If the poor can't make a living and are thus going to die, then they are weeded out of the social gene pool. Those who cannot keep from floundering flounder, and others don't.
The theory of social Darwinism is based on Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest theory. Social Darwinists believed that individuals should have the freedom to pursue success and either succeed or fail. Those who failed or did not try would benefit from the success of those who were "fit" enough to succeed. In order for the "fit" to succeed, the government should not interfere. Under the theory of social Darwinism, corporations had to compete in order to succeed.
to stay out of the affairs of business
Max Weber's theory was that social cultures were the main driver in entrepreneurship. He argued that capitalism thrived under the Protestant work ethic.
Yes, John D. Rockefeller was a proponent of Social Darwinism, which emphasized competition and natural selection in business practices. He believed that successful individuals and enterprises were inherently superior and that competition would ultimately benefit society as a whole.
Acculturation
Classical sociological theory makes all persons equal under the state with everything being state owned. Contemporary theory allows for differences in class/sociopolitical standing while retaining the core values of the classical theory.
to stay out of the affairs of business
Social Contract
They are elected by the people
They are elected by the people
Social Contract
Max Weber's theory was that social cultures were the main driver in entrepreneurship. He argued that capitalism thrived under the Protestant work ethic.
The social system school is socialogically oriented and emphasizes group and indvisual behaviour terms of cultural relationships and then looks at the ways in which these behavioural patters interlock in a miniature social system. These aspects are covered under the behavioural schools of neoclassical theory.
Do not confuse Darwinism and evolution. Darwinism is the name loosely given to a theory, properly called Natural Selection, which attempts to explain the mechanics of evolution, which is not a theory but a set of well-observed scientific facts.Of course Darwinism, the theory that species of organisms develop through "natural selection" is real. The question should be "Is Darwinism correct?" And all the evidence shows that it is. Natural selection is happening right now. There is no question about it: organisms evolve through natural selection.The proposals in Darwin's "Origin of Species" have been examined at length by science and found to be totally supportable, and repeatedly proven by observation. Fossil records confirm species evolution in the past, microbial evolution is observed constantly in hospitals.Don't be misled by that word "theory." A theory is a tool used to explain the nature of facts. The fact in this case is evolution. Its existence is obvious to anyone who has ever studied the real world. Darwinism is a theory that seeks to explain the mechanics of evolution, just as Newton's Theory of Gravitation seeks to explain the mechanics of gravity."Rebuttal"Darwinism is a theory, not a fact. It is completely unproven and the social consequences of accepting such a theory need to be looked at. Not to mention that even if evolution is true, that doesn't mean that Darwinism is."Re-rebuttal"Subtitled: Hey, he started it!Claiming that something is "theory, not fact", does nothing to address the issue.Claiming that a theory is "unproven" shows either a complete misapprehension of how science works, or demonstrates denial of the comprehensiveness of the evidence supporting the theory.Arguing "social consequences" is a blatant and undisguised appeal to consequences. Scientific theories don't become less true (or truer) just because they have less favourable (or more) consequences. In the end, only one question matters: does it match the available data, ie. is it accurate?Arguing that natural selection/Darwinism could still be false again does nothing to address the point that it currently does fit all the available data.The claims of Darwinism/Evolution are that life evolves and does so by common ancestry and the driving force of that evolution is Natural Selection. It is supported by every scientist in the world (or, if it isn't, it should be, given the evidence). But never mind who supports it - it is so simple, very easy to understand. And, perhaps more importantly, there is evidence and confirmation from kaleidoscopically varied branches of science (genetics, ethology, paleontology.) There is no refutation yet and brilliant explanation. Indeed, the claims of Darwinism/Evolution are true (we conclude this because of evidence). In the terms of the question, Darwinism is real.Most experts in the field question whether the term "Darwinism" is even appropriate. As an analogy, one might question how appropriate it is to describe an explanatory model for gravity as "Newtonism". Not just because Newton was succeeded by Einstein, but also because it's just silly."Darwinism", when used, is most likely to refer to Darwin's original hypotheses regarding natural selection. In effect, the question posed becomes: "Is natural selection real or not?" The answer must be, unequivocally, yes. Natural selection is observed and confirmed through so many independent lines of evidence that denying it takes place is the epitome of unreasonably.The best way to look at evolution is to just look at the evolution of the air plane. The Wright Brothers flew the first engined powered aircraft in 1903. You may know people who were alive then. Now where has this evolved to? The "walk on the moon". How about computers? The very smallest today have evolved from rather large ones only a few years ago. These small ones have taken us to Mars. The old ones could not have done so. These are all examples of evolution and have been happening right under your nose, every day.Remember that evolution means change over time.This is called a theory but scientists mean that these are provable facts.Many people say that evolution is only a "theory" but this following statement is also a theory: E=MC2 This should seem familiar to all. Remember Einstein? This is his "theory". I know no one who disputes this theory.
His "social contract" theory established that a government should serve and protect the people under it - acting only with "consent of the governed".
For a minor child (under age 18) to collect Social Security, the child's parents must be eligible for Social Security. This generally occurs when the parent(s) become 62 or "permanently and totally disabled" as defined by Social Security.
This Theory has been discussed in Public Finance under Dalton's principle of 'Maximum Social Advantage'. Optimum allocation of resources is that point where maximum marginal sacrifice of people is equal to maximum marginal benefits.
A seaquake is a type of earthquake that occurs under the seafloor.