First show me an example of a working example of socialism..........

Second, darwinian principles have worked fine for a long time, look in the mirror if you need to see proof. That's far from being discredited, more like an abject statement of success.

My theories concering darwinism on a societal level are not practiced in any nation currently existing. The south american countries in particular don't practice restrained reproduction.......... China does though......


I don't disagree with the idea of short term financial aid for people in need.

But your not suggesting short term at all with your plan.


As long as your paying their bills not me.

Nothings keeping them from doing that now, we have loans, grants, and scholarships, no excuse not to go to college if you are teenager. Working a 40 hour week there is more than enough time to create art, its called the week end. If their good, they can even sell it.

You have done nothing to prove the labour market would be more productive. Logically with fewer workers producing, it would be less so. But even assuming its more productive in gross, the increase in people not producing but still consuming means a probable drop in net. (yes your probably going to ask me to give a reason for my assumtion, i want to see your reasoning for it not being less productive first)


Yep your right, your plan is communistic in nature. The constitution, and bill of rights nowhere garuntee you a right not to be impoverished. Nowhere are anybodies liberties outlined to include the right to something for nothing. If point of fact the right to the pursuit of hapiness would almost point the other way. That you have the right to pursue your dreams, getting there is your own problem.

Further, I have a moral problem with not helping those who fall on hard times not get back up on their feet. Nothing says I have to help those that choose to stay there.

The US is a working example of socialism. Truer forms of capitalism, in the US, were during the Industrial Revolution when the US was still relatively third world.

Darwinism works best under conditions of true anarchy. In our modern economy, it is advances in socialism that enable a first world economy to exist, otherwise we would be another Mogadishu.

China is still communist. Are you recommending we become communist to practice better Darwinism?

Do you have a method for making poverty short term as well? Otherwise, why quibble about someone who could make a hypothetical "minimum wage" and never resort to another multi-billion dollar bailout. I am simply being realistic in wanting to solve for official poverty in our republic. It could even be regarded as a form of higher good; both ethically and morally.

What if someone isn't good enough to be marketable? Do you recommend they should be a "starving artist" to help them "create" better? Most studies on stress would disagree with you concerning necessity being the "mother of invention".

Why wouldn't the labor market be more productive, if all the less motivated people opt to become couch potatoes? It seems that simple to me. Why does your point of view not hold for farm subsidies?

What used to be done by twenty-five percent of the population is now done by two percent. This is anecdotal evidence supporting my contention of increases in productivity due to subsidizing labor in a similar manner.

How would fully complying with current at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws be more communistic?

You would be helping people who want to back up on their feet. Only the religious espouse poverty for the greater glory of an immortal soul.

Debatable, on whether we were third world during the IR or not.


Offer proof if you have any, which is none, as darwinian principles have not been applied on a societal level in any form in the last 1000 years. Cite a nation if I'm wrong.



Do you actually have any idea what darwinistic societal structure is?
I'm betting you don't as there are to my knowlege 3 people who coined the term and idea.........



There is no evidence to support that we would never have to resort to another bailout.

As for short term poverty, No one can solve all the issues of poverty, but we can address the major issues, yes. The real issue is generational poverty, and only money, and training, and cultural expectation can solve that.

or it could be evidence of a increas in technology, and technique, resulting in an increase of production. Further, subsidizing the labour isn't the same as subsidizing the farms..... It was not the farmers who were subsidized, it was the industry of farming. I agree with subsidizing some industries, as long as certain standards are met.

Do outhouses qualify? Most indoor plumbing didn't happen until after FDR's socialist public works projects.

Mogadishu or any functioning anarchy is enough proof. Otherwise, the collectivism of social justice, a form of socialism, precludes the most egregious aspects of Darwinism.

Why would we need to bailout the legal fiction of individuals (corporations) instead of applying social, corporate Darwinism?

It is my contention that the analogy is relevant. Consider that the cotton gin (a mechanism of higher productivity) was developed for mass production, only after free labor was emancipated.

First, darwinian principles have not been applied in mogadishu on a societal level, only on a personal level.

Tenets of darwinism applied on a social level (not to be confused with social darwinism)

1. Controlled reproduction. If you can't afford the basic needs of the child, you don't have the child.

2. Extensive investment of wealth into offspring/education

3. Testing to eliminate/limit certain traits in society

4. Extensive civil liberties, up to the point of "if all affected parties agree, its legal".

5. Aid available for financially challenged people, focused on immediate needs food and shelter, and retraining to return to work force. Structured as loans (preferably 0% interest) to be repaid at a later date.


The idea of Darwinism applied on a Social level is to reintroduce some of the basic aspects of nature into society. Namely that the weakest/ least porductive elements get less opportunity on average to reproduce than the more productive/stronger elements.

Have you thought about having a Constitutional convention? You may need your own Constitution for that project.

I subscribe to the ideals embodied in the Constitution our Founding Fathers took such care to produce.

In any event, how do you solve for a natural unemployment rate and the poverty it can engender?

How would your system solve for the hypocrisy of argument ad populum? What if a hypothetical "runt" Sith Lord decides to take over your anarchy and requires the hypocritical use of "inferiors" to do his work? Even the Templars and the Dominicans could not eradicate hypocrisy from the gene pool, during the Dark Ages, when it was holy and moral to burn people at the stake for being "inferior" enough to be sadly lacking in faith.

Yep sure would.

Education, Opportunity, and Example are the only way to allow people to escape longterm poverty. Ultimately there will always be a portion that choose to stay in poverty rather than leave. There will always be a small amount of unemployed as people move between jobs.

Lastly, as the sith are a fictional construct, I'm safe. I don't believe in anarchy, quite to the contrary, Darwinic principles have nothing to do with the form of government. As for the Templars, and Dominican's please post links. As for the burning of people at the stake, to much stigma is attached.

One of the graduates that graduated from the school I work at, now has 9 childeren.

He is 25 with 9 childeren by 9 mothers, and last I checked permenantly unemployed, not because the system failed him, but because despite repeated warnings that the NBA was probably not the only thing he should plan his life around he didn't listen. Now people like you and I have to help pay for his 9 children. Make a case for him being allowed to sire 9 childeren, because I can't come up with one.

I saw on tv a few months a story about a lady, who was dying of breast cancer. Her mother died from it, her sister died form it, her grandmother died from it, her sister had a matectomy. Its in the family genetics.


Darwinistic principles on a societal level say that in both cases the offspring from each individual should be limited. In the first case, he can't provide for his childeren, the mothers couldn't provide for the child. In the second case, their is a clear fault in the genetics, which is not her or her parents fault, but bringing a child into that is only going to pass the fault in the genetics on to the next generation.

Hypocracy is a behavioral trait, not a genetic one, as is lack of faith or belief.


Lastly none of this is about inferiority, its about selecting for the long term good of the society. Everybody should be allowed on child, but no more unless you can afford to support them. That include genetic diseases known to run in the family. Like my sister, in her husband's family run's autism. They rolled the dice twice, and one time they lost.

How would you solve for poverty inducing "natural" unemployment? Consider that under current public policy, anyone "naturally" unemployed could be in poverty for as long as they are unemployed. The argument that it should be an incentive to work harder is specious at best, and based on fallacy at worst since a "natural" unemployment rate precludes full employment of resources in the market for labor. It could be considered a limitation on human potential in the market for labor.

He was being paid to have nine children by welfare, as we currently know it, probably. We wouldn't have that problem with unemployment compensation, at-will, since no one would be paid more if they have more children.

I brought up the point about the Sith Lords only for illustration of the concept. The point about the Templars and Dominicans to illustrate another concept. The latter is part of the historical record.

Darwinism, in my opinion, is incompatible with our social contract (Constitution). Providing for the general welfare implies income transfers. Some income transfers may be for poverty elimination, as in the case of our current and socialized War on Poverty, and the counter-productive but still socialized Wars on Drugs and Terror.

Higher productivity rates with at-will unemployment and its simulated full employment of resources, could produce advances in technology sooner, rather than later. With more money being spent at the individual level, resource allocation would have more metrics to go with, on average.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where unemployment compensation, at-will, is a reality. Since no one could claim official poverty, would we need socialized medicine? We could probably do with an unfettered HSA that provides for tax preferred capital accumulation for health care purposes, including premiums and co-pays. We could be saving those tax dollars that would otherwise be transferred, for truly catastrophic cases that can also help improve our current level of technology in that arena.

Education, opportunity and example.

Short term zero interest loans while the individual hunts for a new job, and in case their previous job is becoming out dated, training into any field that is currently in demand.

Short term, a lack of employment does not produce poverty, or even seriously impact standards of living.

I understand people will use job's, give them the tools to get back into the work force so they can provide for themselves.





I agree that this would have difficulties under the current constitution, if you enact it purely through law. As a social construct, enacted by people by choice, it's entirely acceptable.


Like it or not we will need to begin limiting population growth in the future, darwinistic principles simply are an idea on how to do so. Not necessarily the best, but a method.

I see it as completely compatable with our current constition. The constitutions spells out that the government is responsible for the general welfare of the people, not the welfare of each person. The govt. is under no obligation to concern itself with the poverty of any specific individual, especially if the transfer of wealth is counter to the wellfare of the whole. Further limiting population growth, which may be a necessity in our lifetime is does not run counter to the constitution. Further everything from holding the father responsible for his offspring (child support), to paying for the first born of each family, are fully acceptable under the constitution.

I don't support actively hunting and killing people, only limiting and directing population growth. If society provides everybody with an opportunity, then those that succeed should be encouraged to reproduce the most. First this begins to divide the wealth amongst their offspring, distributing wealth, secondly it allows, almost forces lower wealth families to concentrate their wealth one generation to the next aiding them in moving up the SES ladder over time.


I see no proof that a net increase in productivity would be the result of you at-will unemployment.


Your thinking wrong.

need Food, Shelter, and Medical at a minimum worth an amt. of x+y+z. That is the concept of poverty, those who don't have atleast that are in poverty. If you pay for that with welfare, medicade, and a host of other programs, or if you pay the individual straight up doesn't matter there is alway the minimum x+y+z. You can increase efficiency to decrease overhead, but there is always that minimum amount that must be paid in effort to create the drug, materials to manufacture the drug, storage, shipping, ect. You might improve efficience in the amount of time spent in beauocracy, but that is all you can ultimately save. In effect you have simply transfered the costs elsewhere. The cost is still there its now just wrapped up in the unemployment service.

Great slogan. It would be nice if it worked. What you are advocating is more statism, not less statism. Do you also think a Nanny State should tell you how to spend your money and how to live your life?

I am not referring to short-term unemployment. Most people can get by, even with a lower income, for a short while.

What about people who are officially blacklisted (i.e. subjected to a form of attainder)? How does your scenario solve for that form of induced poverty? Unemployment compensation, at-will, would also solve for that form of poverty.

I disagree that we will Have to begin limiting population growth. We haven't colonized the ocean or our nearby planets yet.

Eliminating official poverty in our republic would be providing for the general welfare and not any specific individual. It would be up to the States to implement those programs, not the federal government.

What about the anecdotal evidence from farm subsidies? It has helped increase productivity to the extent that only two percent of the US population lives on farms, instead of twenty-five percent before subsidies? Another anecdotal example is the cotton gin. It was only made available for Commerce, after free labor was emancipated.

A lower unemployment rate also helps improve wages for those wanting to provide labor input to the economy. (The Lowest Unemployment Rate in 30 Years)

Can you explain your logic better? Try to keep it simple and easy to understand. How is your logic consistent with market based wages?

Let's assume that anyone making market based wages, in the hypothetical I presented, is not in official poverty. Why would anyone not in official poverty need to be provided with shelter, food, or health care by the government?

It is the same principle with unemployment compensation, at-will, that is above the official poverty rate.

If they can not claim to be in poverty, why should we need to bail them out; especially if they are not artificial persons with entire accounting departments to help them comply with rational actor theory?

Your looking at the farming wrong. The coorporations took over farming because it was an opportunity to make money, then they did what was necessary to maximize profits. Subsidizing people not working doesn't produce anything marketable, hence you won't see a major increase in productivity, there is nothing being produced.

I am looking at it from the perspective of less motivated, potential labor market participants opting for unemployment compensation rather than cost an employer money in hiring and training, for someone who may not be as productive as someone who actually wants to work and would be more willing to leave that employment than could be cost effective for that employer.

And its still a non sale. You don't pay someone to do nothing. If they were performing a service other than sitting on their duff that would be different. Come up with something to get them off their duffs and doing something productive for pay and i'm all for it.

Your argument is not very relevant. You are already paying people to do nothing, with less efficient public policies that can be perceived to engender forms of racism, classism, and generational poverty. We also have a War on Poverty. In effect, you are already paying for welfare, as we currently know it, and not solving official poverty in our republic.

On what ethical or moral grounds do you justify your point of view? How do you solve for a "natural" unemployment rate? People on unemployment compensation would be paid a compensation for a lack of employment. This solves for a "natural" unemployment rate. If that compensation is above the official poverty rate, it could also solve for poverty in our republic, in a simpler manner than than our current and inefficient War on Poverty; which does not solve poverty in our republic. We could be lowering our tax burden by reducing that cost of government with more efficient public policy that can actually solve poverty.

But if i had my way there would be no welfare system. Why would I adopt your welfare system if I already don't like the one we've got?

I justify it as self-reliance. If you don't like that too bad. Feel free to try to get your plan enacted into law, but i just don't see many people supporting you.