Really, Mr. Chait, Really?

Consider two passages.  First, a definition:

Social Darwinism is a belief, pop inward the belatedly Victorian era inward England, America, together with elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should travel together with flourish inward society, patch the weak together with unfit should live allowed to die.

Second, a declaration nigh world policy:

Public goods together with Pigovian subsidies Pb naturally to a taxation organization inward which higher income individuals pay to a greater extent than inward taxes. Surely, those amongst higher income together with greater belongings produce goodness to a greater extent than from a governmental organization that protects belongings rights. Moreover, the monetary value attached to other world goods (such equally parks together with playgrounds) together with to positive-externality activities (such equally basic research) real probable rises amongst income equally well. Indeed, if the income elasticity of need for these services exceeds one, equally is plausible, a progressive taxation organization is perfectly consistent amongst the Just Deserts Theory.

What nigh transfer payments to the poor? These tin give notice live justified along similar lines. As long equally people assist nigh others to some degree, antipoverty programs are a type of world good. [Thurow 1971] That is, nether this view, the authorities provides for the pathetic non only because their marginal utility is high but because nosotros possess got interdependent utility functions. Put differently, nosotros would all similar to alleviate poverty. But because nosotros would prefer to possess got someone else selection upwardly the tab, private charity can’t produce the job. Government-run antipoverty programs solve the free-rider work amid the altruistic well-to-do.

Now hither is the question: Is the mortal who wrote the instant passage a Social Darwinist equally defined inward the kickoff passage?

I intend the answer is pretty clearly NO.  But nonetheless, Jonathan Chait calls me a Social Darwinist, citing equally bear witness the paper from which the instant passage inward a higher house is taken.  True, he quotes a dissimilar passage from that paper, but ane would think a prominent journalist similar Mr. Chait would read the entire newspaper together with characterize the arguments fully before throwing closed to a pejorative similar "Social Darwinist."
Sumber http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/