Education and voluntarism

[EvilSocialistFellow]

@Micah71381

I followed you in a, b and c, it seems that d is where you are losing me.

As long as you understand why the impact of science on human action as little relevance to the study of human action itself, we are good

My argument for a Darwinistic society is just that my personal goals are directly linked to the technological advancement of the species, therefore in order to achieve my goals I am willing to sacrifice other humans along the way. It seems to me that your goals are not directly linked to the technological advancement of the species but rather linked to a reduction in suffering of the current set of humans in existence. These goals are contrary to each other so I don’t see how I can convince you that anarchy is better or you convince me that statism is better. We are better off trying to convince each other to change our goals.

To be honest, I hadn’t really thought about it like this but it could be kind of true. I suppose I’d prefer it if there were 100 people in the world with ‘decent’ living standards (1st option) than if there were 99 people in the world who became supermen but just 1 person who became incredibly ill and weak and suffered terribly, especially if these 99 supermen completely refused to help this 1 person (2nd option). I think this is where my old socialist ways come creeping back in…

But there is a third option (and this is where things start to get complicated and the lines get blurred) and that is that 1 person only suffers moderately but the other 99 people all become very well adapt (but not supermen). The third option is my preferred one but then there is the risk that these 99 people become supermen themselves and no longer see a reason to help that one person (who in turn suffers terribly) - (3rd option - somewhere ‘inbetween’ 1st and 2nd option).

Swap 99 people for 90% of the population and swap the 1 person for 10% of the population and you can see why this kind of reasoning becomes a problem in terms of real life (and the lines subsequently become blurred). This is a massive moral dilemna that is not easy and evidently, we have to decide which outcome is preferable. For me, enhancing overall living standards should not merely be a game of survival of the fittest; there should also be a moral stance..

My own thoughts are that a minarchist government would be able to provide the third option but that an anarchy would result in the second option (super human progress but some people are not just in relatively poverty - they are in absolute poverty). The first option is utopia that can never happen and reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator. The first option inevitably means socialism in which everyone becomes poor (absolute poverty). The third option arguably means far greater human progress but some people get left behind (absolute poverty).

Relative poverty is fine; absolute poverty is not.

The same logic can and must be applied to child abuse.