is it an exaggeration to say that the entire project of civilized society is to defeat nature's laws of survival of the fittest and replace them with systems of cooperation that are compatible with human values?
like ... the default way of things is just whoever's stronger gets to take what they want, but that's a brutal and miserable way to live, so humans set up structures to counteract that (frequently in ways that end up being problematic in the long run)
in this framing, the whole idea of "hey, you can't work in order to feed yourself? well, go starve I guess" that capitalism foists upon us (often under the guise of "meritocracy") is counter to everything civilized society stands for
🔵
@technomancy I think that this assumes society is in a morally homogeneous state. There are many people who do good for others to no great monetary benefit of their own (or at the very least, minimize profits), from Goodwill and the Salvation Army to Saint Jude's Children's Hospital.
If anything, a welfare/nanny state deincentivizes the private sector from helping the needy because "the government'll take care of them", despite the fact that the government is woefully inept at this sort of thing in comparison to the private sector. (compare the VA to Saint Jude's, and 401ks to Social Security).
I do think a safety net is necessary, but it should not support people who don't really need it.
@technomancy After all, how do you keep a demographic group down? It ain't by giving them jobs, it's by giving them welfare benefits. (You see this in the black community.)