[maskedmelon]

Ideology is the death of free thought. Those who profess ideological adherence enjoy relevance inversely proportional to the number of drones advocating the same idea. That does not mean we should ignore old ideas. To the contrary, we should question all ideas, including our own, equally.

Socialism is not without rational merit, though contemporary proponents are generally disinclined to fully embrace the core principle that enables it: denial of liberty. If a state is to assume the responsibility of caring for its citizenry it must do so selectively if it is to succeed. Just as excellence acts as a vacuum on resources in a free market, failure acts the same in a system of redistribution.

Failure is endemic, cultural, untreatable, but not without a highly viable survival strategy: multiplicity. Unchecked subsidy of failed conditions necessarily results in more of those conditions, increasing the inefficiency of redistribution until the system is no longer sustainable.

Societies and markets must necessarily be regulated if they are to remain free from the inevitable ascent of excellence though. The success of individuals operating at two or more standard deviations beyond the mean is staggering relative to the mean.

Limiting success is necessary as a matter of prudence due to the scarcity and best use of resources. No matter how astute one may be in a given field, they are not so in all fields, nor are their talents nor inspirations within said fields absolute. For these reasons among others, devoting all resources or even a majority (as they would surely enjoy within a competitive environment) is unreasonable.

Similarly, individuals operating below the mean and unable to adequately care for themselves enjoy success at a radically lower level than those at the mean. Ordinarily nature would cull such individuals from the population at a disproportionate rate. An equally disproportionate birth rate in addition to the compassion of and utility for their fellow man is why such individuals have endured to this day.

In a modern society many natural hazards are removed, though the same individuals are plagued by other hazards such as illicit substances, inadequate healthcare, unsafe/unstable employment, etc. which serve to fill a small part of nature's regulation. Even without subsidy, such individuals enjoy inordinate proliferation in modern society, decreasing mean performance as they assume an ever larger share of the population.

This does not mean that low functioning individuals must necessarily be purged from society, rather that there is a rational argument for limiting their proliferation just as their is for limiting the success of high functioning individuals.


Is any of this right though?