3 ms·

I almost downvoted your comment but decided not to, since I don't think it's good to do that just because I disagree with someone. But I see your argument bein

I almost downvoted your comment but decided not to, since I don't think it's good to do that just because I disagree with someone. But I see your argument being repeated a lot, especially by successful people and the owner class, basically the people we think of as the top 10% and the 1%. There are a couple of fallacies with your argument: The first is that you view the unsuccessful as not hard-working enough. This goes back to the dawn of civilization and notions like republicanism (that some are endowed by the creator to be superior at handling matters of power, finance and government so their vote should take priority over the vote of the plebeian/proletariat) and continued up through feudalism and slavery. We still see it today in gerrymandering, voter suppression and the return of nationalism. It's a way to rationalize inequality by focusing on the individual instead of the system. Which brings us to the second fallacy, which is that a person's situation is mostly dependent on individual effort. There are numerous studies indicating that upward mobility is falling in the US and around the world: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-... So that the primary indicators of success today are being born into wealth or living in a wealthy community. Personally, I think we're past a tipping point where wealth inequality is now too large to contain and we're in danger of losing democracy, which could lead to violent revolution and possibly world war III. Short of that, we're looking at the decline and extinction of all threatened species by the end of the century. Concentrated wealth is IMHO the number one threat to civilization and leads to the great problems of our time like underemployment and the failure to address externalities. That said, I do agree that it's better to persevere than to give up.

quotemstr 7y ago
I see your argument a lot more often that mine. Both are very old. This idea that success is random and therefore inequality is unfair also goes back to the dawn of civilization. Nevertheless, in history, it's far more often the brilliant individual than the expansive committee that's driven us forward. Do you really think that each person really is endowed with equal faculties for dealing with money and technology? Is merit an illusion? I just can't accept that. Most non-inherited wealth --- not all, granted --- is deserved. (Inheritance of massive wealth is a problem because it grants unearned power to unproven people.) I think if we'd strictly applied the principles you invoke, our species would have never left the trees.

quotemstr 7y ago

I see your argument a lot more often that mine. Both are very old. This idea that success is random and therefore inequality is unfair also goes back to the dawn of civilization. Nevertheless, in history, it's far more often the brilliant individual than the expansive committee that's driven us forward. Do you really think that each person really is endowed with equal faculties for dealing with money and technology? Is merit an illusion? I just can't accept that. Most non-inherited wealth --- not all, granted --- is deserved. (Inheritance of massive wealth is a problem because it grants unearned power to unproven people.) I think if we'd strictly applied the principles you invoke, our species would have never left the trees.