I think it all comes from the pre-Darwinian ideas of the Declaration of Independence.
"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ... endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."
Back in those days, the Laws of Nature seemed a bit different. More benign and rational. So we can figure the right way to behave based on the way Nature is organised.
In the aftermath of Darwin, Nature looked a lot like a brutal survival competition. The sort of thing that someone like Hitler might emulate. At least, this is what social Darwinism came to mean. The great man (Darwin, not Hitler, of course) himself was a little more nuanced, I believe. But the world wanted to see things in black and white: the weak must die, because nature tells us it is so.
Nowadays, people like Lynn Margulis have promoted a more variegated model of nature, with competition and predation still in place; but also mutual cooperation and other convivial relationships as part of the mix, along with some mutual death grip relationships as well.
Nature? Well, humans try to soften her hard edges in order to avoid aspects of her random brutality. But they also see that elements of altruism are actually efficient. And that society also contains many sorts of relationship.
So for instance, someone like Romney made his career as a parasite on larger businesses with a broad balance sheet, while sucking the cashflow out of them through his proboscis.
I think the folks who hearken back to Jefferson's views of Natural Law are either romantic or ignorant. Which is also what we might say about the folks who rely upon Ayn Rand in modelling how human societies should operate.
Which brings me back to Paul Ryan.
| 