Scarcity, Capitalism, Social Darwinism

Examples of natural Scarcity include not only extreme cases, like drought, but any occasion in which there is not enough of a vital good for everybody.  Familiar examples of artificial Scarcity include most sporting events, in which the number of participants exceeds the number of prizes, and often in which the number of target areas, e. g. goals, baskets, etc., exceeds the number of balls, pucks, etc., in play.  Now, as has been previously discussed, Scarcity arises in Market Exchange when each side is seeking to maximize profit.  So, if Profit-Maximization is a natural instinct, then, so, too, is that Scarcity, as is the struggle to resolve the conflict that might ensue.  But, Capitalists, starting with Smith, have taken that status for granted from the outset, without explaining how Profit-Maximization is related to a more generally accepted as natural instinct like Self-Preservation, or how Profit-Maximization is distinct from Greed, which is widely recognized as a diseased condition.  Now, their failure to better ground their thesis has consequences for a doctrine that presupposes it.  For, Social Darwinism defends winner-take-all Capitalism as an instance of the Evolutionary principle, Survival of the Fittest.  But, the latter entails natural Scarcity, so, if Scarcity in the former is as artificial as it is in, say, football, then the classification 'Darwinism' does not apply.  The doctrine is thereby exposed as Ideology masquerading as Necessity.