Libertarianism is the best for the evolution of our species.

[Arsene]

Socio-cultural freedom, laissez-faire capitalism, no welfare state, etc, naturally selects those genesets who peform badly in our modern urbanistic environment out of the genepool at a faster rate than what would be in a socialist conservative society. In a socialist environment even the opposit occurs, it's dysgenics. Letting people decide for themselves what they want to do, wether that is taking drugs, overeating, be a transgender, aslong as they don't initiate the use of force against another individual = increased selective pressures.

 

___

(I hope you understand how real individual to individual altruism is evolutionary possible, and the genetic similarity theory. Fat shame & drug shame & transgender shame, is altruistic punishment. We want to help & direct & steer others into (what we think) is the right direction. Besides, we all came from small tribes, and we needed everyone's labour, even if you were a bit genetically inferior and had mental deviations, low intelligence and whatnot, for our small tribe to survive. However, giving people freedom, letting them make their own decisions = better for the intelligent who make good decisions and worse for the unintelligent who make bad decisions. 

 

I don't wan't to say that there is overpopulation but we got more than enough gene carriers to survive some increases of evolutionary pressures. Hence im

 pro legalization of all drugs, pro euthanasia, pro abortion, fat acceptant, LGBT acceptant, etc.)

[dsayers]

A couple of critiques if I may. In your title, you say "best." What does that mean? Do you think the utilitarian argument is more important than the moral argument, vice versa, or that they are the same? Also, in closing, you listed a bunch of different items. Instead of a checklist that tends to polarize people, why not sum it up on principle? Since your post made it sound that that's where those positions were stemming from to begin with. For example, to say "I accept that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories," you're simultaneous asserting that you wouldn't initiate the use of force against somebody for disagreeing with you and that you don't support others doing so either. Makes things simpler I think. What do you think?

[Arsene]

"My esteemed libertarian colleague, Professor Leonard Liggio, who has always been out on the frontier of libertarian thought and practice, has of late been ruminating on Social Darwinism. There is no creed over the past century, in fact, with the possible exception of the Nazi movement, that has received as bad an intellectual "press" as Social Darwinism. It is high time that we subject this much reviled Social Darwinism to a re-evaluation.

The Liberal stereotype of the Social Darwinist is of a sadistic monster, calling for the "extermination of the unfit." But in reality the true Social Darwinist is a benign and cheerful optimist, and he arrives at his optimism from a scientific inquiry into the processes of natural law and of cause and effect. For the Social Darwinist is above all a scientist, and as a scientist he sees that the natural law of what is best for man may be violated but never avoided.

This means, that over the long run, the dysfunctional must come to a bad end, must cleanse itself and wipe itself out, while only the truly function and proper can remain and prosper. Any artificial interference in these beneficent natural processes can only delay and distort the results; hence, we have a powerful argument for non-interference in these natural workings.

Take, for example, hippie culture and hippie values, with its hatred of reason, its emphasis on instant whim and mystical irrationality, its communalism and repudiation of the division of labor, its scorn of science, technology, work, private property, long-range thinking, and the production of material goods and services. There have been few creeds in human history that have been more dysfunctional than this. Now since men possess free will, since they are therefore free to adopt and act upon any creed they wish, it is possible for masses of men to become hippies; but it is not possible for them to remain long in this condition, because of the built-in "self-destruct" mechanism that the law of cause and effect imposes upon those who pursue this philosophy.

Unfortunately, this dysfunctionally has not been as vivid as it could be, because foolish parents and taxpayer mulcted for welfare payments have been around to subsidize this anti-life credo and to maintain it indefinitely. Remove these subsidies, take away their indulgent check filled out by parent or welfare board, and the hippie phenomenon would have died a much deserved natural death long before now. Social cleansing brought about by the workings of natural law would have steered these misguided folk into the proper and functional path long ago.

At a recent libertarian conference I ran across a man who put his libertarian position on drugs in starkly Social Darwinian terms. He said, in effect: "Let's legalize all drugs. Ten these drug-taking kids will kill themselves off, and the problem will be eliminated." Harshly and crudely put, perhaps, and of course there are other libertarian grounds for legalization. But again our friend had a keen point: take away the artificial props, allow premises and nature their head, and the law of cause and effect will correct the situation with dispatch. If, as I firmly believe, psychedelic drugs destroy mind and body, then the removal of artificial restrictions will reveal this fact starkly and clearly, and the drug-takers will either fall by the wayside or correct their disastrous path.

The great libertarian Social Darwinist William Graham Sumner put the matter very clearly: "Almost all legislative effort to prevent vice is really protective of vice, because all such legislation saves the vicious man from the penalty of his vice. Nature's remedies against vice are terrible. A drunkard in the gutter is where he ought to be, according to the fitnesses and tendency of things.""
 

We shame behaviors that we think are disadvantageous for their survival & procreation. Like fat shaming, it really is altruistic punishment on overeating behavior. The same goes for drug shaming, altruistic punishment on bad lifestyle behavior. We are actually very nice to each other in this regard, probably because we all come from small tribes where we evolved to care for one another's survival because each individual, even if he had some inferior traits like low intelligence which causes you to make bad decisions, was important for your own survival & the survival of the whole tribe. It's because of that that we still have it in us to eliminate selective pressures & to protect people from their "vices" as how Social Darwinist William Graham Sumner calls it. (We want to eliminate them because "Selective/Evolutionary Pressures" leads to extinction when they are too strong, otherwise they lead to adaptation & evolution, if there are enough gene carriers & variety). So take for example a women with too narrow hips to bear children, she requires a c-section to give birth. Now that is an inferior trait, her gene set in her particular environment translated into an inferior trait (her hips) for the procreation in that environment. Now in small tribe it would indeed make sense to help that woman give birth to her child, as every individual is. And with humans, I don't want to say that there is over-population but we have enough variety and gene carriers to toughen up the selective pressures a bit, which will benefit humanity greatly over hundreds of generations. (My uncle who is a MD-PhD in Medicine thinks we are actually exterminating humanity in the long run because of this, because we rely to much on medical assistance (which took away a great deal of the natural evolutionary pressures), now those gene sets are still mixing their genes in the gene pool, and we are doing fine as long as the medical assistance is there (our new environment), but once our medical assistance falls a way & the natural evolutionary pressures abruptly comes back, we might have adapted to much to an environment. And on the other hand, we are actually doing eugenics on all kinds of bacteria & viruses with all our vaccines. I think we should make this a new law: unless we are sure that there is no variety in the gene pool of a certain bacteria, we are not allowed to use that vaccine. Because again, if the selective pressures (vaccines) aren't going to root out the whole virus or bacteria, we give them room for adaptation. Now anyway i'm getting to far off, back to politics.)
 

Drug allowance is better for those who know how to deal with it, as they get to experiment with it safely without risk of bunk, uncertain dosages & penalty, and it would also be better for those who are not interested want to take drugs as enormous amount of resources from taxation is put into it. Prohibition only protects some low IQ people who do not make such a great decisions and are easily susceptible to addiction, from their own vices. (It's what meta-analysis show btw, overal those who try drugs have a moderately high IQ, but it's the lower end of that bell curve which fall into addiction.) Which is actually preventing (at least slowing down) the actual adaptation of our species to live in a environment where drugs exist, if you legalize it, yes there might be an incline in heroin addictions, but whatever, give people all their freedom in this world and let natural selection happen.