|Individualism: Social liberalism and eugenics
||[Jan. 11th, 2009|12:28 am]
It has come to my attention that many people do not realize the link between social liberalism and eugenic breeding. Of course, many social liberals are either indifferent to eugenics or oppose eugenics. There are different types of eugenics: forced eugenics and private voluntary eugenics. I only support and practice the latter type, as do most modern eugenics supporters, but either type of eugenics is dependent upon the realization that there are intrinsic inequalities between individuals.|
Individualism is the recognition of intrinsic distinctions between individuals, and thus the recognition that some genetic alleles, and thus the genomes of some individuals, are better than others. Individualism also causes the rejection of the authoritarian collectivist ideology that underlies the various theocratic laws and rules that oppose social liberalism. I am an individualist, ergo, I am both a social liberal and a person that recognizes that some people have better genes than others on the whole.
One need not even be an individualist to support some form of eugenics; one need only be sufficiently lacking in collectivism, and be pragmatic and far-sighted.
One need not be an individualist to support social liberalism. A person is likewise a social liberal if one is a humanist. I am both an individualist and a humanist, and am therefore doubly socially liberal. One is also socially liberal to some extent if one is non-ideological and self-centered.
Eugenic breeding, by the way, is much less unpopular than it appears to be. There is an ultra-vocal fringe minority that is strongly opposed to any form of eugenics, voluntary or otherwise, which has caused this false appearance, often by crying 'nazi'. However, if one describes eugenics without using the infamous word 'eugenics', then one finds that the majority of people, or at least the majority of women, prefer that their children have good genes.