The modern free-for-all has a lot of people on Xanax because of what Søren Kierkegaard called "the dizziness of freedom". The discussion of whether or not a.. ahem, merger... of this kind should be "allowed" is basically over in about ten seconds: we are all adults and we can purchase these products separately anytime we want. It should certainly be legal for companies to profit off the insatiable suicide-lust of the modern consumer.
But how does our American genome keep up with the on-slaught? Social Darwinism seems to be killing regular Darwinism. The inability to control one's appetite (or smoking, drinking, other life-shortening emotional weaknesses) is not severe enough to kill people before they have kids (especially with healthcare being what it is today). It's only severe enough to kill people while they're kids are still growing up (during an age when parenting is less than stellar).
Okay, so let's say you believe in the free market and have brains enough to know that pizza and cookies should only be purchased together once a year (like, New Years Eve). Your fellow shoppers disagree with you, so the product succeeds. Your fellow shopper dies at age 50 while his many children are ages 6-22. You now have four fatherless kids with a likelihood to spread on the same cluster time-bomb genes, while you--a hardworking, high-IQ'd free market whiz--are probably only having 1 or 2 well-exercised kids who are likely to become president some day. Congratulations, you've won social darwinism with good parenting, work-ethics and intelligence.
Only problem, your son or daughter will be president of nation in crisis. Or they'll be the CEO of a company that can't keep good employees because it can't afford to pay health benefits. Competition is all good and true, but being the top of a genetic/social mass-nightmare is not what our founding fathers had in mind.
BUT WHAT ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?!
It sounds like the left wing are not the only dreaming idealists. You have to realize that when the rules change during the game, there has to be some GROUP responsibility. Doing the best for oneself sometimes means doing a bit of reluctant parenting for the group at large in order that, as a nation, the free market can keep competition alive in a meaningful way. Otherwise, go ahead and keep Red 40 dye available and your brilliant offspring's version of the American Dream will be racking up points in dodgeball against a spectrum of autistic classmates--who some-day, he'll have to take care of just like all the other citizens of the early-cancer, low IQ, shit-genepool American Commonwealth. You think the taxes are shitty now? Wait fifty years when unregulated cellphone towers cause one-in four Americans a malignant tumor by age thirty and the government goes into some crazy emergency tax-triage that makes Obamacare look laissez-faire. (That rhymes, for those of you who are not reading this out loud).
The left and right wings are basically competing modes of idealism who, with some nudges towards the center, may actually start to agree on some legislation that actually WORK. I'm not saying that Nestle should not be allowed to sell their shitty products in tandem, any more than I feel Micky D's shouldn't be allowed to put toys in their happy meals. But it just gets you thinking about what a transcendent decision it would be for a successful company like Nestle to publicly retract this product line as an attempt to take a small part in social evolution.
Because isn't that what social darwinism is really all about?
Comments