I like to believe that this is a question of where you put your priorities.
Individuals can choose their place in society, (it takes effort, and
realization of the choice) and exercise their influence on that part of
life, which is beyond the control of other individuals. Likewise others
excersise their influence on other parts of life.
You can influence the other parts of life by spending resources (not just
money) on individuals or organisations which you believe support your
interests in a certain part of your life which is beyond your direct
control. In a free market solution, the individual decides where those
resources go, rather than having someone (a state) decide it for you.
The 50% of the gnp that the governement of the Netherlands (your country,
my ex-country) spends for its subjects, may have a more positive influence
on standards of living (for all), when it's left to the individuals to
decide how to spend.
Free capitalism doesn't have a solution for everything, i personally
believe it cannot work without an increase in education standards. But i
see how one could trigger the other...
>Of course in a true 'Darwinian Economy' optimising use of resources would
>mean elimination all non-productive individuals
I think the main difference between a Darwinian economy and a possible
extropian or transhuman economy is the option for nearly limitless
expansion, that technology offers (more efficient use etc). Where a
Darwininian economy, like Malthus' for instance looks at resources with a
strong limit to their nature, disregarding the human intellect.
Also, define a non-productive individual. If you don't look for food, you
don't eat. If you can't find a way to get food yourself, you rely upon
others to provide you with it. (children do, physically and mentally
challenged do, the poor do).
Who's judgement in reasons for providing someone in need do you trust more
? The judgement of Individuals, or the judgement of a beurocratic, (rusty,
deaf, blind, slow,) system that doen't *feel* it when parting with
resources, when it has to judge the reason to provide others with it ?
Also who would eliminate non-productive individuals ? Those who are
receiving benefits today justly, would surely find kind souls to provide
them with resources in a free market society. Those who recieve it
unjustly, would be smart enough to understand that they perish if they
don't become productive. The opinions about justly and unjustly, differ
from individual to individual. Let those individuals share their resources
according to their own ethical values, not forced upon them by a state that
uses the largest part of the money it takes (justified mainly by that
redistribution of wealth, and some sort of mythical nationalist awareness
btw...), for continuing its own inefficient powerstructure.
The individual needs to take his own responsabilities. To insure ones
security, there are many alternative voluntary ways (insurance companies,
but also labor unions and non-profit organisations). Having a state decide,
is an involuntary way.
Resources make more resources, when combined with human
information/knowledge/ intellect/technology, and if you extend that, you
can see how this could work for everyone, and every part of society. And
that rusty old powerstructures form more of an obstacle, than a possible
conductor.
Joost de Lyser.
Brussels.