Most people prefer working to looking for work.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, September 14, 2012 12:33:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> On 9/14/2012 8:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple.
>> So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
>> at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
>> a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested
>> perhaps an impfect one.
>>
>> In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
>> nets.
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>
>> Dear Roger,
>>
>>     I completely disagree. Darwinism does not consider valuations beyond
>> the concept of relative fitness. Capitalism is a theory of valuation and
>> exchange between entities. It does include concept that are analogous to
>> those in darwinism, just as the "fitness" of a trader to make multiple
>> trades, and so I can see some analogy between them, but to claim equivalence
>> is simply false.
>
>
> Yes! People conflate Social Darwinism
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) with Darwin's evolution. The
> idea of 'survival of the fittest' is also (see the Wiki) a
> misinterpretation. Evolution is just a blind statistical filtering of
> organisms which happen to survive in any given niche. Being fit has nothing
> whatsoever with being aggressive, greedy, or selfish, and indeed most
> species on Earth seem much more relaxed and gentle than human beings most of
> the time.
>
>>
>>     IMHO, Food stamps and safety nets encourage risky behavior that is
>> better if suppressed for the general welfare of the population, thus I am
>> against them in principle. Why work to sustain my physical existence with my
>> own toil if I can depend on the coercive taxation on others to sustain me?
>
>
> Eh, I would rather increase that stuff by 10 times than five one more dollar
> to subsidize corporations. The amount of money set aside for that stuff is
> tiny compared to everything else. It can certainly be a disincentive for
> people to look for work, but I think we need to confront the reality that
> the US doesn't really need very many people to work anymore. Most of what
> the US does is own things. That doesn't require a large workforce. Without
> manufacturing or a growing middle class, there really isn't much demand for
> more undereducated, unhealthy, unrealistically ambitious American workers.
>
> Craig
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fXX6Zmxk7_MJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to