What’s especially amusing to me, is the assumption that the only deterrent needed to keep wrong-doers at bay is the threat of suing/jail/death penalty. Especially in a society where it’s exponentially easier to acquire dangerous and insidious items and materials than it is now.
Laughable.
You’re one of those 18,000.
So your society would be better equipped to deal with roving bands while mine would be better equipped to pass on DNA.
Isn’t that our purpose anyway?
I’m sure most of these arguments are put forth by extreme Libertarian ideals in which I can only assume is a small sub-set of libertarianism. Yet still, the sociopathy involved in this ideology is freaky.
They’re telling us they have inalienable rights, fine, but they can only be reacted to, not prevented. That’s not good enough.
Nope.
Evolution is suited for adaptation to your environment, not society. Society has been brought forth by man to compensate for the indifference evolution hasn’t been able to adjust for as our technology overcomes it.
Besides, the gene pool is far better off with a diverse set of DNA. Evolution still goes on but takes millions of years to make any substantial difference. Millions!
And thus technological progress comes to a crashing halt, stagnating and eventually regressing as things break down.
Why? Because you’ve just killed off all the nerds who, as a result of society protecting them from those more fit to survive on an individual, physical basis, have been able to spend their time coming up with new inventions and advancements. Everyone else is going to be too focused on making sure they survive day to day to get much of anything done.
“Survival of the fittest” starves the intelligence of the human race and promotes physical endurance. We return to a more animal state, in other words. We would not have gotten to the standard of living we enjoy today if humans hadn’t formed governmental societies that protect its weaker members, freeing them up to pursue intellectual studies. Governmental societies also permit us to specialize; since I don’t have to worry about physical protection or food safety or clean water or clothing or any of a hundred things I’d have to concern myself with living out in the wild, people are free to spend 40-50 hours a week pursuing specific objectives and enabling us as a whole to make new scientific discoveries and eventually enjoy better standards of living.
In other words, Steve Jobs would have died in Libertopia before he ever became wealthy enough to hire security.
And natural selection is different and not to be confused with DNA/Evolution.
Just because you’re a strong, strapping man, who married a robust, healthy woman, doesn’t mean you won’t have a kid with MS.
You are desperately confused about the survival of the fittest. It is the fitness WITH A GIVEN ENVIRONMENT that is relevant, not some inherently superior DNA.
So, we are doing just fine passing along DNA now. The DNA you’d be passing along would be that most related to traits for successful adaptation to Libertopia, which apparently will be a dystopian contest of physical might.
As I said before, the traits common to present day libertarians will probably be selected OUT.
I wondered how long it would take for this to-me-abundantly-obvious fact to be presented. Thanks, Bosstone!
Now we’ve outgrown evolution *and *freedom. I’d hate to see the natural progression of the world you advocate. Your argument is that as we develop more dangerous technology, we must put more and more controls on human behavior. So when does this end?
The answer is it does not end. The endgame of your philosophy is just as indesirable as the endgame of libertarian philosophy.
You’re equating Libertopia to a time before agriculture. The market has provided all of the time-saving advances that we have developed so far. Government only serves to limit these innovations. These advances would still be present if we instituted Libertopia tomorrow. We would still have clean water.
A madman could poison our water system today. But does that happen? No.
““Survival of the fittest” starves the intelligence of the human race and promotes physical endurance”. This statement is completely false. If it were true, why have humans evolved into the most advanced, dominant beings on the planet? I’ll give you a hint, its not because of our biceps.
[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
““Survival of the fittest” starves the intelligence of the human race and promotes physical endurance”. This statement is completely false. If it were true, why have humans evolved into the most advanced, dominant beings on the planet? I’ll give you a hint, its not because of our biceps.
[/QUOTE]
For the same reason that no Libertopia has naturally evolved. Our species has survived, nay thrived, on collective strength.
(I can only imagine true libertarians cringing as they read the remarks representing them here. )
So your logic here is that since 18,000 deaths in the United States is insignificantly small compared to the whole population of the world, we do not need to have any regulations in place that will prevent these deaths?
Basically, “so what”, 18,000 deaths are no biggie?
Exactly, and I gave the example of a virus on an asteroid that lands on Earth. In this given environment your society would be destroyed. While my society without government reguation of space travel would have a chance of survival.
We don’t know what traits we are passing along now that may turn out to be detrimental. To sit around and take handouts from the government is antisocial behavior. We reward this behavior. What if there is a moocher gene out there as yet undiscovered?
So how were nerdy weaklings able to survive in the past? The government? No sir. They survived through millions of years of evolution prior to the advent of government. Society has already decided they are valuable contributors, so they would be taken care of.
Ok so say we keep controls on antibiotics. Alcohol is responsible for 75,000 deaths a year. Why don’t we put more adequate controls on that? Do you see where your logic will lead you to a path of more and more regulation of human behavior?
I would like you to point out the onerous anti-private company space travel regulations that are preventing you from developing travel to habitable planets at the moment.
I’ll wait.
While I"m waiting, here’s a list of private spaceflight companies for you to ponder.
Exactly. What makes you think our inclination towards collective strength would not exist in Libertopia.
I don’t claim to represent true libertarians. I don’t even advocate pure Libertopia. I’m just pointing out the flaws of the ideas you people are putting forth. It leads to authoritarianism. Maybe that is inevitable, but to scoff at libertarianism as fantasy while not seeing a problem with a growing government is short-sighted at best.
This is just a re-hash of the previous argument on this topic. You are simply pointing out that some regulations are not perfect, and cannot prevent all causes of death, so you conclude that we should therefore throw out all regulations, even those that work effectively at preventing deaths.
Your argument does not logically hold together.
Also, we tried strictly regulating alcohol. It does not work - we found that society will not stand for these regulations, and they caused more problems than they solved Therefore we don’t do it anymore. Interestingly, we relaxed these regulations, thus disproving your theory that some regulations will lead to more and more and more.
Your example actually disproves your conclusion.
Say people start dropping out of the skys to theirdeath on these private excursions. Don’t you think the government you’re advocating will indeed place onerous regulations on these companies?
I think part of your difficulty is that you imagine government control and regulations where none actually exist. See your example of the government preventing private companies from settling habitable areas of space. It’s imaginary.
You have built up an imaginary government control of your life without looking at the factual evidence.