On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Christopher Susi wrote:
> No, what I am implying is that if I posted this message to a mailing list of
> capitalists and advocated "Fuck the poor" the response would be "Right on!"
> Besides it was a joke (hence the "<SNIX>" next to the comment).
>
> And why is it wrong? Just because we can grasp the concept of "sharing" why
> is it wrong if we don't? I have two units of water, another person has no
> water. They die. Because they are human makes it more "wrong" than if they
> were an animal, a plant, or a bacterium? At least if I keep the animal or
> plant alive I could kill it later for food or the plant gives of oxygen for
> me, and hence the circle of life continues.
>
> There may be a benefit (if we were stranded on a desert isle) having another
> human for company and assistance that would make my chance of survival
> greater. However this isn't the case. The only benefit I get out of
> keeping another human alive is the alieviation of some form of 'guilt' in
> my mind brought on by the indoctrinated into me during my formative years by
> a liberal school system and religious institutions.
>
What, is this some kind of pathetic troll? Color me caught, but I can't resist: even evolutionary psychologists argue that affiliation and altruism among blood kin are compatible with the idea of the "selfish gene". How am I going to survive and reproduce if I keep all the stuff for myself and everybody else starves? A species wouldn't survive very long if the mentality discussed above were a reflection of human nature.
I think somebody's been spending a little too much time in the libertarian newsgroups . . .
Miles