Don’t Follow Instructions; Don’t Shrug, and Don’t “Go Galt”! Because:
If we want government to take a strictly no rules, hands off position as advocated by the free market capitalists, the right wing, the conservatives, the Tea Party partiers, the libertarians, and any number of others, then as my new old saw saws and to be true to its nature, unregulated free-market capitalism means some shall die.
Just another Texas tea party!
In the name of free market capitalism, individualism, or anti-collectivism, or anti-groupness, or anti-socialism, or anti-communism, those forsaken creatures at the bottom of the hierarchy, must sacrifice themselves for the good of and the survival of, and the irony of, the fitness of the group.
The practice of pure free-market capitalism means some shall win and some shall lose (some shall garner all the honors, and some shall buy the booze), and some shall lose through no fault of their own, some will be born that way and some shall become disabled, and others will lose in ways indicating they do not have the individual ability to ever completely support themselves or their family. To survive, these folks would need help; they would also need the time to find the help, and crucially, the ability to sustain themselves during the time they are seeking and maybe finding the help. The amoral world of nature wouldn’t care, it would merely smile, shrug its shoulders and say – some days you eat the bear, and other days the bear eats you.
The free-market capitalist’s mantra consists of saying to those at the bottom of the hierarchy, “you don’t get to require that I provide you with a portion of earnings or my wealth”, or as economist Jeffrey Sachs elaborates, “There’s a libertarian streak, in the US especially, where people say, “Buddy, if you’re in trouble it’s your fault; don’t come to me for help.”
Their position seems so simple, and it all sounds more than reasonable, especially the “require” part, but in the absence of organized community (meaning governmental) assistance, those folks needing help also need time (which they don’t have) to find those willing to help. If they can’t, their passing would not even be noticed in the amoral world of nature, nor perhaps in what some call the “moral’ world of free market laissez-faire capitalism.
This time frame, this gap between the loss of a family’s income and replacing it, is crucial to capitalism’s predatory nature. However, human morality should not and (I hope) would not abide this level of callousness. We would not tolerate it in ourselves and should not tolerate it in others.
In today’s terms, many of those speaking from the right wing misuse Darwin’s true meaning of “survival of the fittest” by being only too happy to use it to bolster Spencer’s intention to explain why the poor are, in fact, poor. In other words, why the poor aren’t fit to be rich.
In the manner it has come to be used, “Survival of the fittest”, along with other three to five word phrases, operate as “calls to action” used to identify and rally other right wing group members, and as a substitute for thinking for one’s self.
For many conservatives, “survival of the fittest” applies more to economics than to Darwinian natural selection. It has become their platitude of choice, readily used to clarify laissez-faire capitalism and the economics of worldwide class structure as recognized among those who believe as they do. Instead of being able to articulate theoretical economic differences, the phrase is used to substitute for thoughts they can neither formulate nor convey, and all performed for the appearance of deserving membership in the group of those who can.
Therein, a secretive ideology conceals a belief that once all members of capitalist society grasp the benefits of Randian individualism (meaning all of those fit to be members of humanity by her definition), then those individuals unable to survive free market competition, or are unfit to survive, should for the benefit of the larger society, quit complaining, stop asking for hand-outs, and gladly and graciously find value in sacrificing themselves for those individuals seemingly fit enough to survive.
In other words, in the name of individualism, or anti-collectivism, or anti-groupness, or anti-socialism, or anti-communism, these forsaken creatures at the bottom of the hierarchy, should surely understand their need to sacrifice themselves for the good of and the survival of, and the irony of, the fitness of the group.
Those making this sacrifice, meaning those doing the dying, ought to be proud of themselves for making the ultimate sacrifice as their personal donation to the group, but, (and this a really big ‘but’), without any relationship to any style or practice of “Social Darwinism”, thereby making it possible for those more deserving and more skilled and more intelligent and bigger and stronger (meaning more evolutionarily adaptive) to live.
Objectivism, capitalism, and selfishness arrogate a higher sense of morality by claiming the lives of those folks as their dying donation to the group, complete with those making this ultimate contribution having little or no say in their selection. Those deaths allow those remaining to survive and flourish until the next round of layoffs.
Those about to die (with no salute for Caesar) should accept their fate with a sense of prideful contribution to the group. Even though capitalism is thought to benefit individuals, here, and with great irony, the benefit from this hecatomb flows to the group. As in the short story and one act play “The Lottery”, those who die do so quietly and gladly. “The Lottery” works as an allegory for the entire process.
Idealistically, (some conservatives who have gotten this far will hate that) a warped sense of morality claims the lives of those folks. However, with a casual conviction, the laissez faire right wing, of course believes the private sector will save the day by creating many more NGOs to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and minister to the poor. In other words, the libertarian sector believes these deaths, or better yet, the potential for these deaths, can actually serve society by fostering bleeding heart liberalism as a growth industry; and they know this myth is among the secrets allowing the conservatives to avoid acknowledging the deaths to be a part of pure capitalism. Thus they are able to use the bleeding hearts as an example of non-profits filling a void (they believe) justly created by the profit-serving capitalists.
