[b:e4c3dfc8cd]Liberals and Progressives tend to link Herbert Spencer with Social Darwinism - and so do many freethinkers - but is this charge accurate?

This interesting essay seems to say… No.[/b:e4c3dfc8cd]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long10.html

Barry

Barry ,interesting,but Spencer’s near anarchism is reactionary! Big government has grown with more rights for everybody , not fewer as he held would happen . There has been no road to serfdom and our constitution of liberty has led to big government and more rights. Regulated capitalism is the known ideal!Yes, he opted for private charity, but that is not enough. I laud such as George Soros, Walter Buffett, Bill Gates and Ted Turner who not only give much to philanthropy , but just love to pay taxes!They know that the modern state helps business[ I don’t mean corporate welfare.].

Spencer, Big Government and more

Skeptic said: Spencer’s near anarchism is reactionary! Big government has grown with more rights for everybody , not fewer as he held would happen . There has been no road to serfdom and our constitution of liberty has led to big government and more rights. Regulated capitalism is the known ideal!

My intention in posting the essay by Roderick Long was to suggest that perhaps Spencer has been misunderstood by even freethinkers like Susan Jacoby… That he was not an advocate for social Darwinism.  The essay seemed convincing enough to at least look at. 

In a private email response to my posting by Ms. Jacoby, she merely restated her basic point-of-view without offering any new evidence for her claims, and also dismissed Long’s work out-of-hand.  The dismissal included an attack on his person.  This lead me to wonder if Long is not correct in his claims that many people who attack Spencer have not read Spencer.

As far as the “rights’ granted by big government go, anarchists recognize that such rights, which have been won via many deaths, have all been “rights” which protect the individual or a group FROM the State.  That is, if the State did not exist, such rights would be unnecessary. 

Also, that such rights as those we have gained (and are loosing today), in Representative Democracies, exist at all - as opposed to “right-less” other forms of governments and states - only proves that some states are less vicious than others.  The “rights” people obtained (and not obtained) in Rep. Democracies belong to all humans in the first place… They ought not have to be fought for.

About Capitalism and the regulation of, it is clear that such controls do not last very long.  The powerful few who control the economic and political realm under capitalism - whether capitalism occurs in a state (which is the natural ally for such a hierarchal economic system), or in any proposed Right-Libertarian Free Market - will always undermine any socialist-styled regulation - or even moral considerations born from such - whether it comes in the form of FDR’s New Deal or the Social Democracies of Europe.  This has been shown again and again. 

The only way to secure a free and equal society is by eliminating Capitalism altogether - including the so-called Free-Market - and perhaps abolishing the State (but not institutions, structure or order) as well.  What needs to be created is some form of Inclusive Democracy.

Barry F. Seidman

Dog eat dog!  There are no facts to posit anarchy as viable.My points remain undefeated as they refer to what the facts show.  It is not right in theory if no facts . Theories explain facts and become facts themselves. It is just sophistry to advocate anarchism.  We have to have police and courts to ensure our rights . Sure rights are against government , but without government , no rights . Fortunately , most people want government for they see its necessity. That is not ad populum but a description of the facts.Kurtz is so right about government ! One would be a sophist to try to refute him. But I hope others will challenge him so he can further enlighen us!  See the ‘The Ayn Rand Cult.”  I don’t like the term Social Darwinism as it goes against Darwin; I call it Spencer- Randism.  As Karl Popper noted, we need incremental steps to get government working for us .  I am through ; others can have a hand at this.

Dog eat Dog?

Dog eat dog! There are no facts to posit anarchy as viable.My points remain undefeated as they refer to what the facts show. It is not right in theory if no facts . Theories explain facts and become facts themselves. It is just sophistry to advocate anarchism

Clearly you have missed my arguments in the Science section of these forums on Human Nature.  You ought to read them, and read works by:

Alfie Kohn
DS. Wilson
E. Sober
Judith Hand
Doug Fry
Takis Fotopoulos
Michael Albert
Harold Barclay
Lyn Margulis
Howard Zinn
Noam Chomsky

and so many others…..

Barry

Barry , I will check out those posts . Any favorite skeptic authors?  We now have so many !Why doesn’t God love amputees?

Re: Dog eat Dog?

[quote author=“Barry”]Clearly you have missed my arguments in the Science section of these forums on Human Nature.

I think one could well read those posts and come to the conclusion that “eliminating capitalism altogether” and instituting anarchy will not work.

Further, we still don’t have any description of what “inclusive democracy” amounts to, and anarchy is just a non-starter.

This is a dog that won’t hunt.

Doug and Paul know rational economy . I wish Paul would say something here once in a great while! Also , Austin Cline is associated with the center . He runs about atheism.

Doug: The train who said, "we can’t?"

Doug Says: I think one could well read those posts and come to the conclusion that “eliminating capitalism altogether” and instituting anarchy will not work.

How’s that? Capitalism is new in human society, and detremental to it.  Those who think eliminating capitalism “won’t work” for the betterment of society, also probably think war is inevitable, Hobbes was right, and the State is necessary.

Doug also said: Further, we still don’t have any description of what “inclusive democracy” amounts to, and anarchy is just a non-starter.

To say that anarchy is a non-starter means what, Doug?  Why do you suppose we should dismiss it out of hand as you do?

For more on Inclusive Democracy, see here:
www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/