Dalio seems to assume that, since nature follows certain physical laws, those laws must be morally good. Thus he says that natural selection must be a good thing in society.
Being a proponent of natural selection, non-interference and laisser-faire is inconsistent, because who can be against protecting the innocent from injustice or healing the sick?
To give a simpler summary: nature rules by natural selection. But, once natural selection has created minds, these minds should be governed by a different set of rules: one that requires us to protect weak or marginalized people.
A related argument is this one: the laws of physics cannot, in a sense, be the source of the laws of morality. This is because the laws of physics are (by nature) inviolable -- you can never really "disobey" them. But moral laws are (by nature) able to be broken.
Edit: Aristotle disagreed with this latter argument: he thought that final causes were both causes of physical events and the source of moral rules. But this conception of physics has been (almost entirely) displaced by the modern scientific method.
I think the best counterargument comes from Lester Frank Ward, writing about Social Darwinism: http://www.nlnrac.org/critics/social-darwinism/documents/min...