Bill Lear wrote:
I didn't say you were defending Nazis.
Not directly. It was a rhetorical question implying that my argument amounted to a defense of the Nazis:
So, we should cheer on the Nazis as they exterminate and rampage?
It's a low blow.
You said that a society that lost out to one that is more brutal and aggressive is less "efficient" (your word, not mine). I think that kind of thinking is shallow.
You're entitled to your opinion. In my own opinion though, if efficiency is to mean what economists say it means (ultimately, the optimal use of human life), then a society that cannot defend itself is (say, on average, to allow for the role of chance) less efficient than one that can respond and even prevail. There's absolutely no implication that more virulent or aggressive types of society are superior in some general *moral* sense. That's you attributing something to my argument that is not there. You think that the word confers on the more efficient society (the society more capable of developing the productive force of labor) some sort of moral badge. It doesn't.
