is rugged individualism a new name for social Darwinism?

Question

Are conservatives,especially right wing libertarians, afraid to admit their ideas on poverety,taxes and social justice come down to social darwinism?Is that what this new buzz word is about?
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579584/Social_Darwinism.html

Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a “law of the jungle.” But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others.

so all answers till now say this is the American way?

Answer 1

It is social Darwinism, which of us Conservative Libertarians are denying that? Why are you concerned with the definition? And do you not believe in evolution?

Are you Liberal Authoritarians (opposite of Conservative Libertarians) denying that Political Correctness is not just a nice name for extreme cowardice?

Answer 2

Only to people who don't understand Darwinism. It's hostile environments that force adaptation and reward beneficial mutations. The harshest environments breed the fittest specimens.

Contrast that to what is happening in America, where the pampered children of the rich, who have never had to face a serious challenge, much less the harsh realities of life where the unpleasant chores aren't performed by servants and survival requires a strong sense of priorities. It's a regimen for producing stupid, soiciopathic weaklings. Ruthless ain't the same thing as strong.

And yet these are the people who run our corporations and our governments. Is it any wonder that America is so screwed up?

I think that's the real reason why Republicans hate Bill Clinton so much. The myth that a poor boy could grow up to be President is comforting, but the reality has to be terrifying for them.

Answer 3

There is a difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Most Americans believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Poverty, in any society, can never be eliminated. There will always remain those people who cannot lift themselves out of poverty regardless of the opportunities given to them.
If it were at all possible to eliminate poverty, it would have already been eliminated in the USA. There are factors that keep people in poverty that are beyond society's control.
Equal opportunity, however, is something that Americans are always striving to achieve. It is becoming clear to many people that uncontrolled capitalism can create roadblocks for the lower income and less educated people. The credit monster, as example, needs to be reined in.

Answer 4

In some ways yes. A rugged individualist would believe that it is everyone's personal responsibility to take care of themselves and not the job of the government to create large social programs to help those who won't help themselves. I think of President Teddy Roosevelt when I think of the term rugged individualism. In some ways, this is a very important aspect of what it means to be an American. Rugged individualism is all about the right to the pursuit of happiness and freedom from an oppressive government.

Answer 5

I wouldn't call myself a Social Darwinist if that means that I base my economic opinions on the work of an anthropologist, but I'm a Laissez Faire Libertarian Capitalist for sure.

It's not that I think that economics is the law of the jungle at all, it's more a matter of recognizing that the government has no means to make the impoverished wealthy. Laissez faire can, though.

Let's cut the crap and look at your socialist messages and my libertarian messages. You say I'm greedy for wanting to decide what to do with my bananas. I'm saying you're a thief for wanting to decide what to do with my bananas. I'm saying the poor are capable of getting their own bananas. You're saying the poor are incompetent to get their own bananas.

If I were poor, which I have been, and may be again if liberals succeed in stealing my bananas, and you tried to tell me I was incompetent to get my own bananas, I believe I would run you off with a hail of rocks, and much hooting and chattering. That's MY law of the jungle.

Answer 6

well its also a word used by the me generation to prevent them ever helping another human being. Excepting the important cases like rabid dictators that run afowl of our minidictator. Neocons have an amazing ability to care about humanity when their pocketbook is involved.

Answer 7

Some people ARE more fit to survive than others.

Answer 8

In one sense, yes...but the name isn't all that new.

It is also very Ayn Rand. You know...Objectivism.

Answer 9

It's the foundation of our country since it's inception, silly.