On 9/14/2012 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg 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
    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
    Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <javascript:>
    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.






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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to