Why do some people pretend to be utilitarian, when they shouldn't be?

Well, you're hardly going to show anyone it's less bad by saying that more people would die under it than under collectivism. Most people want to live.

But I thought you wanted to get rid of the unfit. It would be much more efficient just to allow the fit to kill them outright than to just hope they starve to death.

 

To advocate Social Darwinism (which has never proven to be a working model), i just can't understand.

In your form of capitalism there would be a very powerful minority, of big business owners and Families, and a poor majority. These Systems are highly unstable and are counterproductive to economic stability and growth. Also social Darwinism seems to exclude human evolutionary traits such as compassion and empathy. Which were probably developed to allow us to build big social groups. It just doesn't make any sense to apply a system that's based on natural selection which produced traits like compassion and empathy, and discard them in that system.

In the end it is in the best long term interest of all to, support the "unfit" elements and allow them to have a dignified life. As long as your workforce has the feeling that they have a chance and lead a decent life, uprisings will be seldom and productivity will probably be higher.

So if you took all social factors in pure capitalism does not work out longterm, because it leads to a Dictatorship of the richest. Living quality will decrease for nearly all layers of society even the top ones because, they need more money and time to keep the workers in their place and protect themself.

 

Actually under extreme collectivism (communism), considering human tendency towards laziness, overall productivity would be low since one's personal efforts wouldn't be rewarded accordingly, and most people would be worse off than in capitalism.

I'm talking about the trade-off between two societies: one is capitalism except for forced charity for the economically unfit (old people, injured people, the mentally challenged, etc.) and the other is pure capitalism without any collectivist policies or forced welfare. In the former, people would have a higher chance of survival, but the average material prosperity of each individual would be less. In the latter, people would have a lower chance of survival, but the average material prosperity of each individual would be higher.

In other words, it's another "security vs. liberty" issue, and some prefer more security, whereas others prefer more liberty.

The economically unfit would be determined by the free market. And when violence starts, it doesn't stop so that would only result in disaster.


But lastly, I'd like to say that I don't hope that some people would starve to death; people who are economically unfit due to being old, injured etc., I'd like to see taken care of. But these young (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags that aren't smart enough to plan ahead and don't focus on anything except whatever pathetic social life they have and whatnot, I would hope, starve and freeze in a long, drawn out miserable death.