5 ms·

"I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertari

"I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for universal social justice." That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents....read some literature from 100 years ago, for example by the Fabians or other socialist writers. This little blasted thing called human nature always seems to screw things up.... Regarding the main point of the OP, I have a counterexample. I have a friend whose career has never taken off, who usually gets fired after a few months, and has never acquired any useful skills beyond blustering self-confidence. Why ? His father is a multi-millionaire who has arranged every job he's had, and bailed him out of every financial difficulty. He's never had to work a day in his life and has absolutely no ambition or drive. That's not saying all rich kids suffer from what you might call the George W. Bush syndrome - but taking away the need to make money can also make people over-confident and lazy.

Maro 16y ago
The point of the OP was IF the rich kid works just like the regular kid, then he'll still be ahead.
- byrneseyeview 16y ago
  One of the reasons people get rich is to provide for their kids. That's a more realistic motive than providing for society as a whole, and a more noble motive than funding hedonism. I wouldn't want to live in a society where rich kids don't have an advantage, because that's a society with either debased rich people or no rich people.
  - david927 16y ago
    "A society where rich kids don't have any advantage" is reductio ad absurdum. No one is talking about that. We're simply talking about meritocracy, which has been the path of progress since the Enlightenment. It in no way debases the rich if Johnny can't get into a top university because his Daddy can't buy his way in.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- eunice_chen 16y ago
  Hard work is very different from skills/talent or luck. The OP is claiming that the rich kid has a different/better personality skill set from the regular kid based on his wealth, and I disagree with that. I believe the rich kid has more opportunities, yes, but I don't believe rich kids are bred to have a better personality to take advantage of those opportunities. Therefore, it falls upon our society which looks at other factors instead of valuing merit for merit's sake. Let's assume the two kids are just as driven as each other, with the rich kids having more opportunities. I do not believe that the rich kid will always have the social skills, technical skills, brains, passion, or dedication to take advantage of those opportunities. The rich kid may be a very mediocre person by merit, but because the regular kid doesn't have access to these opportunities, our society will select the rich kid for this opportunity because he looks good on paper and for lack of other merited kids to pick from. So yes, the rich kid will be ahead PURELY because he had exclusive access to an opportunity or because society wanted to pick a better resume, but NOT because the rich kid has a better skill set or is more well adjusted than the regular kid based on their wealth backgrounds. This disproves the OP's point.
  - jsdalton 16y ago
    I'm not sure you've really disproved anybody's point. Consider that a rich kid's parents will likely spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) on their child's education, on everything from the best preschools to a top prep school to an Ivy League university. Do you really think those schools offer nothing in exchange for all that money, aside from some better social connections and big names on someone's resume? It's very, very difficult to reduce the impact of a lifetime of educational and social advantages down to something like "different/better personality skill set," and I think in doing so you are woefully underestimating what kind of benefits those advantages bring.
    - eunice_chen 16y ago
      I'm not underestimating the benefits of those advantages at all. But those are opportunities bought with money. I know plenty of my peers from Ivy League schools who had the personality/skills to take advantage of everything their private schools and Ivy League upbringing had to offer - studying abroad, discussing with the best professors, etc. But I also know plenty from this same group of peers who have had access to these opportunities but are still softspoken and shy, or nervous when speaking with people, or have insecurity issues, or are elitist snobs who turn people off, so on and so forth. Sure, maybe they took Calculus in high school and have a PHD in whatever metaphysics but does that mean they are better adjusted to take advantage of all the opportunities that money has bought them? In fact, if you have 2 kids, one rich and one average, the rich one being socially ill-adjusted (because his parents were hyper-ambitious) and the average kid being happy-go-lucky, smart, and resourceful (because his parents nurtured his childhood with love and taught him the skills of problem solving and confidence), assuming they had the same opportunities, which do you think would do better in an interview? Obviously I'd like the say the latter, but that then brings up the point of whether society values the better resume and lesser merit or vice versamore.
- tomkarlo 16y ago
  This only works if you can compare a rich kid and a regular kid who had the same opportunities, particularly educational but also in terms of their friends, etc. Otherwise there's no control. Presumably, we spend all this money on education so that it results in more success for the same amount of work later in life. One thing I've noticed, anecdotally: kids who grew up in Manhattan have parents or know parents who were investment bankers, corporate lawyers, etc. This gives them a leg up in getting into those professions over kids whose parents were in more common occupations, if only because they know more about those industries. It has nothing to do with their attitude. I'm guessing that it's no coincidence that lots of successful actors and musicians have successful actor parents, too: Charlie Sheen, anyone?
danssig 16y ago
>That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen. I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".
- zeemonkee 16y ago
  > That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen. Rapidly compared to what ? 1900-1960 arguably saw more significant cultural, technological and political change than 1960-2010. The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime - in fact even they happened before my lifetime, but were not commonplace yet. > I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature". Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so.
  - danssig 16y ago
    >The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off. >Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so. I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might be that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that were overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history taking back our freedoms from the elite few of our day. Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.
    - 16y ago
gadders 16y ago
"Libertarian Socialism"? Best oxymoron ever.
- warrenwilkinson 16y ago
  Its sad how inconstant political terms are. Liberal today implies support for a lot of programs it didn't in Jefferson's time. I don't understand 'anarcho communism' -- wouldn't that be the overthrow of government to establish communism? How is it different than regular communism?
  - rayiner 16y ago
    "Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. Obviously their absolute meaning changes as the median relative to which they are defined changes. As for anarcho-communism, it distinguishes communism involving a strong central authority from communism involving no or decentralized authority.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  Only to those in the U.S. In most of the world, "libertarian" means left-wing, and anti-capitalist.
erikpukinskis 16y ago
[On overthrowing the arbitrary authority:] That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents... On my good days, I think your generation did a pretty good job. And your parents too. The amount of authority that has been overthrown in the last 100 years is pretty staggering. And I think we'll do a good job too. The world is a mess. I widely despise our cultural practices. But I also see that there are armies of brilliant, good people working in the background to turn all of it around. If you're talking total overthrow, then of course... tyranny will always remain. But I think overthrow for the better is a constant, largely monotonic process. And regression (for example, our collective environmental destruction) usually happens because the system is funtional, but unstable... people are living sustainably while living above a massive reservoir of free energy is not actually sustainable, because it's politically unstable. So, while the system might get temporarily less functional (releasing greenhouse gasses), it is getting more stable (burning fossil fuels which are destabilizing materials). Which is to say, I think we are overthrowing these arbitrary destructive structures.

Maro 16y ago

The point of the OP was IF the rich kid works just like the regular kid, then he'll still be ahead.

byrneseyeview 16y ago
One of the reasons people get rich is to provide for their kids. That's a more realistic motive than providing for society as a whole, and a more noble motive than funding hedonism. I wouldn't want to live in a society where rich kids don't have an advantage, because that's a society with either debased rich people or no rich people.
- david927 16y ago
  "A society where rich kids don't have any advantage" is reductio ad absurdum. No one is talking about that. We're simply talking about meritocracy, which has been the path of progress since the Enlightenment. It in no way debases the rich if Johnny can't get into a top university because his Daddy can't buy his way in.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
eunice_chen 16y ago
Hard work is very different from skills/talent or luck. The OP is claiming that the rich kid has a different/better personality skill set from the regular kid based on his wealth, and I disagree with that. I believe the rich kid has more opportunities, yes, but I don't believe rich kids are bred to have a better personality to take advantage of those opportunities. Therefore, it falls upon our society which looks at other factors instead of valuing merit for merit's sake. Let's assume the two kids are just as driven as each other, with the rich kids having more opportunities. I do not believe that the rich kid will always have the social skills, technical skills, brains, passion, or dedication to take advantage of those opportunities. The rich kid may be a very mediocre person by merit, but because the regular kid doesn't have access to these opportunities, our society will select the rich kid for this opportunity because he looks good on paper and for lack of other merited kids to pick from. So yes, the rich kid will be ahead PURELY because he had exclusive access to an opportunity or because society wanted to pick a better resume, but NOT because the rich kid has a better skill set or is more well adjusted than the regular kid based on their wealth backgrounds. This disproves the OP's point.
- jsdalton 16y ago
  I'm not sure you've really disproved anybody's point. Consider that a rich kid's parents will likely spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) on their child's education, on everything from the best preschools to a top prep school to an Ivy League university. Do you really think those schools offer nothing in exchange for all that money, aside from some better social connections and big names on someone's resume? It's very, very difficult to reduce the impact of a lifetime of educational and social advantages down to something like "different/better personality skill set," and I think in doing so you are woefully underestimating what kind of benefits those advantages bring.
  - eunice_chen 16y ago
    I'm not underestimating the benefits of those advantages at all. But those are opportunities bought with money. I know plenty of my peers from Ivy League schools who had the personality/skills to take advantage of everything their private schools and Ivy League upbringing had to offer - studying abroad, discussing with the best professors, etc. But I also know plenty from this same group of peers who have had access to these opportunities but are still softspoken and shy, or nervous when speaking with people, or have insecurity issues, or are elitist snobs who turn people off, so on and so forth. Sure, maybe they took Calculus in high school and have a PHD in whatever metaphysics but does that mean they are better adjusted to take advantage of all the opportunities that money has bought them? In fact, if you have 2 kids, one rich and one average, the rich one being socially ill-adjusted (because his parents were hyper-ambitious) and the average kid being happy-go-lucky, smart, and resourceful (because his parents nurtured his childhood with love and taught him the skills of problem solving and confidence), assuming they had the same opportunities, which do you think would do better in an interview? Obviously I'd like the say the latter, but that then brings up the point of whether society values the better resume and lesser merit or vice versamore.
tomkarlo 16y ago
This only works if you can compare a rich kid and a regular kid who had the same opportunities, particularly educational but also in terms of their friends, etc. Otherwise there's no control. Presumably, we spend all this money on education so that it results in more success for the same amount of work later in life. One thing I've noticed, anecdotally: kids who grew up in Manhattan have parents or know parents who were investment bankers, corporate lawyers, etc. This gives them a leg up in getting into those professions over kids whose parents were in more common occupations, if only because they know more about those industries. It has nothing to do with their attitude. I'm guessing that it's no coincidence that lots of successful actors and musicians have successful actor parents, too: Charlie Sheen, anyone?

danssig 16y ago

>That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen. I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

zeemonkee 16y ago
> That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen. Rapidly compared to what ? 1900-1960 arguably saw more significant cultural, technological and political change than 1960-2010. The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime - in fact even they happened before my lifetime, but were not commonplace yet. > I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature". Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so.
- danssig 16y ago
  >The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off. >Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so. I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might be that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that were overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history taking back our freedoms from the elite few of our day. Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.
  - 16y ago

gadders 16y ago

"Libertarian Socialism"? Best oxymoron ever.

warrenwilkinson 16y ago
Its sad how inconstant political terms are. Liberal today implies support for a lot of programs it didn't in Jefferson's time. I don't understand 'anarcho communism' -- wouldn't that be the overthrow of government to establish communism? How is it different than regular communism?
- rayiner 16y ago
  "Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. Obviously their absolute meaning changes as the median relative to which they are defined changes. As for anarcho-communism, it distinguishes communism involving a strong central authority from communism involving no or decentralized authority.
michaelchisari 16y ago
Only to those in the U.S. In most of the world, "libertarian" means left-wing, and anti-capitalist.

erikpukinskis 16y ago

[On overthrowing the arbitrary authority:] That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents... On my good days, I think your generation did a pretty good job. And your parents too. The amount of authority that has been overthrown in the last 100 years is pretty staggering. And I think we'll do a good job too. The world is a mess. I widely despise our cultural practices. But I also see that there are armies of brilliant, good people working in the background to turn all of it around. If you're talking total overthrow, then of course... tyranny will always remain. But I think overthrow for the better is a constant, largely monotonic process. And regression (for example, our collective environmental destruction) usually happens because the system is funtional, but unstable... people are living sustainably while living above a massive reservoir of free energy is not actually sustainable, because it's politically unstable. So, while the system might get temporarily less functional (releasing greenhouse gasses), it is getting more stable (burning fossil fuels which are destabilizing materials). Which is to say, I think we are overthrowing these arbitrary destructive structures.