The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Indeed it is ironic not to want use biblical and theological sources to construct one view of Christian ethics relatd to the topic at hand. However, I will conceed the point although I do get tickled sometimes at "theological responses" to issues on this site.

Social Darwinism is antithetical to our form of govt...0,0. Indeed if we were to examine history during times of little to no regulation we can find quite a few examples of American cultural preference. In Upton Sinclair's book the Jungle the meat industry (before regulation) was so bad that the American public became shocked at what the book revealed that the Pure Food and Drug Act was enacted in 1906....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_sinclair. In the Gilded Age (1877-1890) laissez faire American capitalism was so excessive that the Progressive Era was initiated after the difficult recession of 1893.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_age. And of course Manifest Destiny meant genocidal practices of the US govt. to Native Americans through American expansionism...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Ame ... ted_States. It should be apparent that in American history, even from this small sample, our culture has a preference for unregulated free market capitalism in which each person is encouraged to struggle against others in the survival of the fittest. It is only in the reactions to this cultural preference toward Social Darwinism that advances to human rights and caring for those who are marginalized (Christian values that don't matter I suppose) have been made.

Supply Side economics and the reactionary political movement toward smaller govt. and lower taxes is just another form of the historical expression of Social Darwinism by again deregulating the market for a struggle of all against all for survival of the fittest. Trying to compartmentalize Social Darwinism into a small box of "eugenics" may well be the basis of a conversation concerning abortion (i.e., The founder of Planned Parenthood) but it is not only historically inaccurate but is setting up the thread for a total derailment into a side topic IMO.


In an unregulated free market economy you wont have to worry about what govt. says about religion since the business you work for will be able to do that.

Your equation of Social Darwinism with de-regulation is the standard Progressive/neo-Liberal response to the argument that it was Progressives who developed and tried to integrate Social Darwinism. More government regulation is integral to Social Darwinism, not less.

Capitalism is only a "survival of the fittest" if the capital is un-naturally limited by regulation. There is an erroneous idea that all resources, including wealth, is limited, so that each person can only achieve a portion of the whole. Someone taking some of the capital inevitably results in someone else loosing the identical amount because the total amount of capital is static. This simply isn't true. Building wealth doesn't have to mean stealing it from someone else.

You say that as if there have never been private organizations (especially Christian) caring for the poor. Have you ever heard of the Salvation Army, United Way, YMCA/YWCA, and a whole host of other groups? Do you actually believe government is the answer to "human rights?" Johnson's Great Society has had several decades to work, and it has largely failed.

That is absolutely 100% false. Look into Social Darwinism. As I said, and showed through actual citation, Social Darwinism was about regulation of society, not freedom in any way. I might remind you that you were the one who brought this discussion about:

This is a standard Progressive mis-conception of Social Darwinism, which is antithetical to freedom.

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

As I read through the post Psychobobicus what strikes me is the typical analytical approach to issues that I have run into in my own educational experience on both the "right" and "left" wing of the theological spectrum...lots of philosophical terms that compartmentalize complex reality into simplistic categories that can be dismissed with the wave of the theologians hand. There is more to the historical suffering of those who have lived in America in the golden age of deregulation and no regulation than some ideological dismissal of a reified concept of "Progressive/neoLiberal" whatever that might be. Your expression of a history in which American freedom is guaranteed by an anarchistic govt that only exist's only to promote the military almost seems coherent until the lives of those of real people are examined across the American experience...slavery, civil rights, women suffrage, child labor laws....all part of the "Progressive/neoLiberal" conspiracy to get your money I suppose.

The unseen hand of the market ideology that has and is being promoted as part of the new American mythology of super individualism is the ultimate expression of survival of the fittest...there is no mercy, no compassion, no care, and no thought to the market forces. There is in the end only one who survives the battle of efficiency, productivity, and profitability as has been seen in several American industries such as automobile and airlines that are moving toward oligopolies and consolidation. If private non profit agencies was effective in helping other surely the social problems faced today would already be solved since this culture is saturated with churches and para-church organizations. Social Darwinism is a statement of what is and has happened in America when humans are left to themselves without govt to keep their appetites in check...unless of course we have to dismiss the Adamistic nature of humanity since we have already separated Christian ethics from discussion of freedom.

When did I ever mention either the military or anarchy?

Slavery was dealt with Constitutionally (14th Amendment). So was women's sufferage (19th Amendment). Under our system of government I believe this is the way we should deal with issues. Child labor issues are complicated. Should we allow children to work 12 hours a day in factories six days a week? Probably not. Should we allow children to work on berry farms during the summer? Absolutely. Unfortunately, child labor laws have become so restrictive we have had to look South to get enough workers for jobs that used to be done by children on summer break.

In the case of automobile manufacturing, there are two factors leading to their demise. The first is lack of innovation. Until very recently domestic manufacturers spent much less on R&D than Japanese manufacturers, as well as lagging behind them in the introduction of redesigns. The second, and most important factor is that the domestic manufacturers have been severely hampered by unions. According to FTI Consulting,

As far as airlines, yes, the big companies have consolidated, but it appears that has been good for consumers. Ticket prices are actually lower today, adjusted for inflation, than 25 years ago when there were many more airlines. For example:


I would argue they have been, but our idea of "poverty" has changed drastically. According to the government:


Apparently it is too profitable for you to give up trying to redefine the term "Social Darwinism," even in the face of the facts. At any rate, I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you think the government should regulate how much we can eat?

You never did say if you believe we are living in God's eternal kingdom right now. I wasn't aware that the Gospel proscribed governmental functions like taxes and welfare. Personal altruism, absolutely. You apparently ignored Paul's thoughts on the issue in 2 Th 3:10-12.
But in America,

As fun as this discussion has been, I don't think it has been very profitable, since no one else seems too interested in it. I think I am ready to move on...

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

Indeed it is time to move on posts are becoming longer recycling the same concepts with ever growing detail. Of course you understand that the anarchy and military listing is the basis for the next line of attack on consumable govt. ideology of smaller govt. and less taxes. It is interesting to note that we agree that amendments show how govt. intervention is necessary to correct several historical social ills which support my larger argument that active govt. is primary to curtail the natural inclinations of self-indulgence for humans. The unseen hand of the market certainly has worked in both the automobile and airline industries in America to give us less choice at a higher price as our economic base is being eaten by foreign competitors that have shown the survival of the fittest is a core fact of unregulated/lightly regulated markets...I almost forgot the interesting use of "adjustment" to arrive at a lower cost in make believe money. Another hallmark of modern day Social Darwinist is the moral virtue of those at the bottom end of the economic ladder that are privileged to be poor. Which leads back into the use of biblical and theological sources which I had thought was dismissed because we are discussing secular govt.. This has been a tour de force Psychobobicus of what is wrong with theological thought that tries to merge both the Heavenly and Earthly Kingdoms with the end goal of promotion of a political ideology that has little to do with the real world in either realm. In the end I still maintain that freedom has to be promoted by an activist govt. because humans left to themselves come up with political ideas like smaller govt and fewer taxes. Thank you for the conversation.

Apparently the lack of others posting in this thread did not mean no one was following the conversation.
I spent an hour researching my previous post, which you largely ignored.

What part of cheaper airline tickets than 25 years ago is a "higher price"? I'm sure cars are the same. I believe automobiles cost less per capita than they did 25 years ago (when there was less competition and more regulation, by the way).

Government intervention? Try intervention by the people to correct abuses. The constitutional amendment process in America deeply involves the citizens. Remember, government, according to our system, exists at the discression of the people.

Positive law. Your view is that our rights are guarenteed by the government. Foundational to this view is that government gives us our rights. The Declaration of Indepentence and the Constitution both declare that our rights come from the Creator, not government. The shift from natural law to positive law theory represents an abandonment of our foundation of government. If government gives us our rights, then yes, it is government's responsibility to protect those rights. I argue that the Constitution limits government's powers, and ultimately it is up to us to decide how to protect rights. Hence, we decided slavery was wrong, so we amended the constitution (after a bigoted supreme court basically decided that blacks were not humans, so were not covered by the Constitution -Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857). Here in Oregon, some members of government decided that the constitution gave homosexuals the right to marry (even after the supreme court of Oregon said it did not). The people thought differently, so we amended the constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Had it been the "activist" government's decision, we would have gay marriage here in Oregon, contrary to the people's will. You may argue that it proves your point that we need government intervention to protect homosexual's "freedom" to marry, but that isn't our system. What you advocate is a complete change of governmental style.
I have recently been reading on Fascism. I think you might be in favor of a fascistic government here. Under Fascism, government "protects" the people from themselves. "Freedom" is guarenteed by the governement. But fascism cannot function with too much imput from the people themselves. Mussolini said:

He also thought it was the State's responsibility to take care of the poor, high taxes, and strong government regulation and oversight.

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

psychobob wrote,


I have been a very interested quiet party of this conversation. I have wondered if you would be able to nail down what has been IMO Rene's fluid definition of "Social Darwinism"

Allow me to bring my experience to the forefront.

as a Navy recruiter for 3 years I'll only give a couple examples of quite a few discouraging experiences. (I'll also leave out the educational disappointments of high school graduates who can't even begin to pass a basic skills test!)

One boy who was a high school graduate with no job I visited and in the conversation I talked to him about the great job trainig opportunities afforded by the Navy with the added bonus of seeing the world and getting a guarenteed 2 paychecks a month. His reply was that he pointed out his three "older" family members who were currently sitting on the porch whom all were getting a guaranteed 2 welfare checks a month and they didn't have to do anything at all. Then he confidently stated that he would soon be qualified to get paid for nothing just like them.

I also was at a small high school in Calvert, TX. and talked to a young lady who was quite smart and interested in the Navy opportunities. Her reason for disqualification was that she had already given birth to 2 children which gave her too many dependants for a single parent starting salary in the military. When, out of curiosity, I pressed her why with modern birth control methods so easily accessable she had not only one but two small children she explained to me that welfare recognized her as her own household when she gave birth and would give her her own benifits. She was either 18 or 19 and the oldest of the 2 children was around 3 or 4. (You do the math )

I served as a Navy recruiter from 1993-1996 in Naval Recruiting District Houston, Tx. It became my first "real world" understanding of the issues of the abuses of governmental welfare systems and our poor union controlled governmental educational system.

I will say that my sister-in-law (left with 3 children by a dead-beat dad) is a true success story. She used the Oklahoma welfare programs to help her care for her children and complete her college degree as a computer analyst in the span of about three years. She is now doing well in Kentucky and her oldest son is proudly serving in Iraq.

As I intimated earlier, a helping hand for a short period I'm OK with (like my sis above). The others are absolutely not what I'm willing to support!

surely there is a better way!

Blessings,
Randy

Indeed it is extremely difficult to nail down a definition of social darwinism..

": an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence
— social Darwinist noun or adjective "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... +Darwinism

"Social Darwinism
Definition
Theory of social selection that attempts to explain the success of certain social groups. Based on the laissez faire doctrine with heavily racial bias, it interprets 'survival of the fittest' concept to mean that only the best adapted (those already well off) survive the ‘natural conflict’ between social groups and thereby enhance the survival capacity of the remaining society. Popular in the 19th and 20th century Europe and USA and embraced by the Nazis, it has nothing to do with the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-82) or his theory of natural selection, and precedes the publication of his book 'Origin Of Species.'"

http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... inism.html

"
Within the human ecological niche, there are abundant resources and exactly zero competitors. We have the run of the place, in other words. But social Darwinists believe that only a select few of us are entitled to these abundant resources. They believe that free markets reward the fittest genotypes, and that the free market is therefore an authority. This is an extension of the "nature is right" authority fallacy: the free market is considered to be an authority, therefore whatever the free market does must be right. "The free market gave us wealth," they reason, "so we must be entitled to wealth."

Historically, rich people gather surplus resources for several hundred years, and then a group of poor people invade the royal palace, kill the rich people, and take the resources for themselves. "Nature (or God) gave us the strength in numbers to invade the royal palace, kill the royals, and take the resources," they reason, "so we must be entitled to the resources." This is an example of the same logical fallacy.

It's sad to think that this fallacy, the application of which has proved to be so disastrous for so many centuries, is still very popular. It's even sadder to think that right-wing think tanks, such as the Cato Institute and the Project for the New American Century, are attempting to bring about a revival of such authoritarianism"

. http://www.helium.com/items/711155-unde ... -darwinism

Rather than quote un-documented articles that make unfounded accusations and assertions, why not respond to the actual history of Social Darwinism? Have you even looked into who the founders of S.D. were? It is difficult to pin down for you because so far you have ignored the historical facts of the origin of Social Darwinism. You continue to mis-characterize it as a phenomenon of conservatives and the "right-wing." It was founded by left-wing progressives, and embraced by the likes of Woodrow Wilson, who said, "living constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice."
According to Jonah Goldberg, Wilson wasn't very keen on the Constitution, as it was written.

That from PBS, no "right-wing thinktank!"
Rene', you would do well to look into some alternative sources for information. You sound like a tape recorder of progressive talking points. I would suggest Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, Thomas Sowell on economics, and works on poverty by Theodore Dalrymple. They may give you at least a well-documented alternative to the neo-liberal blather that you have been parroting so far.
Randy,
Thanks for your insight. As I mentioned above, Dalrymple has had the exact same experiences in British jails. Sometimes the truth doesn't fit the pre-conceived framework though...

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

That's a really good idea, i'll tell my friends to do the same. We should show our patriotism, escpielly during these times. We need to defend our rights as christians and american citizens. President Obama and congress are slowly taking our freedoms away-we need to stand up and have a voice! God bless.

Social Darwinism, economics, social justice, taxes, and the like, it certainly is complex. I am not an expert on Social Darwinism. However, I've taken a good deal of Economics at the college level (I have a BS in Business Administration and a minor in Sociology).

IMO, the dynamics are too complex and too little understood to determine with any degree of confidence that anything like Social Darwinism really occurs . . . and when I use the phrase "Social Darwinism" I do so at risk of using a phrase which has many different meanings to many different people and so can easily lead to confusion.

It seems to me that it is extremely dangerous to take a concept like evolution and the survival of the fittest by "natural selection" as expressed in the ideas of Darwin and apply them to "Social Evolution."

Originally, selection was, if my understanding is correct, do to the advantage in competition for survival of those who possessed certain traits, either mental or physical that increased the chance that the organism would survive and therefore, produce more offspring who inherit the genes that gave advantage in competition.

Setting aside the matter of whether this theory is correct or not, the wisdom of transferring this concept to the area of Sociology and economics seems tenuous, although perhaps intellectually seductive. From my studies of Sociology and Psychology, it is clear to me and is IMO, extremely hard to predict the behavior of individuals, groups and society at large; and even if statistical analysis such as linear regression analysis is used to correlate a many number of variable so predictions can be made, causality always remains obscure and tenuous.

I can understand completely the frustration one might feel at our Society "supporting" members of society that are not "productive." I have heard anecdotally that there are many who make joining the ranks of the non-working in the US as a profession to be attained, and Welfare, and/or other programs their pay. I too find this very disturbing.

I live in Arizona and in this State this issue is very, very hot (no pun intended) with the sizable number of illegal aliens. I also find the degree of interference in the daily lives of the citizens very troubling. I place this in perspective, or try to by asking myself what the Founding Father's and Mother's of course would think about the extent of influence the Federal Government of the US has at this time. This troubles me.

I apologize for the length of this post and my exceed the character limit, but . . .

I would point out one thing mentioned a couple of time . . . that there is no limit on resources. I'm not sure in what sense this is being used . . . but in economics, virtually every resource that has a price is a limited resource. So if ya have to pay for it . . . it is a limited resource. Air, water usually, sunlight, grass usually, dirt usually, common rocks, weeds and the like, scat from wild animals . . . anyway . . . those are unlimited resources. Anything else, labor, bottled water, dirt like topsoil, real property like land and houses, cars, diamonds, gold, natural resources such as oil, iron ore . .. are all very, very much limited. And the scarcity of a resource combined with the demand generally determines its price.

Now as far as Social Darwinism which I will use to strictly define my arguments, I would define it, and I acknowledge that someone else might define it differently . . . SD would be the competition among individuals of a society, or between groups of societies for advantage. So individuals who work hard and use good judgement prosper and those who are lazy and stupid don't. The most industrious and innovative and intelligent societies prosper and grow in influence . . . an extreme simplification of course.

Yet, is this the way individuals and societies actually work? Clearly, IMO, individuals and societies in general “prosper” by a variety of behaviors that are both helpful and extremely damaging at any certain moment in history, and are extremely damaging and helpful at ofter times under other circumstances.

Some of the most prosperous individuals in a society can have a devastating effect on themselves and the society they live in. A good example is the recent collapse of the banking system in the U.S., which was lead by reckless loan in my home state Arizona. Sure those who got the commissions for all the marginal loans made a lot of money, but the collapse of the market almost put this country into a Depression. Is this the definition of an individual or prospers?

Think of all the “prosperous” people in the US such as movie stars, rock stars, and just people who have a lot of money or even just middle class people who are “weekend” users of drugs like Coke, heroin, etc. These prosperous people are instrumental in the havoc reflected in the Drug Wars, and the infiltration of American by the Drug Cartels. Is this the prosperous individual.

It is well known by those who study military history that some of the best and bravest soldiers are society’s marginal outcasts in times of peace. The are braver and get more medals. Do we want to get rid of such people?

The key to survival is adaptability which means that certain people who seem useless at a certain time in history might be extremely valuable in another time. Perhaps, as a society as a whole we need people who are weak, and lazy so that we as a society and Christians can grow in our love, compassion and generosity.

I hope that in this thread we can read each others posts and try and understand rather than grow hard in our own opinion.

Regards Brothers and Sisters.

_________________
Jer 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. (KJVR)