May 5, 2008
This guy has put into words some nebulous thoughts that have been swirling around my head for quite some time, although I was thinking more along the lines of “civilization itself negates natural selection,” not merely the existence of a Welfare State. It’s not politically correct by any means, but I do believe he makes some valid points.
Here’s why the Welfare State always ends up collapsing under its own weight:
We negate natural selection by letting the crummy genetic material propagate. What’s worse, not only do we allow it to propagate, we let it prosper to the point where it crowds out the more adaptable genetic stock.
It’s not so much that we “allow” the stupid and lazy to breed. You can’t ethically prevent anyone from having kids, and any policy aimed at forcible birth control smacks of eugenics and has “immorality” written all over it. No, the folly of the welfare state is that it shelters the stupid and lazy from the negative consequences of their own choices, and keeps those particular genetic lines from dying off like they would in nature.
We not only don’t discourage them from breeding, we pay them to have offspring. We then proceed to shelter them from every possible bad consequence of their laziness, inability, or stupidity by providing food stamps, free housing, free health care, and little warning stickers on the toasters and blowdriers that tell them not to use those devices in the shower. We foster a culture of altruism where any self-caused misery on the part of the have-nots and know-nots is automatically made the responsibility of the people who didn’t make the same mistakes. We remove most of the incentives for being smart, being productive, and for avoiding decisions that may lead to starvation.
When you reward someone for birthing kids they can’t feed by taking money away from the people who don’t produce more mouths than they can feed, is it a wonder when eventually the first group outnumbers the second? Is it a surprise when the first group figures out they can outvote the other group to keep the honey flowing? In a system where the vote of the non-productive counts as much as the vote of the producer, you’ll eventually and inevitably have fiscal collapse, as the number of contributors gradually shrinks to a point where it will no longer support the number of leeches on the system.
Is this the opinion of a heartless egoist, or that of a realist? Am I just totally off-base for thinking that the current system of dolism has nothing to do with “compassion”, and that it is mathematically and ethically unsustainable?
I’m really conflicted on this topic, because at one point I was without health coverage and became a recipient of state-provided health care that quite literally saved my life.
What are your thoughts?
May 5, 2008 at 11:13 pm
We need more chlorine in the gene pool, that’s all I’m gonna say.
May 5, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I am a retired public educator. I can relate to this one.
May 5, 2008 at 11:43 pm
This is so wrong on so many levels, it’s not even funny. I think it’s the ignorance, check that - the WILLFUL ignorance of this whole diatribe that just irritates the hell out of me.
How much you want to bet this guy is white?
May 6, 2008 at 12:39 am
Blaming the plight of the underclass on poor genetics? Ah, the giant mess that is Social Darwinism. Look, this sort of libertarianism run amok ignores the reality that society has a very large hand in creating these problems — ie, not providing quality education or economic opportunities for the lower classes while providing the same handouts that benefit corporations and the wealthy. Really, who is getting the bigger payouts: welfare mothers or defense contractors, mortgage lenders and global finance companies?
Keeping the masses uneducated, uninterested and feeling powerless has done a wonderful job allowing moneyed interests to retain political power. Cut the quality of education, outsource blue collar jobs, cut taxes for the wealthy and give lots of corporate handouts and oh, by the way, let’s blame the poor for feeling helpless, to boot. Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world.
May 6, 2008 at 1:42 am
Rent “Idiocracy” if you want to see the consequences of negating natural selection.
May 6, 2008 at 2:12 am
Scientifically and logically, that article is absolutely correct. However, the human species is the only one on the planet both capable of understanding grace and able to implement it.
As a libertarian and scientist, I say let the less fit members of the species suffer the consequences intended by nature. As a “graceful deist,” I say let everyone experience the altruism intended by the higher power for an intelligent species.
May 6, 2008 at 2:36 am
Ugh! People who disagree with this probably also think they can “Save the Earth.” Trust me, the Earth will eventually shake us off like a bad case of fleas. Save the Earth my butt, Save the Human Race. That means getting rid of the weak DNA. That would include me I’m sure, maybe not.
May 6, 2008 at 2:01 pm
As with all systems, humans will find a way to use and abuse them.
May 6, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I’m with Marc. While we squabble over the “lazy, stupid breeders” look who else has free health care, the government workers. Look who has multiple pensions, Cheney, Bush et. all. Look who has the biggest tax breaks of all time.
Now look how expensive advanced education has become for hard working students. Who out there was not saved from the destruction of childhood disease by modern medicine thus allowing our faulty DNA to survive, and for most, reproduce?
The wealthy love it when we squabble, it allows them to do their dirty work unnoticed, lying all the while that it’s for our own good. The Iraq war being the latest example, and who has benefited the most? Not those “stupid, lazy breeders,” they are over there getting killed, while Bush and his cohort “rake in the dough!”
May 8, 2008 at 6:43 am
Oh, please, libertarianism is another word for “I got mine, fuck you.” As a matter of fact I agree with John that the planet will probably dispense with the human race eventually—but in the meantime it seems like enlightened self-interest, at the very, very least, to take care of one another. On Universal Health Care—the US is just about the only advanced nation without it, and has a dreadful track record on health indicators compared to those other countries offering “socialized” (Oooohhh! Noooo! Big bad word! Socialized!) health care for all citizens. And believe me - I divide my time between both countries and know whereof I speak - for all the much-publicized shortcomings of the UK’s health care system, it makes the US look inept in every way. And don’t believe the propaganda—a British citizen can have private health insurance and be treated in a private, self-paying hospital under the care of the doctors of his/her personal choice—and also make use of the National Health Service (and choose your health-care provider) should you feel the NHS offers better or more appropriate care. Nobody is locked into one system or the other. As for Libertarians—look, as far as I’m concerned, tax me! Tax me to Denmark levels! Because, like the citizens of Denmark, I can then sleep at night knowing that none—yes NONE—of my fellow citizens are going to bed hungry, sick, or without a bed or a roof over their heads.
May 16, 2008 at 6:37 pm
It’s always the socialists who complain most bitterly about folks who expect to keep the fruits of their efforts. Why, socialists care, don’t you know? They care so much they’re willing to spend their neighbors’ money on solving problems that people didn’t even realize they had. And, baby, you’re selfish if you slap their hands when they try to steal your wallet. Nice spin, doctor.