Survival of the fittest

[hugo]

Social Darwinism and American Laissez-faire Capitalism

 

British philosopher Herbert Spencer went a step beyond Darwin's theory of evolution and applied it to the development of human society. In the late 1800s, many Americans enthusiastically embraced Spencer's "Social Darwinism" to justify laissez-faire, or unrestricted, capitalism.

 

In 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species, which explained his theory of animal and plant evolution based on "natural selection." Soon afterward, philosophers, sociologists, and others began to adopt the idea that human society had also evolved.

 

The British philosopher Herbert Spencer wrote about these ideas even before Darwin's book was published. He became the most influential philosopher in applying Darwin's ideas to social evolution. Born in 1820, Herbert Spencer taught himself about the natural sciences. For a brief time, he worked as a railroad surveyor and then as a magazine writer. Spencer never married, tended to worry a lot about his health, and preferred work to life's enjoyments.

 

In 1851, he published his first book. He argued for laissez-faire capitalism, an economic system that allows businesses to operate with little government interference. A year later, and seven years before Darwin published Origin of Species, Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest."

 

Darwin's theory inspired Spencer to write more books, showing how society evolved. With the financial support of friends, Spencer wrote more than a dozen volumes in 36 years. His books convinced many that the destiny of civilization rested with those who were the "fittest."

 

The "Fittest" and the "Unfit"

 

Herbert Spencer based his concept of social evolution, popularly known as "Social Darwinism," on individual competition. Spencer believed that competition was "the law of life" and resulted in the "survival of the fittest."

 

"Society advances," Spencer wrote, "where its fittest members are allowed to assert their fitness with the least hindrance." He went on to argue that the unfit should "not be prevented from dying out."

 

Unlike Darwin, Spencer believed that individuals could genetically pass on their learned characteristics to their children. This was a common, but erroneous belief in the 19th century. To Spencer, the fittest persons inherited such qualities as industriousness, frugality, the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth. The unfit inherited laziness, stupidity, and immorality.

 

According to Spencer, the population of unfit people would slowly decline. They would eventually become extinct because of their failure to compete. The government, in his view, should not take any actions to prevent this from happening, since this would go against the evolution of civilization.

 

Spencer believed his own England and other advanced nations were naturally evolving into peaceful "industrial" societies. To help this evolutionary process, he argued that government should get out of the way of the fittest individuals. They should have the freedom to do whatever they pleased in competing with others as long as they did not infringe on the equal rights of other competitors.

 

Spencer criticized the English Parliament for "over-legislation." He defined this as passing laws that helped the workers, the poor, and the weak. In his opinion, such laws needlessly delayed the extinction of the unfit.

 

Spencer's View of Government

 

Herbert Spencer believed that the government should have only two purposes. One was to defend the nation against foreign invasion. The other was to protect citizens and their property from criminals. Any other government action was "over-legislation."

 

Spencer opposed government aid to the poor. He said that it encouraged laziness and vice. He objected to a public school system since it forced taxpayers to pay for the education of other people's children. He opposed laws regulating housing, sanitation, and health conditions because they interfered with the rights of property owners.

 

Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because they encouraged legislation.

 

In the economic arena, Spencer advocated a laissez-faire system that tolerated no government regulation of private enterprise. He considered most taxation as confiscation of wealth and undermining the natural evolution of society.

 

Spencer assumed that business competition would prevent monopolies and would flourish without tariffs or other government restrictions on free trade. He also condemned wars and colonialism, even British imperialism. This was ironic, because many of his ideas were used to justify colonialism. But colonialism created vast government bureaucracies. Spencer favored as little government as possible.

 

Spencer argued against legislation that regulated working conditions, maximum hours, and minimum wages. He said that they interfered with the property rights of employers. He believed labor unions took away the freedom of individual workers to negotiate with employers.

 

Thus, Spencer thought government should be little more than a referee in the highly competitive "survival of the fittest." Spencer's theory of social evolution, called Social Darwinism by others, helped provided intellectual support for laissez-faire capitalism in America.

 

A truly wise man.

[timesjoke]

A truly wise man.

 

Well, a lot of his beliefs were proven wrong as well.

 

I always wondered why he was against public schools when his father was a school teacher and he was an assistant school master.

 

 

I do believe modern society has completely removed the survival of the fittest part of human development and is most likely the cause of so much disease. Things like government handouts and modern medicine has made it possible for the sick and lazy to not only survive long enough to pass on their genetic code, but they have been able to take over society.

 

 

Now it is acceptable to be a lifetime welfare recepient and to breed countless numbers of children into the same existance.

 

And they all vote liberal, imagine that.

[hugo]

 

 

Now it is acceptable to be a lifetime welfare recepient and to breed countless numbers of children into the same existance.

 

And they all vote liberal, imagine that.

 

Thank God abortion is legal or Al Gore would be President.

 

A lot of Aristotle's beliefs were proven wrong. Spencer''s basic point that subsidizing the poor is bad for society has IMO been proven correct.

[snafu]

well I can see two flaws in his thinking right here.

 

Spencer assumed that business competition would prevent monopolies and would flourish without tariffs or other government restrictions on free trade. He also condemned wars and colonialism, even British imperialism. This was ironic, because many of his ideas were used to justify colonialism. But colonialism created vast government bureaucracies. Spencer favored as little government as possible.

 

Quit the opposite. I would think that it would create more monopolies. Bigger business would simply out buy smaller ones.

 

Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because

 

This one is total nonsense. disease is none discriminative and would wipe out everybody and not just the ignorant.

[timesjoke]

well I can see two flaws in his thinking right here.

 

Only two?

 

 

Quit the opposite. I would think that it would create more monopolies. Bigger business would simply out buy smaller ones.

 

Case in point, Wal-Mart.

 

Everywhere they go, they cause the closing of several businesses.

 

 

This one is total nonsense. disease is none discriminative and would wipe out everybody and not just the ignorant.

 

Well, if the poor could not get medical attention, then I could see his point of disease "culling out the herd" but if you make medicine available to everyone, then we are all similar in that area.

 

 

 

The only real problem I see in his theory is if you kill off all the poor and close to poor, who is buying the goods and services of the companies?

[Old Salt]

The only real problem I see in his theory is if you kill off all the poor and close to poor, who is buying the goods and services of the companies?

And who is going to work to produce those goods? You would ultimately end up with a population of CEOs.

[wez]

The only real problem I see in his theory is if you kill off all the poor and close to poor, who is buying the goods and services of the companies?

 

The non poor would then be forced to create more poor from the non poor because if they didn't have peoples misery to build themselves on, they would lose their identity and go insane.. Make no mistake, money = human value..

[wez]

And who is going to work to produce those goods? You would ultimately end up with a population of CEOs.

 

 

 

Ish... count me out.. Put me in a leper colony anyday...Better company.

 

 

 

“White collar conservative flashin down the street, pointing that plastic finger at me, they all assume my kind will drop and die, but I'm gonna wave my freak flag high.” ~ Jimi Hendrix

 

"When I die, I want people to play my music, go wild and freak out and do anything they want to do.” ~ Jimi Hendrix

 

 

 

 

The funniest part.. the opposite of who most people think would survive, would actually survive.. People that need other people to do for them through labels, intimidation, hypocrisy, and consequences will surely fade into the annals of history.. no more control freaks.

 

 

The real welfare cases wear suits and ties and ride in limo's as they tell everyone what to do, or else. ~ wez

[wez]

Well, if the poor could not get medical attention, then I could see his point of disease "culling out the herd" but if you make medicine available to everyone, then we are all similar in that area.

 

 

 

The only real problem I see in his theory is if you kill off all the poor and close to poor, who is buying the goods and services of the companies?

 

So the problem isn't killing someone because they have no money, but rather, who will buy the goods? if they have no money, how will they buy the goods anyways? Please explain...

 

 

I'd have thought you were being sarcastic but I know you're all business, all the time.. Think about how that jives with your stance on abortion.. Makes no sense to me.

 

Join Date: Aug 2007

Location: In the shadows, holding a bat

Age: 42

Posts: 666

 

 

 

You go to church TJ?

 

 

Kay killer, I got a great idea, lets make everyone pay all their debts by noon Friday, No pay, off with the head... I'm safe, are you? I don't owe anyone in this world one thin dime... I'd say that would identify the poor pretty quickly and we can end this charade.. What do ya say? Sound good?

 

I'll shut up now til you get out of Sunday Mass...

[hugo]

well I can see two flaws in his thinking right here.

 

 

 

Quit the opposite. I would think that it would create more monopolies. Bigger business would simply out buy smaller ones.

 

 

 

This one is total nonsense. disease is none discriminative and would wipe out everybody and not just the ignorant.

 

 

Wrong, there are few cases of natural monopolies. Technology is making those fewer. Phone service was once a natural monopoply. Most monopolies and oligarchies are the result of corporations getting benefits from government; often in the form of setting up barriers to entry.

 

Contagious diseases throughout history have always been more prevalent among the poor. God, in his divine wisdom, limited the number of misfits before man decided the misfits needed help.

[hugo]

Only two?

 

 

 

 

Case in point, Wal-Mart.

 

Everywhere they go, they cause the closing of several businesses.

 

 

 

 

 

They also cause the growth or creation of several businesses.

[wez]

Wrong, there are few cases of natural monopolies. Technology is making those fewer. Phone service was once a natural monopoply. Most monopolies and oligarchies are the result of corporations getting benefits from government; often in the form of setting up barriers to entry.

 

Contagious diseases throughout history have always been more prevalent among the poor. God, in his divine wisdom, limited the number of misfits before man decided the misfits needed help.

 

 

The true poor got smart, put on suits, and created those barriers because they are too stupid to compete honestly.

 

Much easier to just kill someone and scare everyone else..

[hugo]

The only real problem I see in his theory is if you kill off all the poor and close to poor, who is buying the goods and services of the companies?

 

To paraphrase a certain jewish philosopher the poor will always be with us. We don't need to subsidize them.

[hugo]

Government is essentially immoral.

Herbert Spencer

 

Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.

Herbert Spencer

 

How often misused words generate misleading thoughts.

Herbert Spencer

 

In science the important thing is to modify and change one's ideas as science advances.

Herbert Spencer

 

 

Marriage: a ceremony in which rings are put on the finger of the lady and through the nose of the gentleman.

Herbert Spencer

 

 

No one can be perfectly free till all are free; no one can be perfectly moral till all are moral; no one can be perfectly happy till all are happy.

Herbert Spencer

 

Old forms of government finally grow so oppressive that they must be thrown off even at the risk of reigns of terror.

Herbert Spencer

 

Society exists for the benefit of its members, not the members for the benefit of society.

Herbert Spencer

[wez]

Awsome quotes... Seems like a wise man... specially liked this one..

 

 

Marriage: a ceremony in which rings are put on the finger of the lady and through the nose of the gentleman. ~ Herbert Spencer

[snafu]

Wrong, there are few cases of natural monopolies. Technology is making those fewer. Phone service was once a natural monopoply. Most monopolies and oligarchies are the result of corporations getting benefits from government; often in the form of setting up barriers to entry.

Please explain natural monopoly. The begging of the phone was a prime example of a rich person Grahm Bell trying to monopolize. Although he succeed in is time it didn't and couldn't continue. Another is the Howard Hews fighting the monopoly of Pan Am. Then we go to the US Postal Service which had to give up it's monopoly. The government intervened in these cases.

 

Contagious diseases throughout history have always been more prevalent among the poor. God, in his divine wisdom, limited the number of misfits before man decided the misfits needed help.

Yeah well we aren't talking about the black plague now are we. Even though it was no-discriminative either. When should this selection start? Tomorrow? It's a pipe dream that could never happen. We can't send all the poor people to a leopard colony and assume it won't leave the island now can we. You think disease is going to weed out the poor you are sadly mistaken. That's pretty damn funny.

[snafu]

Unlike Darwin, Spencer believed that individuals could genetically pass on their learned characteristics to their children. This was a common, but erroneous belief in the 19th century. To Spencer, the fittest persons inherited such qualities as industriousness, frugality, the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth. The unfit inherited laziness, stupidity, and immorality.

 

Here's another wastefully thought. The fit would inherit laziness, stupidity and immorality. The destitute would strive for intuitiveness, education and morality. Just look how Rome fell.

[timesjoke]

Here's another wastefully thought. The fit would inherit laziness, stupidity and immorality. The destitute would strive for intuitiveness, education and morality. Just look how Rome fell.

 

In my opinion, Rome fell once they started changing their faith.

 

Every great society has had one thing in common, a common belief structure. When you play games with the thread that tied your society together, you risk everything falling apart.

 

 

As we are seeing in America now.

[hugo]

Please explain natural monopoly. The begging of the phone was a prime example of a rich person Grahm Bell trying to monopolize. Although he succeed in is time it didn't and couldn't continue. Another is the Howard Hews fighting the monopoly of Pan Am. Then we go to the US Postal Service which had to give up it's monopoly. The government intervened in these cases.

 

 

 

Er...the post office was a government imposed monopoly. The federal government finally decided to allow competition. Utilities is an example of a natural monopoly. Phone service , in the pre-wireless era, was a natural monopoly that needed government regulation. That is no longer true.

[hugo]

 

Yeah well we aren't talking about the black plague now are we. Even though it was no-discriminative either. When should this selection start? Tomorrow? It's a pipe dream that could never happen. We can't send all the poor people to a leopard colony and assume it won't leave the island now can we. You think disease is going to weed out the poor you are sadly mistaken. That's pretty damn funny.

 

Natural selection works without "we" having to do anything besides stop robbing from Peter and giving to Paul.

[snafu]

Er...the post office was a government imposed monopoly. The federal government finally decided to allow competition. Utilities is an example of a natural monopoly. Phone service , in the pre-wireless era, was a natural monopoly that needed government regulation. That is no longer true.

 

Yes I know the Post Office was a government monopoly. That's why I included it. Even the government should not be above controlled monopolies.

The phone company no longer needs government regulations now but it needed it to come to were its at now.

[snafu]

Here's another wastefully thought. The fit would inherit laziness, stupidity and immorality. The destitute would strive for intuitiveness, education and morality. Just look how Rome fell.

 

Natural selection works without "we" having to do anything besides stop robbing from Peter and giving to Paul.

 

True but that has nothing to do with what was stated about letting companies run without government regulations. They keep the playing ground fair. Without we would have monopolies.

[hugo]

Actually, government tends to make the playing ground unfair. Why do you think there are all them corporate lobbyists in Washington DC? Those lobbyists are usually trying to get government to give them a competitive advantage through some government action. The FDA and DOT have greatly reduced competition in the transportation and pharmaceutical industries as just a couple examples of government restricting competition.

[snafu]

Actually, government tends to make the playing ground unfair. Why do you think there are all them corporate lobbyists in Washington DC? Those lobbyists are usually trying to get government to give them a competitive advantage through some government action. The FDA and DOT have greatly reduced competition in the transportation and pharmaceutical industries as just a couple examples of government restricting competition.

 

The FDA and DOT are there for security and safety measures. Everybody has the same chance but then it goes back to big business that can afford the restrictions. So I guess that would make more monopolies but then you have safer and more reliable commodities.

[snafu]

But to counter act these big business monopolies you do have goverment SBA and financial incentive reforms which help subsidize small business.