Wendell Berry once so wisely wrote, “Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.” Though that is the way society should work, there are many that are on the top of society who prefer the survival of the fittest model to be the way we run our world. Perhaps, it is not said that blatantly, but in the policies and rhetoric it comes out.

Essentially, this idea of taking Darwin’s ideas on evolution and applying them to human society is nothing new; this was a growing movement at the turn of the century both in the U.S. and Europe. The idea was that the weak should basically fend for themselves, and those on top are there because they deserve it. It was the justification given for the massive colonialism and domination of indigenous groups. At the end, Hitler took these ideas of Social Darwinism to their most extreme, and the theory was basically exposed for the evil it was.

No politician will blatantly say they are a Social Darwinist, but many hold to the majority of the beliefs of this system. It seen in the writings of right wing heroes like Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism, where selfishness is the highest morality. The poor are that way because of their own fault, and the wealthy and powerful are there because of their hard work. It can be seen in the current budget plan of Congressman Paul Ryan who basically want to shred the safety net to nothing, while making sure more wealth is funneled to the wealthy through large tax cuts.

It took people in the labor movement and progressive movements to stand up to the rise of Social Darwinism at the beginning of the century and make real reforms in the country, and I believe it will take another large scale movement to say that we are not animals. We do not operate by a system of the survival of the fittest. We are humans, and all people should be treated with dignity, care, justice, and equality.

Bookmark to:

In recent years, libertarianism has been gaining much support throughout the nation. Many of their objectives are very noble-trying to reduce military spending, ending a needless and bloody war on drugs, reducing the debt, and ending unproductive bureaucracy and waste. However, there is a certain fantasy surrounding libertarianism- that if the government would just get out of the economy everything would be nice and rosy. The problem is that this system has already been tried and found to be wanting.

Now, I know those who support libertarian ideas will say that we never truly had libertarianism, and they might have some truth to this claim. However, we do have a picture of what a libertarian society would look like from the Gilded Age. There are few government regulations in the workplace, so workers get treated like animals. There is no quality public education system; so many children have to go to the factories to work. There are next to no environmental or food regulations, and so the environment and health of the nation suffer greatly as a result.

Another problem with libertarianism is that those who preach it cannot give one solid example of it working in the real world. Those who claim the positives of a more welfare state or socialist system can give the examples of Denmark, Finland, or Norway, which have some of the highest standards of living in the world. What examples can libertarians give? The only examples of societies that were close to libertarianism were not very good places for the majority of the populous. We could give the example of the U.S. in the 1800s or Latin American countries.

Another problem with libertarians is that those who push this economic idea are often led by ideologues and right wing think tanks rather than responsible economists. Why? Because any responsible economist realizes that libertarianism would be disastrous for the masses and ultimately bad for the overall society. After all, it was a lack of government regulation that led us to so much of the current mess we are in. Libertarianism has been pushed by the likes of past ideologues such as Ayn Rand, and modern ideologues like Peter Schiff. Libertarianism may look great on paper, but in reality, it would be disastrous, with a few people controlling everything and the masses struggling to merely  survive.

Bookmark to:

 G.O.P Leader Paul Ryan once stated, “”The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” Ayn Rand was the famous atheistic writer who stated that self-interest was the ultimate moral. Not only should government assistance to the poor be discouraged, so should charity and philanthropy. According to her philosophy, the rich deserve every cent they earn. As she stated,

“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

Rand called her philosophy “Objectivism”, essentially that self-interest should motivate our lives, not compassion or a dedication to the common good. Ryan with his dangerous philosophy has laid out a GOP Plan which essentially richens the already rich, cuts Medicare for the elderly, and cripples the poor even more. It is certainly in line with the philosophy and thinking of Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, much of the Evangelical vote supports policies like these. In some twisted way, they assume it lines up with the teachings of Jesus, when they are actually being led by the teachings of the atheistic Rand, who instead of believing it was better to give than to receive, believed that self-interest is the ultimate goal.

I am not saying that all of Rand’s philosophies and books are without any purpose or value; however, it is very scary when a whole political party is being based on the teachings of a lady who taught the exact opposite of the supposed “Christian” values they are upholding. Ironically, at the end of her life, Rand herself used Medicare to pay for her own surgery. It seems that in the end, even the likes of Ayn Rand needed some governmental assistance to survive, the very assistance that her followers are trying to cut.

Bookmark to: