- #1
Mattius_
- 8
- 0
Shahil said,
This brings me to something i had been meaning to say,
I think robert tracinski pointed it out best when he said, "So it would seem that the system that enforces virtue leads to poverty—while the system that encourages vice leads to prosperity."
Meaning that although moral, the welfare-state will always lead to poverty, and conversely, although immoral, capitalism will always lead to prosperity.
You see, I think we need to change our idea of what is 'moral.'
To me, morality should be the application of human nature to our lives, and nothing more.
To provide welfare to those unable to provide for themselves is silly. Why?, because it is in my thoughts that the object of economics is to better the human state by any means neccesary.
One would say that giving the unable provisions is bettering the human state, but to that i say: Why should a weaker genetic line be able to reproduce and carry on those genes to future generations? to take this to the extreme, should a mentally handicapped person be able to reproduce and thus create more strain on the able? ofcourse not, and If you agree with me here, then you must agree with me in a lesser sense of not providing help to those with with weaker but less obtrusive genetics. (ie intelligence, physical capacity, vunreability) Because by providing help to those weaker than us, we are encouraging reproduction and thus hurting the human condition in the future.
Now, this philosophy to my knowledge is unwavering in theory, but would definitely have some setbacks in application to the real world. One Word, ENVIRONMENT.
You see, people are also weaker because of their environent. You know the old debate nature vs. nurture... while we don't know the exact balance, we do know that a person is composed of these 2 variables only! What does this mean for real-life application?
Raise kids in exact as possible environments, and do not help the ones who struggle, because as they struggle, they will be less inclined to reproduce because the rescources provided to them are not sufficient.
Result: the strong survive, the weak diminish, the human condition is made better!
This brings me to something i had been meaning to say,
I think robert tracinski pointed it out best when he said, "So it would seem that the system that enforces virtue leads to poverty—while the system that encourages vice leads to prosperity."
Meaning that although moral, the welfare-state will always lead to poverty, and conversely, although immoral, capitalism will always lead to prosperity.
You see, I think we need to change our idea of what is 'moral.'
To me, morality should be the application of human nature to our lives, and nothing more.
To provide welfare to those unable to provide for themselves is silly. Why?, because it is in my thoughts that the object of economics is to better the human state by any means neccesary.
One would say that giving the unable provisions is bettering the human state, but to that i say: Why should a weaker genetic line be able to reproduce and carry on those genes to future generations? to take this to the extreme, should a mentally handicapped person be able to reproduce and thus create more strain on the able? ofcourse not, and If you agree with me here, then you must agree with me in a lesser sense of not providing help to those with with weaker but less obtrusive genetics. (ie intelligence, physical capacity, vunreability) Because by providing help to those weaker than us, we are encouraging reproduction and thus hurting the human condition in the future.
Now, this philosophy to my knowledge is unwavering in theory, but would definitely have some setbacks in application to the real world. One Word, ENVIRONMENT.
You see, people are also weaker because of their environent. You know the old debate nature vs. nurture... while we don't know the exact balance, we do know that a person is composed of these 2 variables only! What does this mean for real-life application?
Raise kids in exact as possible environments, and do not help the ones who struggle, because as they struggle, they will be less inclined to reproduce because the rescources provided to them are not sufficient.
Result: the strong survive, the weak diminish, the human condition is made better!
,TV diners. Don't these only ensure that you survive? How can you say that a disabled person shouldn't live (or reproduce)? You may be in tip top condition now BUT what if a drug saved you from dying, let's say, from pneumonia, when you are a kid? You, in fact, are not suppose to even being living then! BUT what is happening is that your "weak genes" are still being transmitted as an example of mankinds brilliance!