So if liberalism supports ‘Darwinism’ & its whole ‘THEORY’ of evolution, shouldn’t the large segment of a ‘non-working’ population who rely & are ‘dependent’ upon the ‘working’ segment of the population to support & provide for them, fall under the category in Darwin’s ‘THEORY’ having to do with ‘survival of the fittest’?? If we were to go by that reasoning then, how do liberals reconcile that ‘THEORY’ with themselves, when so many apparently either aren’t fit or have no desire to survive on their own & take care of themselves?!? ~Chad Miller~
Advertisements
I read somewhere, sometime, that something like 1 person could perform enough work to feed X number of people. For example if you find 1 person that enjoys the work of farming then he can feed 99 artists, builders, weavers, musicians, philosophers etc. Does that help? These people that have no desire to do anything are depressed, sickened by the machine and it’s propaganda, (they fear they haven’t been kissed lately because they can’t afford Kay Jewlery) The human mind is wired to feel good when a job is completed, people forget that.