An Evolutionary Perspective of Why Social Spending Fails

In this Hub I propose the idea that human economic relationships form an ecosystem. The application of the word 'ecosystem' is meant to imply that these relationships have evolved and are dependent on the rules of evolution. Although evolution has been applied to explain how life forms evolve it is actually a more generalizable process. It is based on a notion from physics called 'stability'. Once we see that evolution applies to our economic systems we can then see why liberalism fails. Liberalism imposes constraints that interfere destructively with natures natural processes. In so doing the economic ecosystem is harmed by social engineering schemes. We will apply the principles of evolution to understand clearly why social spending fails and produces unexpected negative consequences such as corruption and economic decline.

As examples we could cite the money given to African nations that then get poorer. Or we could cite the American Welfare State with all its devastating consequences for the very people it was designed to assist.  For documentation of some of these effects on black people in America see:  The NAACP's Unhealthy Tea Party Obsession

One could argue that the welfare state was really only cynically devised by the elites to benefit themselves.  We can at least say that the only class to benefit was the elites while the social fabric or our nations lower socioeconomic classes has suffered dramatically.  More complete documentation of the failures of social spending is a topic for another article. In this article I want to explain why all the good intentioned programs end up failing. I want to explain why it is indeed a universal principle that they do fail no matter how good the intentions and how well thought out the programs are. If we ever could have the ideal social state complete with social planners and no corruption free to implement the principal of government induced equality: it would fail.

So what is the big idea? Why do the programs fail? The answer to this in my opinion evades the vast majority. To understand the failure we need to look at how nature operates.  So hold on for the next paragraph or so learning takes a bit of work but it won't be too painful.  First we will define stability and explain what it has to do with evolution.  Stability for our purposes can be defined as a state that is not easily changed.  It is a bit of a relative notion.  For example, a marble sitting on the edge of a bowl is not stable it will tend to roll off in either direction - into or out from the bowl.  However, if the marble rolls into the bowl it enters a stable state.  Stability is an important concept to understand as it is the basis of evolution.  Nature tends towards stable states and stable states are by definition those that persist or remain constant.

The next important idea is that of order.  A rectangular lattice of atoms is ordered while the same atoms say in a molten state are disordered.  Now we can see that order and stability are related. If a state is ordered it is more stable: It persists through time.  While if a state is unordered it usually changes quickly.  But if nature tends towards stable systems this means it tends towards ordered states.  But ordered states are what make our world interesting.  A clock is well ordered a collection of its parts disassembled is not so well ordered.  Nature discovers order in its search for stability.  Now what does this have to do with evolution?  In evolution organisms are examples of ordered stable states.  That is a big generalization not commonly heard but it is what is going on.  A successful organism perpetuates itself through replication the ultimate act of stability copying your state to previously unordered atoms.  Whether we see this or not it is irrelevant except for our better understanding.  What is relevant are some of the specifics of the evolutionary process.  

Evolution we all know rewards success and punishes failure. By so doing successful traits emerge and failed ones disappear. As a simple example: if a given species of bird can fly farther and faster it may gain a competitive advantage versus another species. Once a successful trait say lighter stronger bones is evolved nature rewards it by letting that species increase in numbers and niche locations. To get back to my idea on order and stability the species with the evolved trait is now more stable. It replicates its structure with greater success and this is the greatest form of stability: not only maintaining your state but replicating it.

Now everything in nature is evolved and everything in nature is subject to the rules of evolution.  Like them or not.  Imagine if we were to interfere with an evolutionary system.  Say we take birds: Osprey.  Lets take the fish away from an Osprey that catches one and give it to an Osprey that can't.  What would happen if we continue doing this with the best intentions of keeping all the Osprey well fed?  Well over the course of a few million years of doing this Osprey would no longer catch fish!  In fact they might learn rather quickly to sit and wait for the free fish rather than to put the effort into catching one only to have it stolen away.   Now many say it sounds cruel to reason this way, they use big words like 'social Darwinism' but in fact if we continue in our plan of redistributing fish then soon (in evolutionary time) all the Osprey will all be starving.  Either that or they will become as a species perpetually dependent on hand outs soon unable to even digest their food without assistance.

The implications of this reasoning are rather obvious which is why the communists try to deny evolutionary reasoning.  The modern left takes the point of view that either: A: it can 'manage' nature, or B: it can simply parasite off of nature.  What do I mean by this?

A: The left thinks it can intercede and bring about social equality in situations where it does not exist in nature.  Or B: the left simply takes from those that produce and accepts the parasitical niche situation they have created. 

But can the left manage nature?  It is a bit ironic as many on the left speak of the complex web of life as something that will immediately cataclysmically collapse if there is the slightest interference.  Meanwhile it is they who have the greatest plans of all to intercede and centrally manage highly evolved and delicate economic ecosystems.  Actually nature is quite robust and puts up with a lot.  The meddling of the left, however, is particularly destructive because they deny precisely the evolutionary principle:  They inevitably punish success and reward failure in order to bring about externally imposed 'equality'.  It must be pointed out that equality has been shown to decrease in socialist systems another dramatic illustration of the failure of liberal principles.

So we see now the reason for the failure of all social redistribution plans.  They inherently reward failure and punish success.  By punishing success by taking money from the productive, then the trait of success now has less incentive to occur in nature, and by rewarding failure by giving money to those who cannot independently sustain themselves, then the trait of failure has more incentive to occur in nature.  This is what leads to the usually devastating unintended consequences of left wing programs.  Note: I do not intend to make the fallacy of assuming that the left actually redistributes wealth.  It is well documented that they retain the lions share for themselves.  However, if the left was not corrupt and if they did actually redistribute wealth instead of dividing in among their elites then by what we could call the evolutionary principle this would create ultimately even greater suffering.  This is a principle that must be kept track of: social redistribution schemes even if not done corruptly increase dependency and ultimately mans suffering.

Another less 'evolutionary' way of looking at it is to notice that the left through their social redistribution schemes remove capital from those that are producing useful goods and services and give it to those that are not.  This can rapidly undermine a 'fragile' economic ecosystem.  By removing capital from the productive sector the left reduces production.  This inevitably harms the poor in a given society and is why we always hear the constant lament that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In fact this is caused by well intentioned social spending. 

Were those on the left to evolve their ideas and understand that mans economic systems are actually delicately evolved ecosystems then they might better manage the systems that they wish to control.  Let's hope this does not happen as social engineering is inherently evil even if it works!  But the reason for that is the topic for another article.  Hope this article finds you better able to understand the failures of the left.