…he viewed human culture and human societies as progressing through fierce competition. Provided that policymakers do not take foolish steps to protect the weak, those people and those human achievements that are fittest — most beautiful, noble, wise, creative, virtuous, and so forth — will succeed in a fierce competition, so that, over time, humanity and its accomplishments will continually improve.
Hmm…so the most beautiful, wise, creative and virtuous will rise to the top and will use their infinite talents to benefit the society as a whole? Furthermore, the proposition rests on the idea that those who rise to the top will do so on their own merits without the aid of society or its collective benefits?
While it is true that many great men and women achieve such heights without the aid of welfare or food stamps, they don’t often do so without the assistance of government subsidized education or other such public goods. It is naive to assume that any citizens can make it big without some help from our society at large? And if not, why do we continue to demonize those who use all the benefits available to them instead of only some?