"Social Darwinism" vs "Economic Darwinism"

[Guest]

I've been pushing some hot buttons on this forum lately, but I thought I'd switch gears for a while. For those of you who've been annoyed by me, consider that you're very tolerant of those who always agree with you.

This is something I've been giving some thought to lately.

Seems to me that a lot of libs are critical of the way business is run, and frankly I tend to agree. The slashing of wages and benefits, the exporting of high-paying jobs, the importing of cheap labor, and generally forsaking any kind of social responsibility in the neverending quest to maximize shareholder value appear to be, in my opinion, intended to flatten the middle class. The current administration has been accused of assisting the effort (the same old "rich get rich, poorer get poorer" / "richest one percent", and the rest of it).

This is, in my opinion, a form of "economic darwinism"; id est, "Survival of the Fittest". Also known as "Laissez-faire Capitalism".

We've seen where this can go, in 1929, in the so-called "Decade of Greed" (1980s), and in the corporate scandals we've seen recently.

What about what I think of as "Social Darwinism"?

There has been an explosion of vice in our culture. Porn & gambling come immediately to mind, and there are those who advocate legalizing the entire DEA schedule, legalizing prostitution, etc.

The arguments as I've heard them put forward are - "If people want to do drugs, let them!", "If people want to gamble all their money away, let them!", but there are many people in our society for whom these things are poison, and not just because they're stuck-up religious conservatives. Liberalism, taken to its logical conclusion, advocates the removal of any social safety nets, just as Laissez-faire Capitalism would remove any economic protections. It's my belief that a lack of controls on businesses brings harm to the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.

So my thought for discussion is this:

Aren't the advocates of "Laissez-faire Socialism" dodging the consequences and responsibility for their actions in the same way the big business types are?

Do you believe, as I increasingly do, that an utter absence of social controls also brings harm to the weakest and most vulnerable in our society?

Or (as with the capitalists) is that just too flaming bad?

edit for parsing

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[GTAVercetti 0]

I have a question:

How can socialism be lassize-faire? How can something inherently controlled be ruled by less constraints?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,132]

>Aren't the advocates of "Laissez-faire Socialism" dodging the
> consequences and responsibility for their actions in the same way
> the big business types are?

Is the FAA dodging responsibility for their actions by allowing skydivers to jump without an FAA license? I don't think so. They are allowing PEOPLE to take responsibility for their actions; this will continue unless we start putting other people (whuffos) at risk by colliding with aircraft, killing people at demos, dropping things on houses etc. (These things have all happened, but are fortunately quite rare.)

Personally, I'm for the legalization of some drugs (I'll use pot as an example.) It's not one of my priorities since I don't do drugs, but I don't see it as any more dangerous than drinking - and people should decide on their own if they want to risk their health in that way.

I don't think allowing people to take responsibility for themselves is "dodging responsibility." If anything, it's the opposite - it's moving responsibility from the government to the people, where it belongs. Too many people dodge responsibility today by blaming the government, the media, "the man" or whoever for their ills.

[GTAVercetti 0]

But the man is killing my buzz.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Guest]

But Bill, shouldn't the same lack of controls apply to businesses?

Why should government force them into hiring quotas, providing benefits, withholding, etc?

I mean, so what if the execs raid the retirement fund? Who cares?

Edit to add: Where does their (individual, corporate) responsbility end? Where does social responsibility begin?

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,132]

>But Bill, shouldn't the same lack of controls apply to businesses?

SOME of them should. But just as all drugs should not be legal (IMO) all business tactics should not be OK.

>Why should government force them into hiring quotas, providing
>benefits, withholding, etc?

Hiring quotas - these should go away once the people we once discrimated against (i.e. by not allowing them into 'white' schools) are no longer working.

Providing benefits - This should be at the company's option. Companies that DO provide medical benefits should get a tax break, since they will be reducing the load on our unofficial social-medicine program. (You know, the kind where people go to the ER and then never pay.)

Withholding - Should also be optional; however, this falls under a more practical consideration. The cost of the prisons to incarcerate the millions of people who would be jailed for not paying taxes would require taxes to be increased, so that's a practical way to reduce taxation.

>I mean, so what if the execs raid the retirement fund? Who cares?

If it is a retirement fund that people pay into with the expectation of receiving it when they retire, then using that for something else is fraud and should be prosecuted as such. Sorta like a credit card company using your credit card to buy themselves dinners.

[Guest]

Quote

>But Bill, shouldn't the same lack of controls apply to businesses?

SOME of them should. But just as all drugs should not be legal (IMO) all business tactics should not be OK.
[/]reply

Why? Who are we to decide? Isn't this a free society?

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

• Quote

[billvon 3,132]

>Why? Who are we to decide? Isn't this a free society?

Nope. We have a society based on laws, so we're not completely free. Those laws are needed to protect OTHER's freedoms - hence laws against slavery, murder, fraud, monopoly etc.

On top of that, we have a constitution that calls out what government's responsibilities are, among other things. Since it calls out things like providing for a common defense, a justice system, and improving the general welfare of the people of the US, the government needs money - which means taxes. How to get those taxes has been a source of contention for centuries now, and has given rise to a whole plethora of other laws.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>How to get those taxes has been a source of contention for centuries now, and has given rise to a whole plethora of other laws.

That and carpool lanes.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AlexCrowley 0]

Define 'vice'.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

>How to get those taxes has been a source of contention for centuries now, and has given rise to a whole plethora of other laws.

That and carpool lanes.

Traffic lights are worse than carpool lanes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That and carpool lanes.

Traffic lights are worse than carpool lanes.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Just a random note. We had a math professor at Iowa State that was convinced we needed to blow up the moon. It was slowly and systematically destroying the earth - his theory. As far as I'm concerned, it's just blocking my view of Venus.

He's right, but it won't happen in your lifetime:
www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I've been pushing some hot buttons on this forum lately, but I thought I'd switch gears for a while. For those of you who've been annoyed by me, consider that you're very tolerant of those who always agree with you.

I am tolerant of Kallend (for example) and he is extremely tolerant of me, and we never agree.

There are many more examples of people here who are quite tolerant of each other otherwise, even if they disagree vehemently about their points of view.

Therefore, your theory for why you are so poorly tolerated is simply wrong.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

I've been pushing some hot buttons on this forum lately, but I thought I'd switch gears for a while. For those of you who've been annoyed by me, consider that you're very tolerant of those who always agree with you.

I am tolerant of Kallend (for example) and he is extremely tolerant of me, and we never agree.


rl

Rubbish - we agree all the time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He's right, but it won't happen in your lifetime:
www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf

I'm eating right and getting good exercise. But you are right, I can't wait. Let's blow up the moon NOW.

"Bay of Fundy" is a funny name.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've been pushing some hot buttons on this forum lately, but I thought I'd switch gears for a while. For those of you who've been annoyed by me, consider that you're very tolerant of those who always agree with you.

I am tolerant of Kallend (for example) and he is extremely tolerant of me, and we never agree.


rl

Rubbish - we agree all the time.

rotflmao!!

I just adore you, John.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

I've been pushing some hot buttons on this forum lately, but I thought I'd switch gears for a while. For those of you who've been annoyed by me, consider that you're very tolerant of those who always agree with you.

I am tolerant of Kallend (for example) and he is extremely tolerant of me, and we never agree.

There are many more examples of people here who are quite tolerant of each other otherwise, even if they disagree vehemently about their points of view.

Therefore, your theory for why you are so poorly tolerated is simply wrong.

rl

Made you look...

Care to debate the topic now?

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Care to debate the topic now?

There's a topic?

I read your entire post. I have no idea what you're talking about.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[AlexCrowley 0]

Didnt explain what he meant by vices either, except a short list of stuff that happens.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Why should government force them into hiring quotas, providing benefits, withholding, etc?

I personally don't think businesses shouls be forced into any of those things. Of course, if they want to do those things to attract better employees, then they should be allowed to.

Quote

I mean, so what if the execs raid the retirement fund? Who cares?

This is a big difference -retirement funds aren't their money. Retirement funds belong to the employees who, in exchange for working for the company, get a future interest by virtue of the retirement. Raiding other people's stuff is bad.

Quote

Where does their (individual, corporate) responsbility end?

Wherever the corporation says it does so long as it complies with the law. A corporation is responsible to its stockholders. In order to make money for the stockholders, the corporation needs to put out a product at a price that people are willing to pay for it. Typically, these products are things that serve society.

But, if they lie to society about the product, then there's an issue,and something should be set up to allow society to recoup the damage.

Quote

Where does social responsibility begin?

In my opinion, it begins with the individual. I think this is the biggest divider of the polity. There are people like me out there who don't care to lump ourselves in with anybody else. As I go is how I go. As others go is how they go. Sure, I grew up in Section 8 housing. Sure, my parents didn't have the money to send me to college. So, I had to find a way to do it myself. I tend to hang with others who did the same thing (so I'm guilty of a little group identifying myself).

On the other hand, there are large groups of people out there who secure their identity from the group. This is found in race-baiting and class warfare. It's understandable that people want to blame others.

It's easier to point to the greedy corporation as the reason why your master's degree in media studies has only served to get you a job at Kinkos.

It's easier to point to a racist society as the reason why you are stuck by yourself at 23 years old raising your 4 kids in Section 8 housing.

It's easier to point to the influx of immigrants as the reason why your job in a tire store isn't paying enough to let you buy a place that's a step up from your trailer. Especially when all the guys with whom you drink beer and smoke meth tell you the same thing.

It's easier to have a built-in excuse for failure since it means you don't have to try. As a society, I believe this is irresponsible.

Should society be a reflection of the individuals within it? Or, should the individual be a reflection of society? I'll take the former.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Define 'vice'.

Immorality is the morality of someone else who is having a better time - H.L.Menchen

[happythoughts 0]

Cigarettes are legal, but very addicting. My ex-roommate smoked a pack a day. He only bought one pack each day. He didn't want the temptation of having more around.

If cigs became illegal, a pack might sell for $60. A 3-pack-a-day smoker might be doing something illegal to get the money.

Laws are supposed to protect people from others or from themselves. If the law becomes a source of greater damage to society, then there is injustice.