Tragedy

When the feelings gone and you can't go on?

(Unless it's an Ubuntu car, in which case it will have a colorful and animated dashboard that will completely change form twice a year.)

And they'll change the order of the pedals.

Capitalism is an economic equivalent to Darwin's survival of the fittest. There are merits to this, despite the corruption.

This is repeated ad nauseum as an excuse for the excesses of capitalism at the expense of everything else. The suggestion is of the 'survival of fittest' (not a phrase Darwin ever used) and a fight to the death with every one for themselves. Sure. Capitalism can mimic that, but it's not an 'ideal' by any stretch of the imagination. Darwinism is associated with explosions, crashes and extinctions of entire species, communities and populations.

Unsuprisingly, Darwinian models are applied to economics as a glorified regulator of companies - not individuals, families and communities that just as equally 'survive' on the existence of these companies. Is a company going out business, that in turn destroys family livelihood, community and in some cases entire towns, dismissable as just 'survival of the fittest'? Evolution? If your answer is yes, you're basically a sociopath.

The advantage we have over evolution or nature is the ability to see and predict events in advance of when they happen. We should use it. Evolution is completely reactive - and as a result over and under compensates and bears the brunt. We have a choice. We can do better.

We are not 'Darwinian' except through negligence.

Statistically, a child born to a family that earned money is more likely to also be successful -- it's in their genes.

That is the biggest I have ever seen. You say 'statistically' so I assume you have some numbers? 'In their genes?' 'Mutants?!' ...you're really not a biologist are you.

So if we've decided to instead build rambling arguments on vague assumptions here are a couple of my own...
1) people born from rich families have less incentive to work harder
2) people from poor families have less opportunities to access well paid jobs or education

So 'Statistically' it would make sense to provide considerably more money to individuals from poor backgrounds - since the combination of greater incentive and better (provided) funding would result in better results.

I mean 'Statistically' as in 'talking out my ass'.

There are those who are homeless in America by choice.

You mean, psychiatric patients for which there is inadequate support? Yes. I've seen a lot of those on the streets in America.

Or individuals who have suffered abuse in the poorly regulated and underfunded state welfare system? Yes, lots of those too.

But you're right... they prefer it like that. I assume you've spoken to them too?

Uh, you realize that even in communist Russia, where it was a crime to be homeless, and housing was provided for free, there were still homeless people?

Good point! If a systemically poor and inefficient country can't solve a problem like homelessness what hope does the United States of America have?

[ That reads like sarcasm, but I assure you it's not ]

I think you mean 'neither'.

Most people are just not that interesting.

Quite right. It needs healthy people.

The intentional re-interpretation of the word militia to Nerf the right to keep and bare arms (the bare part is so ignored now)

That would be the right to own a castle and wear t-shirts right?