> The article author hasn’t figured out that he got to where he is because he was lucky, not because he was special in some way.
It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder.
> Hey author if you are reading this, try doing something positive like help people. Volunteer. Everything you have tried so far has been self-centered.
That sounds like good advice for me, but not to the author. I sometimes follow orders from random people for fun, but I infer that the author does not.
The author traveled off the paved path. Reality gave him with wealth and time, but unsatisfaction instead of satisfaction. His role is now to figure out a path back to satisfaction, perhaps it will be a short path or a long path, a common one or a one the world hasn't seen before.
I think it’s the natural result of someone who has ‘won’ a game they have been obsessing about/that defined them.
People often find a similar lack of purpose (albeit much, much shorter lived) after being engrossed in a book series, very hard video game, or any other pursuit.
The big difference here, IMO, is this is a game that society is literally constructed around - for its own survival. The ‘rat race’ puts food on everyone’s table, provides care when we’re sick, defines what future our children can have (and if we can even have children) - even what rights we have (or don’t have) in many cases.
Is it so surprising that having won that game, some people - often the ones most obsessed with it - struggle to figure out what is next?
I don't know! But I don't think that changes the argument very much. Unless one thinks that we can choose to be smart or a fast learner or have interests that happen to be lucrative, we should be very thoughtful about how we choose to reward people who are successful. This isn't a new or original idea, it's an old debate.
There is an implied collectivism in your statements. The idea that "we choose to reward people who are successful" implies there is a collective with the legitimate authority to make such determinations. I reject this idea. Instead I propose that legitimate authority only exists to create a liberal ecosystem, not to meddle in the outcomes that ecosystem produces. A person's fortune (or misfortune) to be born with particular traits, into a particular childhood environment, is entirely their own. I see no source of legitimacy to redistribute that fortune to other people without explicit consent.
This view makes no sense given any cursory view of history. What about European countries going to the Americas, taking people's land (with out consent) and gold (without consent) to enrich themselves? Or what about the relative success of any tribes in the Americas prior to Europeans showing up by defeating other tribes?
At what arbitrary point would you like to start counting as to where we should start respecting this "consent"? Do you want to undo any previous actions or should we just take whatever arbitrary power structures we've landed on and start? C'mon, this is ridiculous.
We live in a society which, by definition, requires multiple people participating. Your right to consent (or not) sometimes doesn't exist because society takes priority. There is no high philosophy here, it's just the reality of how things work. Get over it.
First of all, I'm not talking about international conflict, where the law of the jungle still effectively applies to this day. I'm talking about domestic liberalism, where ideas like the fundamental equality and the consent of the governed are held to be self-evident. If you disagree with these ideas then I suspect you will be intractable.
> At what arbitrary point would you like to start counting
There is no need to keep count. We are all born into this world with no possessions, and we all negotiate with those already here for everything we come to own. It is true that people and circumstances vary widely, but that doesn't provide legitimacy for one person's claim over another (equal) person's legitimate good fortune.
> We live in a society which, by definition, requires multiple people participating
It is exactly the nature of this participation which I am litigating. I hold that it should be maximally voluntary and consensual. The only justified violation of fundamental liberty is in defense of liberty itself. Drafting people into the army (effectively enslaving them) is justified in direct defense of the nation (not to attack eg. Vietnam). Redistributing legitimate (earned through consensual exchange) wealth by force simply doesn't pass this test.
> There is no high philosophy here, it's just the reality of how things work. Get over it.
Funnily enough this is the exact sort of reasoning has been used to rationalize the most horrific atrocities ever perpetrated.
> First of all, I'm not talking about international conflict, where the law of the jungle still effectively applies to this day.
Then why should we take this seriously? Some huge disparities in outcomes in this world are the consequence of "international conflict". What do you want to do about Native Americans in the USA, for example?
> We are all born into this world with no possessions, and we all negotiate with those already here for everything we come to own.
This is not meaningfully true. If you are born into a rich family, you almost certainly are going to live a life with more access than those who are not. If you are born into a country with socialized medicine you are going to have access to opportunities that someone who isn't does not. We are not born equal in any way that is meaningful.
> It is exactly the nature of this participation which I am litigating. I hold that it should be maximally voluntary and consensual.
It isn't and can't be. Any right of consent you are given in society is society choosing to give you that right. It doesn't exist above society. That's just the breaks.
> Funnily enough this is the exact sort of reasoning has been used to rationalize the most horrific atrocities ever perpetrated.
People find any reason to justify their actions. You'll find a lot of terrible things have justifications that overlap with non-terrible things. It doesn't really say much.
Yes, it does. Or at least that's the line of reasoning you seem to be disagreeing with.
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The entire line of enlightenment liberal thought that gave rise to our society fundamentally disagrees with your position. The right to liberty is not bestowed by the good graces of society, but is fundamental and unalienable.
> That's just the breaks.
This isn't a justification, it's a rationalization, and not a particularly good one. I am arguing that liberty, ie. the right to interact with other people on a consensual basis, ought to be the primary determining factor as to whether any particular action is legitimate. You have not replied with an argument on why this ought not to be.
> It isn't and can't be.
Yes, it can. Or at least, it can be more consensual. I hold that charity is a more ethical means of wealth redistribution than taxation, exactly because of charity's voluntary nature. I also hold that before the New Deal, the status quo was much more liberal. Government was a small entity mostly charged with administering the vital institutions that maintained the liberal order. There were of course still overreaches and failures, as with any human system. Do you really think that tearing down much of the New Deal can't be? I think it can, whether it will remains to be seen.
> You'll find a lot of terrible things have justifications that overlap with non-terrible things.
Then the justifications are wrong. The ends do not justify the means. Legitimate action should be possible to justify from first-principles in a manner that precludes illegitimate action. Otherwise how could we possibly come to an agreement on a distinction between the two? I would also note that the ideas I'm articulating do exactly that: provide a concrete, universalizable framework to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate.
> The entire line of enlightenment liberal thought that gave rise to our society fundamentally disagrees with your position. The right to liberty is not bestowed by the good graces of society, but is fundamental and unalienable
You're quoting a document that is defining what rights it will give to the people. Whatever language you want to add around it can't get past the point that the document is giving rights to people and we as a society are agreeing to follow that document.
And please, this document is written in a time where many of its signers were holding slaves. Clearly not every man was considered equal.
The document does not give any rights to anyone. It is a piece of paper. What it does is describe an idea. The idea is that there are certain unalienable rights. You may disagree with that idea, but you cannot deny its existence.
> many of its signers were holding slaves
I can separate the idea from the people that held it. Can't you? I think this idea of liberty was a very good idea, and I support the expansion of those who qualify to be as free as described. What I'm arguing against is the erosion of the definition. We are not nearly as free now as free people were when the document was written. We are subject to much more authority.
It seems as though in your view, anything "society" does is legitimate, is that so?
My claim, this entire time, is that the reality is that you, as an individual, have no rights to consent or volunteer beyond what society bestows upon you. Your usage of documents from the founding of the United States of America, if anything, entirely support my argument. The Declaration of Independence might talk about equality but the reality is that blacks and women were not equal. It took society choosing to give them rights for them to receive them. That's not an idea, that's the reality. Whether or not you like it or not or think it's a good idea doesn't get in the way of that is what reality is.
> We are not nearly as free now as free people were when the document was written. We are subject to much more authority.
Tell this to a slave in 1776.
> It seems as though in your view, anything "society" does is legitimate, is that so?
No, "legitimate" is a judgement, I'm saying that what society does is what society does and there is no philosophy or higher abstraction defining it. It's just reality. I think if society is functioning in a way we disagree with, our only option is to try to convince enough people to change it. We can use language that tries to define philosophies around consent and individual rights in order to be persuasive but if society doesn't agree then you don't get those things, even if you really think that's how it should work.
It depends wether you believe in determinism. If you do, then everything is just "luck". If you believe that your mind is something special that can come to conclusions truly independently (create information out of thin air) then the consequences of actions are skill or intelligence.
Or whatever. "Luck" is just a dumb concept we humans use to handwave away edge cases.
It does not require believing in determinism to believe a majority of one's outcome is based on context that they do not control. For myself, I didn't choose which country I was born in (I happen to be born in a wealthy country). I also was not born into abusive parents but rather parents who valued science and school. We happened to get a computer early because of my dad's job and I happen to have enjoyed it. That doesn't mean it's a deterministic outcome, but it is chaotic, in the sense that given all these inputs it's not possible to predict the outcome. And small perturbations can have significantly different outputs.
> "Luck" is just a dumb concept we humans use to handwave away edge cases.
Or maybe this view is just people who really want to believe there is something else. What is that something else?
Luck is a combination fortune and the ability to exploit it. We all have examples of the right ideas at the wrong time, as well as serendipity dropping the right circumstances at the right time.
> It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder.
I'm a fast technical learner and builder. I will never be where this guy is, in part because most of my resources are going into keeping myself afloat. I live my life as though "luck" isn't a factor (what's the use in declaring defeat?), but it's certainly not merit that separates the rich from the poor.
> It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder.
There are a lot of really, really, really smart people who never become generationally wealthy. Generational wealth almost always includes either luck, or intentionally heading down a morally reprehensible path.
You’ll have a tough time convincing me the guy who invented loom is smarter than or contributed more to mankind than Nikola Tesla.
Which is probably a perfect example because Edison took the morally reprehensible path.
Your examples are at the extreme end. You can be a fast technical learner or builder which does make you special but not be an inventor or someone who can grok science and systems similar to Tesla / Edison.
Loom != DC or AC electricity its a helpful tool not transformational technology such as electricity.
Op said he got lucky, the response implied he didn’t. My example is extreme because the circumstances of making several hundred million dollars on a startup exit is EXTREMELY rare, and has far more to do with luck than skill.
That sounds true to me. It seems like the CEO is pretty focused on truth.
So maybe he also understands that the US has good reason to tariff and restrict Chinese investment. It is not only for the benefit of the US people, but of the world and the Chinese people. It is not out of emotional fear, but morality and responsibility, which are obviously trans-cultural.
> It's pretty common knowledge that the north koreans are educated to believe that America is an evil empire out to eradicate them and that their leaders are basically god on earth. Similar to the pre-war Japanese indoctrination model. Called Juche. The ideology was purposely designed to keep the population under control.
I think you are taking this "knowledge" at face value too much. The reality of the situation could be that most people don't give a shit and just go along with the local village leaders, who often don't give a shit either. As long as they get to drink some alcohol every weekend who cares.
> north koreans are educated
It's a big assumption to assume that North Korean mass education works that well. If they can't even get everybody to read normal books, how would they get everybody to believe crazy shit about America to the point that most people would actually sacrifice their life.
> If that's not brainwashing I don't know what is.
I agree with you though. The government of North Korea aims to brainwash their citizens, to have a world-view where they prioritize the goals of the government over other things, but it's probably not as effective as people think.
> America is an evil empire
This is objectively not true. I don't know much about the world, but I am confident that America is better than the others. That is the mindset I keep as a good citizen.
> The article author hasn’t figured out that he got to where he is because he was lucky, not because he was special in some way.
It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder.
> Hey author if you are reading this, try doing something positive like help people. Volunteer. Everything you have tried so far has been self-centered.
That sounds like good advice for me, but not to the author. I sometimes follow orders from random people for fun, but I infer that the author does not.
The author traveled off the paved path. Reality gave him with wealth and time, but unsatisfaction instead of satisfaction. His role is now to figure out a path back to satisfaction, perhaps it will be a short path or a long path, a common one or a one the world hasn't seen before.