6 ms·

Very interesting article. I see someone who won the lottery. They have built a huge house and family, based on the single skill of showing up for work, and havi

Very interesting article. I see someone who won the lottery. They have built a huge house and family, based on the single skill of showing up for work, and having the right father. While this happens, this person thinks it is thier right, and they will fight politically with every ounce, wrecking whatever institutions and future health of the political system, to keep the privleges they inherited. No sense of altruism or giving back, just keeping what is theirs, justified as there is a child invoked. The profile is very insightful, but depressing, as how can we have anything but a selfish fight of selfish people, is that what democracy devolves to?

dredmorbius 7y ago
What lotteries might you have won?
- crooked-v 7y ago
  I feel like you're trying to reach for some sort of 'gotcha' here, but there isn't one. The parent comment's point is that people should be aware of when they've gotten lucky and be able to engage with the world when that luck finally runs out (or, at least, engage with politics that can realistically preserve some of that luck).
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    We've all won considerable lotteries just in being alive. One out of 100 million sperm, avoiding perinatal death, a nurturing family, household, community, country, "choosing the right parents", a locally advantageous ethnic or tribal status, well-functioning social institutions (especially healthcare, education, general safety, law and justice, sanitation and infrastructure, environmental protections, clean water, safe food0, an encouraging relative, neighbour, teacher, mentor, or boss (vs. the opposite), a healthy or growing economy, personal talent, temperament, or skill, happening to get interested in a hot topic or subject, access to labour markets, access to entrepreneurial markets, suportive labour, professional, or entrepreneurial institutions, a social safety net, physical appearance, mental health. These and many other factors have a high element of luck. Absence of any one can prove a tremendous (though not necessarily unsurmountable) handicap. But, and this is key: dashed expectations, even where born of a lottery, can become huge personal and societal problems. The stages and processes of grief: denial, bargaining, anger, depression, acceptence, are born from a dramatic shear in expectations.[1] (Differences across social groups, as in racism, are a related phenomenon, though different in that it is distenctions among- rather than within-groups but over time, that are involved.) Writ large over society such disapointments can be exceedingly potent forces, particularly politically. Discover your own lottery card(s) overpromised and underdelivered, you'll likely feel similarly. The exectations set up through cultural mythos can prove to have a tremendous downside debt of ther own; "rugged individualsm", "self-sufficiency", "meritocracy", "American dream", "technological progress", "free markets", "manifest destiny", "self-made (wo)man", etc. All of these have fascinating, if not widely known, ideological foundations. And historical literature on each often shown sharp, if buried, contemporary criticism. ________________________________ Notes: 1. Kübler-Ross's initial research is notable. The precipitating event wasn't loss of a loved one, but notification of the subject's own imminent mortality. A dramatic shift in worldview.
threatofrain 7y ago
IMO that's what happens when you have democracy but we're not all in the same boat (or maybe this happens to any nation when people aren't in the same boat). We'll always have selfish individuals, but why do we have selfish peoples? That must mean clannism is still a great strategy.
mises 7y ago
> built a huge house and family Is this a bad thing? He lives in a small town where land is cheap. Raising kids is bad? I'd call it one of the most altruistic things a man can do, if done well. There are enough deadbeat or abusive dads; creating more people and giving them good lives is certainly giving back. "Keeping what is theirs"? I think this guy lived a pretty modest life. What institutions is he wrecking? What political systems? I'm getting the impression you were raised in a rather cushy life. I did not grow up in a rural area such as this, but I have close friends and family members who did. It's tough, even if you've got a steady job. Many people in such communities have friends or loved ones with substance abuse problems. Why are you being so unsympathetic? > a selfish fight of selfish people, is that what democracy devolves to? It depends. I think we used to draw morality and altruism from churches, but that has gradually disappeared and nothing has replaced it. We either need a resurgence of religion or some kind of replacement. It's not for nothing that Jefferson wanted a republican society of the yeoman farmer.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure the parent post's point isn't that raising kids or building a house is a bad thing. The bad thing is the presumption that this one job must last forever, and the eager engagement with politics that can't actually preserve that job based on soundbites from a man who contradicts himself every five minutes.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  > I'm getting the impression you were raised in a rather cushy life. I did not grow up in a rural area such as this... IMO talking like this just gets into the distracting consideration of whether someone has suffered enough to talk about suffering.
- hinkley 7y ago
  Imagine for a moment you live in a capitalist society. If the land around you is cheap, that's a red flag about the value of that land. If you have information others don't that makes the land much more valuable to you (anything from minerals, to perfect growing conditions for some valuable plant, to just being a good spot to build a wildlife sanctuary), then you're in luck. But if it's good land but otherwise cheap it's because the smart money already left. This spot is too far away from infrastructure, the area is hostile to certain people/industries, or there is high risk because there is one large employer/industry in the area and the economy will collapse like a house of cards if that industry has a downturn. This is one of the ways I think capitalism fails us. Economies of scale push us to have two or three large providers of product X, globally, but from a town's perspective they would be more resilient if they had numerous 'large' employers in different enough industries that they only all suffer in a recession, but not so different that people can't retrain.
SongOfSeikilos 7y ago
I fully believe that you are speaking with best intentions, but I do not understand how you can ask a man to not fight to survive.
hinkley 7y ago
He believes he is entitled because he believes he is living the American Dream. "The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it." - Carlin
iq-thrower1 7y ago
Being able to own a house and raise a small family should be something that the majority of people can attain. It shouldn't be like "winning the lottery" but it can seem that way for younger people, including myself. The guy profiled has one child, who is disabled. The article describes his house as a "big house in the woods", but looking at the picture of their kitchen it is clearly not very "huge" and very far from the kitchens you'd see on HGTV. And the fixtures are 10+ years old. I think heart-stirring profiles of people as examples of political and social issues are usually not good journalism, but maybe a benefit is that people could humanize whoever the boogeyman of the day is. This guy deserves some flak for putting his whole identity into his job and for believing too much in various political dei ex machina that promised to let him keep it, but "selfish" and "wrecking institutions"?

dredmorbius 7y ago

What lotteries might you have won?

crooked-v 7y ago
I feel like you're trying to reach for some sort of 'gotcha' here, but there isn't one. The parent comment's point is that people should be aware of when they've gotten lucky and be able to engage with the world when that luck finally runs out (or, at least, engage with politics that can realistically preserve some of that luck).
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  We've all won considerable lotteries just in being alive. One out of 100 million sperm, avoiding perinatal death, a nurturing family, household, community, country, "choosing the right parents", a locally advantageous ethnic or tribal status, well-functioning social institutions (especially healthcare, education, general safety, law and justice, sanitation and infrastructure, environmental protections, clean water, safe food0, an encouraging relative, neighbour, teacher, mentor, or boss (vs. the opposite), a healthy or growing economy, personal talent, temperament, or skill, happening to get interested in a hot topic or subject, access to labour markets, access to entrepreneurial markets, suportive labour, professional, or entrepreneurial institutions, a social safety net, physical appearance, mental health. These and many other factors have a high element of luck. Absence of any one can prove a tremendous (though not necessarily unsurmountable) handicap. But, and this is key: dashed expectations, even where born of a lottery, can become huge personal and societal problems. The stages and processes of grief: denial, bargaining, anger, depression, acceptence, are born from a dramatic shear in expectations.[1] (Differences across social groups, as in racism, are a related phenomenon, though different in that it is distenctions among- rather than within-groups but over time, that are involved.) Writ large over society such disapointments can be exceedingly potent forces, particularly politically. Discover your own lottery card(s) overpromised and underdelivered, you'll likely feel similarly. The exectations set up through cultural mythos can prove to have a tremendous downside debt of ther own; "rugged individualsm", "self-sufficiency", "meritocracy", "American dream", "technological progress", "free markets", "manifest destiny", "self-made (wo)man", etc. All of these have fascinating, if not widely known, ideological foundations. And historical literature on each often shown sharp, if buried, contemporary criticism. ________________________________ Notes: 1. Kübler-Ross's initial research is notable. The precipitating event wasn't loss of a loved one, but notification of the subject's own imminent mortality. A dramatic shift in worldview.

threatofrain 7y ago

IMO that's what happens when you have democracy but we're not all in the same boat (or maybe this happens to any nation when people aren't in the same boat). We'll always have selfish individuals, but why do we have selfish peoples? That must mean clannism is still a great strategy.

mises 7y ago

> built a huge house and family Is this a bad thing? He lives in a small town where land is cheap. Raising kids is bad? I'd call it one of the most altruistic things a man can do, if done well. There are enough deadbeat or abusive dads; creating more people and giving them good lives is certainly giving back. "Keeping what is theirs"? I think this guy lived a pretty modest life. What institutions is he wrecking? What political systems? I'm getting the impression you were raised in a rather cushy life. I did not grow up in a rural area such as this, but I have close friends and family members who did. It's tough, even if you've got a steady job. Many people in such communities have friends or loved ones with substance abuse problems. Why are you being so unsympathetic? > a selfish fight of selfish people, is that what democracy devolves to? It depends. I think we used to draw morality and altruism from churches, but that has gradually disappeared and nothing has replaced it. We either need a resurgence of religion or some kind of replacement. It's not for nothing that Jefferson wanted a republican society of the yeoman farmer.

crooked-v 7y ago
I'm pretty sure the parent post's point isn't that raising kids or building a house is a bad thing. The bad thing is the presumption that this one job must last forever, and the eager engagement with politics that can't actually preserve that job based on soundbites from a man who contradicts himself every five minutes.
threatofrain 7y ago
> I'm getting the impression you were raised in a rather cushy life. I did not grow up in a rural area such as this... IMO talking like this just gets into the distracting consideration of whether someone has suffered enough to talk about suffering.
hinkley 7y ago
Imagine for a moment you live in a capitalist society. If the land around you is cheap, that's a red flag about the value of that land. If you have information others don't that makes the land much more valuable to you (anything from minerals, to perfect growing conditions for some valuable plant, to just being a good spot to build a wildlife sanctuary), then you're in luck. But if it's good land but otherwise cheap it's because the smart money already left. This spot is too far away from infrastructure, the area is hostile to certain people/industries, or there is high risk because there is one large employer/industry in the area and the economy will collapse like a house of cards if that industry has a downturn. This is one of the ways I think capitalism fails us. Economies of scale push us to have two or three large providers of product X, globally, but from a town's perspective they would be more resilient if they had numerous 'large' employers in different enough industries that they only all suffer in a recession, but not so different that people can't retrain.

SongOfSeikilos 7y ago

I fully believe that you are speaking with best intentions, but I do not understand how you can ask a man to not fight to survive.

hinkley 7y ago

He believes he is entitled because he believes he is living the American Dream. "The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it." - Carlin

iq-thrower1 7y ago

Being able to own a house and raise a small family should be something that the majority of people can attain. It shouldn't be like "winning the lottery" but it can seem that way for younger people, including myself. The guy profiled has one child, who is disabled. The article describes his house as a "big house in the woods", but looking at the picture of their kitchen it is clearly not very "huge" and very far from the kitchens you'd see on HGTV. And the fixtures are 10+ years old. I think heart-stirring profiles of people as examples of political and social issues are usually not good journalism, but maybe a benefit is that people could humanize whoever the boogeyman of the day is. This guy deserves some flak for putting his whole identity into his job and for believing too much in various political dei ex machina that promised to let him keep it, but "selfish" and "wrecking institutions"?