PDA

View Full Version : Creating a better society, nature vs nurture




Carl Corey
10-02-2010, 05:39 PM
I wonder how people view the nature vs nurture debate in a libertarian light.

The nurture viewpoint I've seen is that socialism demoralizes the population, creating a socialist culture that leads to ever increasing in productivity and abuse of the system. Libertarianism would both remove handouts and let people fully enjoy the fruits of their labor. Greater freedom is thought to increase innovation and overall wealth.

The nature viewpoint I've seen is that those who are unproductive are unable to have large families, reducing the genetic components responsible for poverty from the gene pool. Abortion and capital punishment are considered as positive in the same light, lowering the genetic contribution to irresponsible behavior and crime.

pcosmar
10-02-2010, 05:45 PM
Racism and Eugenics go hand in hand. Not a poll option.

:(

heavenlyboy34
10-02-2010, 07:38 PM
Nature dictates that we all live in poverty and tyranny (as evidenced by most of human history-according to Mises and myself). Enlightenment (nurture) frees us from the State and from poverty.

ibaghdadi
10-03-2010, 07:23 AM
Can you qualify your question more?

Carl Corey
10-03-2010, 02:25 PM
Racism and Eugenics go hand in hand. Not a poll option.

Eugenics is the application of genetic science by a government, are you implying that racism has a genetic basis?


Nature dictates that we all live in poverty and tyranny (as evidenced by most of human history-according to Mises and myself). Enlightenment (nurture) frees us from the State and from poverty.
The laws of society are what allow the creation of the state and property rights, the laws of evolution have led to the decline and ultimate extinction of all other systems.


Can you qualify your question more?
Basically put, do you create a better society by populating it with genetically better humans, or do you do so by various means of non genetic social engineering aimed at creating better individuals.

On a liberal and conservative forum one would expect primarily support for the nurture position. It's promising that the majority doesn't support a full blown nurture viewpoint as the nurture position invariable demands government intervention, and when education and thought control fail, the solution is invariably even more education and thought control.

pcosmar
10-03-2010, 02:32 PM
Eugenics is the application of genetic science by a government, are you implying that racism has a genetic basis?

Eugenics has a racial basis.

And pseudo-science is a more accurate term.


The nature viewpoint I've seen is that those who are unproductive are unable to have large families, reducing the genetic components responsible for poverty from the gene pool. Abortion and capital punishment are considered as positive in the same light, lowering the genetic contribution to irresponsible behavior and crime.

This was the view of Margret Sanger and later Adolf Hitler.

Not exactly role models.
:(

Carl Corey
10-03-2010, 03:04 PM
Eugenics has a racial basis.

And pseudo-science is a more accurate term.

How exactly is the act of someone using embryo selection to avoid passing on a genetic disease to their offspring racist, or pseudo-scientific?

JohnEngland
10-03-2010, 03:31 PM
I believe that there is an objective nature (natural law) that makes for the greatest expression of humanity - and through reason, we can come to understand those timeless principles and thus create a much better society.

I think the founders of America understood a lot of this. They knew that a self-regulating, moral and informed people would make for a good society.

So I guess to answer the question in a quick summary:

I believe that through developing and nuturing our understanding of man's nature, we can create a better society.

heavenlyboy34
10-03-2010, 03:44 PM
The laws of society are what allow the creation of the state and property rights, the laws of evolution have led to the decline and ultimate extinction of all other systems.


You are confusing civil agreements with "laws". The latter is a creation of the State, though religions had "laws" before that (religious laws also tended to make more sense, such as prohibiting inbreeding and so forth-while Statist laws have always been arbitrary, designed at the whim of the Regime to please it and the parasites who feed off it)

heavenlyboy34
10-03-2010, 03:47 PM
I believe that there is an objective nature (natural law) that makes for the greatest expression of humanity - and through reason, we can come to understand those timeless principles and thus create a much better society.

I think the founders of America understood a lot of this. They knew that a self-regulating, moral and informed people would make for a good society.

So I guess to answer the question in a quick summary:

I believe that through developing and nuturing our understanding of man's nature, we can create a better society.

Natural law is not objective by its very nature. It has no method, only observation and inductive reasoning therefrom-hence, it cannot possibly be objective. Not to say that it is bad philosophy, but it's a piss-poor basis for law.

JohnEngland
10-03-2010, 03:48 PM
How exactly is the act of someone using embryo selection to avoid passing on a genetic disease to their offspring racist, or pseudo-scientific?

Hmm, "Embryo selection."

We were all embryos at one point. Our embryonic self is simply one of the many stages on the way to maturity. We're embryos, babies, infants, teenagers etc., culminating in adulthood.

If one devalues embryos, and human life in general, to such an extreme extent, why could they not use, for example, "skin colour selection" to avoid having anyone other than the "master race" bred?

This is what the Nazis, Soviets (and, sadly, Britain and America) et al did with regards to the disabled, the dumb etc. They considered them sub-human and unworthy of life. In order to avoid passing on genetic "defects", they killed or sterilized those "unfit". This goes on today in the form of the abortion of the unborn child.

I would hate to think that my mother could have had me killed as an embryo.

Just the thought of my life and right to exist not being guaranteed sickens me.

The reality that the womb is the most dangerous place for children is a sad reflection of today's society.

JohnEngland
10-03-2010, 03:54 PM
Natural law is not objective by its very nature. It has no method, only observation and inductive reasoning therefrom-hence, it cannot possibly be objective. Not to say that it is bad philosophy, but it's a piss-poor basis for law.

But natural law is objective - properly understood and studied. It has logic. For example, natural law tells us that a man and a woman are designed for each other, not for the same sex. Natural law also tells us that by man's design, we have a right to speech, a right to thought, a right to expression, a right to our being, and so on.

But I guess if it's not objective, then America's founders were wrong and, hey ho, I guess we'll use democracy to decide what is right and wrong! Wahoo! 51%! 51%!

heavenlyboy34
10-03-2010, 04:19 PM
But natural law is objective - properly understood and studied. It has logic. For example, natural law tells us that a man and a woman are designed for each other, not for the same sex. Natural law also tells us that by man's design, we have a right to speech, a right to thought, a right to expression, a right to our being, and so on.

But I guess if it's not objective, then America's founders were wrong and, hey ho, I guess we'll use democracy to decide what is right and wrong! Wahoo! 51%! 51%!

Whoever put it in your head that democracy is the only alternative? Silly boy! :D (democracy is one of the few systems worse than a republic) It's true that natural law tells us such things, but it's also true that such things are not "natural", but invented by humans. Take your example of male/female. This may be prevelant, but it is not a "law"-homosexuality has been observed in other species.

Further, the "positive rights" doctrine you derive from "natural law" is not "natrual" at all-it is purely a cultural phenomenon, and a relatively new one at that (historically speaking. Prior to the anti-monarchical revolutions in the 18th century, positive rights were only believed in by very few people).

pcosmar
10-03-2010, 05:00 PM
How exactly is the act of someone using embryo selection to avoid passing on a genetic disease to their offspring racist, or pseudo-scientific?

Your post was not about passing on disease nor embryo selection. You mentioned Abortion and Capital Punishment as a way to address social and political choices.

And this statement,



Basically put, do you create a better society by populating it with genetically better humans, or do you do so by various means of non genetic social engineering aimed at creating better individuals.


Assumes that some humans are inherently inferior.
And it is not a new concept.
:(

Carl Corey
10-03-2010, 07:30 PM
Your post was not about passing on disease nor embryo selection. You mentioned Abortion and Capital Punishment as a way to address social and political choices.
So abortion and the death penalty are racist..?



And this statement,

Assumes that some humans are inherently inferior.

Are you going by the theory that the human mind is a blank page that can be filled however the government sees fit, or that no value can be assigned to humans making everyone equal, and as such, equally deserving?

The first theory isn't confirmed by modern science, and the second theory is a religious opinion that isn't compatible with libertarianism which is ultimately about the most deserving getting the biggest piece of the pie.



Hmm, "Embryo selection."

We were all embryos at one point. Our embryonic self is simply one of the many stages on the way to maturity. We're embryos, babies, infants, teenagers etc., culminating in adulthood.

If one devalues embryos, and human life in general, to such an extreme extent, why could they not use, for example, "skin colour selection" to avoid having anyone other than the "master race" bred?

How exactly does letting parents have greater control over the genetic make-up of their children result in genocide? How exactly is a world free of genetic disease and disability a bad thing?

Regarding the womb being an unsafe place, do you support a government ban on smoking, drinking, fast food, and other risks during pregnancies? How about risks to the unborn child like obesity?

I find your response to be mostly an emotional argument as your logic is far from sound.

pcosmar
10-03-2010, 07:40 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You got a problem with this?

pcosmar
10-03-2010, 07:52 PM
I'm rather sick of this shit, but it keeps coming back.

The So-Called Science of Eugenics in America

In the late 1800s, a pseudoscience known as eugenics gained prominence. It was not based on the scientific method, but rather on a slipshod hodgepodge of biased observation and shoddy anecdotal “evidence.” Eugenics proponents believed that the poor and sickly were genetically inferior by nature and thus had no right to procreate. Indeed, the most hardcore eugenicists believed that the lower socioeconomic classes had no right to life at all.

Read more at Suite101: The So-Called Science of Eugenics in America http://www.suite101.com/content/the-so-called-science-of-eugenics-in-america-a238297#ixzz11M1XjSgp

Eugenics in America: A Brief History
http://www.sntp.net/eugenics/eugenics_america.htm


America’s experimentation with genetics as a tool for social change is not new. In the 1920s the United States became the world center of eugenic activity and social policy. From 1907-1960 more than 100,000 innocent Americans were sterilized in more than 30 states. In the 1930s and 1940s Hitler’s scientists took eugenics to the extreme - establishing human breeding farms for "Aryans," large-scale sterilization and euthanasia programs for the mentally and physically disabled, and death camps for the races they deemed "genetically inferior" or "unworthy life."

Both the American and German eugenics movements of the 1920s and 30s identified human beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. They established programs to purify the "race" of "lower grade" and "degenerate" groups, thus extending racism to include a new generic classification - the "genetically inferior." Not surprisingly, the targets always turned out to be the traditional victims of racism - Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Indians, and other minorities.

After Hitler’s defeat, the American eugenics movement fell into disfavor, appealing primarily to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and a small groups of old-line scientists steeped in the racist theories of the pre-war period. In the 1960s their key spokesman was Stanford physicist William Shockley, who was the first to suggest offering cash incentives to people with low IQ scores who would agree to sterilization. He called his proposal the "voluntary sterilization bonus plan." Despite his status as a Noble laureate, Professor Shockley was widely regarded as a racist and a kook within the academic community. Nevertheless, he laid the foundation upon which the new eugenics movement would eventually be resurrected.

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

Take this shit back to the slimy gutter you pulled it out of.
:mad:

ibaghdadi
10-04-2010, 03:05 AM
Does a better society require 'better' people?
Thanks for the clarification. At first sight I disliked the premise of the question, although I must say it does reveal a lot about the OP and his worldview.

Better society comes from better organization of its individuals. Aluminum molecules arranged into a dagger can cut through Iron molecules rendered as a thin sheet.

I don't buy that some people and cultures are "socialist by nature" or "libertarian by nature". It's been said of the Chinese that they are a collectivist, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist culture, but how would you explain Taiwan and Singapore?

It's been said that the Koreans with their ancestor worship tradition are more receptive to an authoritarian rule such as that by Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, but how would you explain South Korea?

People are people. The message of liberty is the most natural call and the most natural appeal you can make to a human being.

Incidentally, a variant of this question was used to justify aristocracy: "Doesn't a better government mean rule by the best"?

Carl Corey
10-04-2010, 06:19 AM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You got a problem with this?
So do you interpret this as the constitution supporting socialism? Do you oppose handicapped people getting special parking privileges as we're all supposed to be equal?

Or does the constitution proof that we're all genetically equal, like some belief the bible to be proof of the earth being 6000 years old?

I always thought the statement to mean that we're all equal before law, which doesn't mean that the law is fair, as a homosexual man is equal to a heterosexual man when it comes to his right to marry a female.




Eugenics in America: A Brief History
http://www.sntp.net/eugenics/eugenics_america.htm


http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

Take this shit back to the slimy gutter you pulled it out of.
:mad:
All your sources are propaganda aimed at children and people of average intellect as it doesn't attack the science behind eugenics. You've got any rational arguments against liberal eugenics?

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-04-2010, 06:42 AM
Why do people take what is a fact -- that nature is inegalitarian and we are not born equal, to mean that the very nature of being inequal means that those who are less abled have no right to property (E.g. their own being). Eugenics is nothing but a veil for murder.

Also pcosmar, the Declaration of Independence does not stipulate that we are equal, but that we are equal before law. It was the basis for eschewing Monarchical Government. Nothing has really changed though -- Those in the State have the same immunity as Kings had.

ibaghdadi
10-04-2010, 06:56 AM
Why do people take what is a fact -- that nature is inegalitarian and we are not born equal, to mean that the very nature of being inequal means that those who are less abled have no right to property (E.g. their own being). Eugenics is nothing but a veil for murder.
Once in a while you have to spell out the vary basics as though they weren't so obvious. Equal = equal in rights, equal before the law, equal before God (if you believe in God).

We are born different. If we were all born the same, exact clones of one another, no one would need anyone and there will be no economy and in fact no society. It's a travesty against nature to try to "undo" this difference and impose a sameness upon people.

The problem with Eugenics is that it assumes that we are genetically determined in the broadest sense, removing or ignoring the influence of human will, spirit, and inspiration. Your genes do not determine what you are. Your choices do.

pcosmar
10-04-2010, 06:58 AM
So do you interpret this as the constitution supporting socialism?

NO




All your sources are propaganda aimed at children and people of average intellect as it doesn't attack the science behind eugenics. You've got any rational arguments against liberal eugenics?
Over 100 years of history.
:mad:

Carl Corey
10-04-2010, 08:40 PM
Why do people take what is a fact -- that nature is inegalitarian and we are not born equal, to mean that the very nature of being inequal means that those who are less abled have no right to property (E.g. their own being). Eugenics is nothing but a veil for murder.

Liberal eugenics has little to do with murder and everything with personal freedom.

The way our society works the less abled have the right to the property (tax money) of the abled. Radical libertarianism would end the redistribution of wealth, which invariably would lead to the death of people who would be kept alive under socialism. As such libertarianism can be considered a form of eugenics, and a veil for murder through neglect.

In that light forced sterilizations of the least able can be seen as a more gentle alternative to letting them starve in the gutter. The social democratic alternative is to support genetic decline until the welfare system collapses.

It's like running a company, you can be the greatest business man ever, but if you have lousy employees and are too nice to fire them, you're going belly up sooner or later. Your argument is comparable to stating that lousy employees have the same value as hard working employees and hence cannot be fired, common sense dictates this is a preposterous position.

pcosmar
10-04-2010, 10:48 PM
Liberal eugenics has little to do with murder and everything with personal freedom.

The way our society works the less abled have the right to the property (tax money) of the abled. Radical libertarianism would end the redistribution of wealth, which invariably would lead to the death of people who would be kept alive under socialism. As such libertarianism can be considered a form of eugenics, and a veil for murder through neglect.

In that light forced sterilizations of the least able can be seen as a more gentle alternative to letting them starve in the gutter. The social democratic alternative is to support genetic decline until the welfare system collapses.

It's like running a company, you can be the greatest business man ever, but if you have lousy employees and are too nice to fire them, you're going belly up sooner or later. Your argument is comparable to stating that lousy employees have the same value as hard working employees and hence cannot be fired, common sense dictates this is a preposterous position.
You have absolutely no concept of Ron Paul's position or message.
This is entirely contrary to his position and the purpose of this forum.
Please take this nazi crap elsewhere.

Carl Corey
10-05-2010, 09:07 AM
You heard him people, anyone who supports abortion, the death penalty, and embryo selection must leave at once.

pcosmar
10-05-2010, 09:33 AM
You heard him people, anyone who supports abortion, the death penalty, and embryo selection must leave at once.

You forgot the part about using these forms of death on those deemed inferior.
;)

the genetic contribution to irresponsible behavior

those who are unproductive

less abled

lousy employees

ChaosControl
10-05-2010, 09:43 AM
Both of that seems disturbing.

Carl Corey
10-05-2010, 12:17 PM
You forgot the part about using these forms of death on those deemed inferior.
;)
In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not a fan of the government deciding who can breed or who can live, but unlike you I don't oppose free speech or open debate about sensitive topics.

Seraphim
10-05-2010, 12:23 PM
They are mirrors of each other. They are ying and yang. They are not opposing forces but a double helix of mutual growth and mutal destruction.

pcosmar
10-05-2010, 12:36 PM
In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not a fan of the government deciding who can breed or who can live, but unlikely you I don't oppose free speech or open debate about sensitive topics.

No it is not obvious. You seem to be justifying and and in favor of state sponsored Eugenics.
If this in not true please make yourself clear.

I am opposed to neither Free speech nor debate. But this forum is dedicated to and in support of Ron Paul and his positions. One of those positions is the protection of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Eugenics is Contrary to that position. Though it rears it's ugly head from time to time.

+ Promoting agendas alternate to the platform of Dr. Paul will have allowances for established members. Controversial topics should focus on facts whenever possible.

It is an agenda that is ongoing. And is promoted often by those that are enemies of liberty.
You can expect my opposition at even a hint of it.