Posted 10 April 2012 - 08:05 PM
The irony is that the best should survive, not necessarily the fittest, who do because they are the fittest. Since they will, theirs is not a moral issue. The problem is getting the best into the fittest category and politically that is best done by living in a free society. Or, for the best it's a moral issue, for the fittest, sans the best, it isn't necessarily. It's just happenstance save in the case of evil--i.e., the destruction of European Jewry by the Nazis who de-fit them for survival in Germany dominated societies. To restate--"social Darwinism" is a moral lie for there is no morality involved. Whoever heard of the fittest not surviving because they were the fittest? And there are a lot of unfit survivors--of the stress of living. Generally theirs is a parasitic existence, which is not necessarily a denigration, but they cannot or will not create value for trade in excess of their consumption.
oh, that was a damn good one, George
Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian--objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist