But mostly, I’d have to say that it is the public/government education that is the biggest cause of public ignorance. If they learned in school just how little the government is able to protect one from fraud the public would look to private companies that either got it right or went under.

This too is part of the Darwinian way that is missing with a force acting from above.

Those who want Social(ist) Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now nationalist government medicine — the voting majority as Stephen calls them — all are greedy.

Who are among the the Greedy?

We have corporatists who want unearned profits without competition and thus seek oligopoly forming laws; farmers who want cash to not work and thus not grow crops; unionists, be them school teachers, government workers or car makers, who want to be paid evermore money for less hours and thus less work performed; welfare collectees of every stripe such as the self-lying “but, but, I paid into Social Security”.

Opposition to free markets is anti-Darwinian in many ways…

He didn’t say it is single payer in disguise, but that it’s a Trojan horse. I think the idea is that the bill will inevitably destroy the insurance market leaving the state as the only payer.

And I’ve always suspected that “Social Darwinism” is a smear term invented by anti-capitalists. To illustrate, can you define what isn’t Social-Darwinistic without proposing massive state interference with the individual?

In any case, I agree that the organizers of a Ponzi scheme are not at all exempt from blame. People are people; when you dangle moneybags in front of our eyes we will grab for them. The victims are not so much to blame for greed as for stupidity. I mean, guaranteed 10% return, come on!

“That leaves the voting majority, whom I do blame.”

The gist of the idea here, if I’m correct, is that majority rule is unconscionable (arguable, but a reasonable opinion), while committing fraud is fine because those who are defrauded should have known better. I’m sure one can see that the latter idea is repugnant and wrong–social Darwinism rearing its ugly head.

Of course, the article leading up to that point isn’t so much better. While I oppose the senate healthcare bill, for example, I wouldn’t spread such a blatantly obvious falsehood, that the bill is somehow “single-payer in disguise.” I guess it has death panels and provides for free gender reassignment surgeries too. Let’s be clear: lying is not a good way to bolster support for one’s argument.

My opinion is decidedly negative about this piece. Mauzy thoroughly squanders the opportunity to inform and explain a coherent position, instead opting for bottom-of-the-barrel rhetoric and misdirection.

Is free market advocacy just social Darwinism in disguise? A casual observer, after reading Mauzy, might say yes.