitness score would not qualify to obtain a parenting license, and they would receive no welfare, aid or anything from the government, but they would not be prevented from having children, just discouraged.

Unidian, do you see how this is a humane idea because there is no coercion, violence or use of force against people? I think it is poor thinking to associate all Eugenics philosophies with Nazism.

My main point here is to take away the financial incentive for poorly fit mothers to have large numbers of unhealthy children by unfit absent fathers at the expense of the middle-class taxpayer. Surely, we don't believe that unrestrained welfare for anyone is a moral policy? Quite frankly, it is a recipe for genetic and economic degradation.

I was just floating that for discussion. I wouldn't support such a thing, even if the current system of welfare causes what you call "genetic degradation" -- and there is no evidence that it does.

If my main goal were to make the most economically productive society possible, then I might consider such a proposal. But that isn't my main goal. What is most important to me is that everybody at least has a reliable way to get the necessities of life, that the non-human environment not be ruined by economic activity, and that people otherwise be free to do as they please.

Philosophaster wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:In my view socialism occurs when government employs a system of taxation and redistribution.

I would be interested to know how a government in the usual sense of the term could even exist without a system of taxation and redistribution -- at the very least, redistributing money from private citizens to government agencies and employees.

It seems to me that all governments, not just socialist ones, employ taxation and redistribution of wealth to some extent. Which is why many clear-minded people distrust all government and will only tolerate one that "governs least."

I find it's very easy to criticize governmental wealth-redistibution. You look at your paycheck and imagine what you could do with the 40% siphoned off the top. The fact is, you never saw that 40%. It was never yours. A person who has put himself through college and maybe beyond and still owes on that tuition might complain about welfare schemes. But such a person's white collar income is being redirected to blue-collar labor in building and maintaining roads and other public works, shoring up an infrastruture of the world he lives in.

My own political sentiments are a bit less radical. I'm all for the transition of the welfare state to a work-fare state insofar as that is possible. The lifestyle afforded by welfare to those on it can barely be called a lifestyle. These monies go to maintaining life at the barest of levels. And what happens to the money after the welfare check is cashed? It is spent. It goes back into the system. No welfare recipient gets rich from the dole, and that recipient patronizes many legitimate businesses. I'm not at all convinced the money is wasted. If it is, it is those receiving it that experience the negative effects of waste, never getting a foothold on solvency and therefore a measure of self-determination. It may be a band-aid approach to the economical inequities in society, but a band-aid is not without its benefits.

I think American society, at least, may be gradually - very gradually - lifting itself out of the welfare cycle. A hundred years from now, economists might look back on the welfare era as a necessary transitional phase, much like historians look back to the British and American abolition of slavery. The abolition of slavery did not address the economic consequences of its own success. That is still being worked out. But few today would call it a mistake.

I think we should be wary of those who proclaim that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; that may very well be the case, but it has not been proven to be a one-way street.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: A ‘fitness score’ that measures physical health and emotional health is a great idea, and if it is implemented properly, then couples with an acceptable fitness score could qualify for a parenting license, which would make them eligible for government assistance. And those with a poor fitness score would not qualify to obtain a parenting license, and they would receive no welfare, aid or anything from the government, but they would not be prevented from having children, just discouraged.

Unidian, do you see how this is a humane idea because there is no coercion, violence or use of force against people?

Do you really think many people would volunteer to undergo fitness testing? How could you enforce such a thing?

A possibility might be to reward monetary incentives to those who are willing to be tested. And perhaps even further incentive should be awarded to the unfit who agree to have an abortion or stay on birth control.

Another glaring problem is designing the tests (knowing where to draw the line between the fit and unfit). Darwin reportedly had a pretty severe anxiety disorder. Just because an individual carries the genes for great flaws, doesn't mean great virtues aren't stored within, also.

Ryan,

Ryan wrote:Moreover, the problem with giving ‘free’ welfare is that it interferes with natural selection. In my opinion, the weakest among us SHOULD feel the burden of survival strongly, as this will provide a de-incentive not to reproduce thus increasing the overall health of the genepool.

The opposite actually seems to be the case. It seems to me that when the burden of survival is too strong, humans escape from their insecurity and misery into excessive sex and attachment to kin. My grandparents on both my mother and fathers side lived in what today we'd call poverty, and they had ten children respectively. On the other hand, my parents had a quite a bit more money and security, and congruently they only had two kids. Humans have an instinct to reproduce like crazy when they are poor. Just look at the excessive reproduction in India and Africa.

My guess is that couples in poverty intuit (as opposed to think) that having lots of babies will grant some sort of psychological security.

Yeah, I knew the response would be to criticize me for reacting with "outrage." In fact, I made a note to myself to predict that somewhere in writing, but forgot to do so. Oh well, lol.

But yes, of course I'm outraged over blatant social Darwinism that could have been penned by Dr. Goebbels himself, and I don't see that as a problem at all. Quite the opposite. What I see is a problem is that some people are not outraged at such statements. I don't buy into the strange view that emotions are unacceptable. Compassion itself is of an emotional nature, and compassion is what any spiritual path is supposed to develop. But some here seem to have made a horrible wrong turn somewhere.

It's becoming more and more clear to me that there never was a "QRS." The term is convenient, but deeply misleading. Much more accurately, there is David Quinn, the diagnosed schizoid, and his camp of fellow schizoids, psychotics, and sociopaths. Then there are Kevin and Dan, who are philosophers. The fact that David and his camp share an interest in similar philosophical ideas to those promoted by Dan and Kevin is merely incidental. I'm seeing that clearly now, and it's a very revealing insight. It is as if a Napoleonic French history discussion club had been invaded by a group of lunatics who thought they were Napoleon. Everyone there could discuss Napoleonic history fluently - but there would be an enormous difference in their basic motivations for doing so.

So, for helping me achieve this new clarity, I have to thank you, Ryan.

Unidian wrote:Yeah, I knew the response would be to criticize me for reacting with "outrage." In fact, I made a note to myself to predict that somewhere in writing, but forgot to do so. Oh well, lol.

Although reacting with outrage to social Darwinism is understandable, it doesn't convince anyone of anything. It may show the person that their view is not socially accepted and is not popular, but does nothing to persuade them that it is actually incorrect.

For some people, that is actually encouraging, because they like the idea of being a 'dangerous' thinker, of going against accepted views.

DHodges,

Although reacting with outrage to social Darwinism is understandable, it doesn't convince anyone of anything. It may show the person that their view is not socially accepted and is not popular, but does nothing to persuade them that it is actually incorrect.

Very true. However, I'm not trying to convince them of anything. I know better than that. There's essentially zero chance I'm going to convince such people to renounce such views. I'm not even sure they can, since I think a lot of it is caused by schizoid personality disorder, an affliction which David's writings are a magnet for.

The outrage is for the audience. It's for the undecided person who might be reading, and is "on the fence" about such things, so to speak. It is to show that not everyone considers it acceptable to allow such things to pass without comment.

For some people, that is actually encouraging, because they like the idea of being a 'dangerous' thinker, of going against accepted views.

Absolutely. I won't do anything that will make someone like Ryan think he is wrong. If anything, I'll reinforce him in his beliefs in the manner you suggest, but that can't be helped. He clearly already strongly believes such things, and that isn't going to change anytime soon regardless of what I do or don't say. For me, it's more important to consider those hypothetical audience members who might not have a firm position, and who might simply be waiting for someone to finally say "wait a minute, this is just wrong."

What a laugh.

Dear Nick,

Here it is for YOU, nice and slow with simplified translations:

Nick wrote: Socialism creates the need and desire for welfare with the countless negative effects it has on the lives of each and every citizen. Don't find fault with the people on welfare, find fault with the system that creates the welfare class.

Socialism is the system that creates the welfare class by virtue of its creating the need and desire for welfare.

Leyla Shen wrote:However, spare a thought for this: the capitalist (or Capitalist) cannot exist outside of society. He thrives on the division of labour (a bunch of people doing specialised work that benefits everybody else). With wage labour in capitalist society, we get to a point where some jobs ain’t worth more than what’s paid in welfare. So, in this scenario, when you hang it on the “low-life” welfare recipient, you implicitly support the profit guzzling super-capitalist who actually performs no (wage) labour and no service to society other than to use it as a commodity for his own egoistic gain.

Well, Capitalism actually creates the welfare class, too, by what's known as the division of labour.

Nick wrote: Just because there's capitalism doesn't mean there wont be laws and enforcement there-of to protect workers rights which at base would include safe working conditions and the ability to form Unions and go on strike to improve their wages. I also second what Ryan said, that even if the scenario you described does happen, the damage is far far less than any damage the Government can inflict when it gains too much power. When you read history books you don't read about tyrannical companies(even though they existed and still do), you read about tyrannical governments.

Now I'm going to change the subject completely, to make it look like I'm saying something intelligent when, in fact, at worst, I've completely missed the point and am wholly unaware of having done so.

PS: I can't believe how simple I've had to make that, not even touching upon the point of how the kings of welfare, super-capitalists, don't work for their money . . .

The division of labor, eh? Well, what do you know. It appears Leyla is a Marxist at heart. Awesome. I didn't see THAT coming. Another +1 for Leyla, at the risk of appearing to be trying to flatter her so that she will stop taking big dumps on my posts.

So, will it work? ;)

PS: I can't believe how simple I've had to make that, not even touching upon the point of how the kings of welfare, super-capitalists, don't work for their money . . .

But it's okay to avoid working for one's money if one can leverage capital to exploit the misfortune of those who lack a stake in the means of production. Hell, that's a downright noble thing to do, or so the capitalist media tells me. Again, it bears repeating - leisure is only bad when poor people are enjoying it.

Cory,

The opposite actually seems to be the case. It seems to me that when the burden of survival is too strong, humans escape from their insecurity and misery into excessive sex and attachment to kin.

You are taking this criticism to the extreme, I’m not talking about applying third world survival pressure to people, or even baby boomer pressure like post world war II, I’m just saying that giving unintelligent people welfare encourages them to have extra offspring that they normally wouldn’t have if they had to work for every dollar. Basically, they become dependent, lazy, and use the system to their own advantage. I have overheard quite a few conversations with women who talked about having additional children just to increase their disposable income from the government. This sort of reasoning is common, and the behavior shouldn’t be encouraged with government policy.

Cory,

Do you really think many people would volunteer to undergo fitness testing? How could you enforce such a thing?

It depends on how strongly people value raising children. Currently, People put themselves through quite a few hoops to get drivers licenses, passports, and gun licenses. And one could argue that raising children is far more important, and should not be a right, but a privilege in the same way driving a car is. I remember having a dialogue about parenting licenses in philosophy class, and a huge amount of students were actually in favor of it, over 35%, while the majority was either indifferent or indignant.

Cory,

Another glaring problem is designing the tests (knowing where to draw the line between the fit and unfit). Darwin reportedly had a pretty severe anxiety disorder. Just because an individual carries the genes for great flaws, doesn't mean great virtues aren't stored within, also.

It would have to measure general emotional intelligence by using many different types of emotionally testing questions to come up with a sort of average. Measuring emotional intelligence and general knowledge related to parenting would be more important than math skills or general science skills. My arguments still stands that many people shouldn’t have a natural right to reproduce and raise kids because they aren’t fit mentally and physically to handle the task. .

In ancient Rome, I believe it was acceptable for Spartan parents under the supervision of the state to check infants for physical flaws, and if serious disorders were discovered, the infants were destroyed. Those were tough people, who didn’t allow their emotions and biological attachments to interfere with their reasoning. They wanted physically and mentally fit soldiers to defend one of the only democratic states of that period.

Unidian,

I'm not even sure they can, since I think a lot of it is caused by schizoid personality disorder, an affliction which David's writings are a magnet for.

I think it is a fallacy to relate Social Darwinian with some sort of psychological disorder just because you cringe at the thought of perfecting the species. The truth is that some of the greatest scientists have thoroughly entertained the idea of Eugenics and how to improve the overall fitness of the population.

Philo,

What is most important to me is that everybody at least has a reliable way to get the necessities of life, that the non-human environment not be ruined by economic activity, and that people otherwise be free to do as they please.

But to give necessities to all through a welfare system, you need to steal money from working class, you need to steal money off their paychecks without their permission, as some do not agree with socialist philosophy. Why should a universal welfare system be imposed on the working class? Do you believe that parasitic relationships are ethical? Do you think the ones that are too weak to work have a moral right to steal from the working class? Should the state have the moral right to keep all citizens alive by stealing from the ones who are working for it?

Dhodges,

For some people, that is actually encouraging, because they like the idea of being a 'dangerous' thinker, of going against accepted views.

Sort of. I have entertained both liberalism and libertarian political philosophy, but as of late, I’m taking libertarian arguments to their extreme in an effort to determine which system produces the superior economy, and superior genepool, and I have to say, Libertarianism in its purest form seems to produce the healthiest, and most intelligent citizens with the fastest rates of technological/scientific acceleration, but I’m not finished weighing out both arguments, but this Ron Paul is pretty difficult to refute, especially in comparison to the totally unconscious liberals.

Liberals tend to make promises to people; they offer handouts, and get massive applause. However, libertarians talk about what they are going to take away from people to make the economy stronger, and it takes a fairly masculine audience to applaud at the thought of losing government handouts and programs.

Leyla,

PS: I can't believe how simple I've had to make that, not even touching upon the point of how the kings of welfare, super-capitalists, don't work for their money . . .

I think you’re making a fairly crude generalization here. I would say Most CEOS and owners work really hard every day to build their businesses. We are taking about a minority of people here, because I suspect the majority of successful business men continue to work and build their businesses even after they have built a fortune.

A popular leftist argument that only has merit in some cases.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Ryan,

Ryan wrote:Moreover, the problem with giving ‘free’ welfare is that it interferes with natural selection. In my opinion, the weakest among us SHOULD feel the burden of survival strongly, as this will provide a de-incentive not to reproduce thus increasing the overall health of the genepool.

The opposite actually seems to be the case. It seems to me that when the burden of survival is too strong, humans escape from their insecurity and misery into excessive sex and attachment to kin. My grandparents on both my mother and fathers side lived in what today we'd call poverty, and they had ten children respectively. On the other hand, my parents had a quite a bit more money and security, and congruently they only had two kids. Humans have an instinct to reproduce like crazy when they are poor. Just look at the excessive reproduction in India and Africa.

My guess is that couples in poverty intuit (as opposed to think) that having lots of babies will grant some sort of psychological security.

It might go deeper than that. Poverty might actually be sparking a genetically mandated impulse to produce more copies of the gene to ensure its survival. If the survival chances of a single organism drop, one basic response is to increase the number of that organism to ensure that at least some survive.