4 ms·

I'll paraphrase some of my other comment to explain why I think that "individualism" is somewhat of a red herring. Unless you live in a self-sufficient homeste

I'll paraphrase some of my other comment to explain why I think that "individualism" is somewhat of a red herring. Unless you live in a self-sufficient homestead in the middle of a forest, there's no such thing as a "self-made man". Take Amazon for instance: they benefit from roads and infrastructure. But they also benefit from things like police and courts to protect their private property, just like they rely on a workforce capable of meeting their demands. Ultimately, they also benefit from a stable society and mostly wealthy enough population to afford their products! And finally, one can say that they benefit from the work of the people who invented the Internet, who invented computers, who made the American Revolution, the ancient Greek philosophers and the medieval mathematicians and Copernicus and Galileo and Newton, in short: directly or indirectly from the combined work of every single human being which lived and has ever lived. That's what's hidden behind the simple word "society". And that's why no person is "self-made". For this, Amazon reaps enormous profit. They need to pay what's due: they owe a debt to society, for it was society that enabled their profit. In a more practical sense, individualism is often found in practice to be pulled as a justification for privatising our economic output in the hands of a lucky few, and for ever-greater concentrations of wealth and an unjust distribution of duties and rewards. I'm suspicious of it on that count as well.

freebreakfast 6y ago
It seems to be popular to attack the "self-made man" idea as of late, but these attacks seem to be addressing the idea as "man in isolation" or "man with absolutely nothing." This runs in contrast to what the idea originally meant. Frederick Douglass considered[0], "Self-made men ... are what they are, without the aid of any of the favoring conditions by which other men usually rise in the world and achieve great results." For Douglass, the self-made man lacked "favoring conditions by which other men usually rise." This doesn't mean the self-made man cannot rely on that which is available to everyone in a given society (e.g., courts, roads, existing scientific knowledge, etc.). It simply means the self-made man is not one privileged over others. This being so, I would reason that your post doesn't really address the idea of the "self-made man." I also think the evaluation of Amazon is unfair. It is presented as Amazon taking value from society and never giving back. But what value has Amazon given in return to people? It is often more convenient to shop on Amazon. It offers a greater selection of products than local stores. It often offers lower prices. It also provides reviews to aid decision making. So, to frame it as Amazon only taking and never giving back is an unfair criticism. Does Amazon take more than it gives? Possibly. That's a difficult discussion though. As for individualism, yes it can definitely be abused. But, that alone is not sufficient grounds to reject the idea--particularly when one looks the benefits gained as described in the parent to your post. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  The original article is a discussion of Ayn Rand's work, so andrepd's comment is a criticism of Ayn Rand's concept of a self-made man and individualism rather than Douglass's.
macspoofing 6y ago
>Unless you live in a self-sufficient homestead in the middle of a forest, there's no such thing as a "self-made man". Where did I argue individualism means you're in a "self-sufficient homestead in the middle of the forest"?? This type of straw man is employed frequently and is aggravating because OF COURSE we live in a society and we rely on others. Even hardcore libertarians don't make that claim. Having said that, society is an ever-present constant, like the environment. An individual by themselves cannot really affect it. An individual, however, can certainly affect how they interact with it and the choices they make. In that sense, there sure are 'self-made men'. >individualism is often found in practice to be pulled as a justification for privatising our economic output in the hands of a lucky few, and for ever-greater concentrations of wealth and an unjust distribution of duties and rewards. We're way beyond debating whether we should live in pure capitalist-type of world with a tiny government and everything is privatized. We live in a mixed system, with a market-based economy and a social welfare state. There is no mainstream debate to change that. The political debate is centered around whether to move the dial a little towards the welfare state or the market-based side. So move on from that argument it's not relevant. The attacks on individualism I'm talking about are ones that deal with attacks on basic enlightenment values like getting rid of due process (as was done on collage campuses when dealing with accusations of sexual assault) or treating immutable characteristics of an individual as boosting or discreding an argument they make ... you know, anytime an argument is taken more seriously when it is preceded with "As a member of identity group X here's what I think...". How about the immoral idea of 'privilege' promulgated by academia and media, as a way to dismiss all individual experience in favour of group identity.
malandrew 6y ago
Amazon (and other corporations) do reap enormous revenues and do good with it for society contrary to your assertion: they reinvest those profits instead of paying out dividends to investors. This creates more jobs and produces more innovations for society. The idea in practice is that you pay taxes on profits, not revenue. People confuse the two. Not paying taxes on revenue is a feature not a bug. This is there to encourage reinvestment, which long term is good for society. If they didn’t reinvest and instead realized profits, a portion would be taxed and a portion would be paid out to investors. The taxes portion would be both invested and wasted by inefficient bureaucracy. Either way, reinvestment in society is happening, but in one case it’s going back into reinvestment by a relatively unaccountable private entity and the other case a portion of it is going into reinvestment by a relatively unaccountable public entity. My personal observation is that the private entity, by virtue of earning the profit in the first place (especially if in a fiercely competitive market), has proven itself a more capable steward of reinvesting that money to produce things people in society want (which they demonstrate by buying that company's goods/services) That’s not to say that there isn’t value in having public reinvestment, but that those in charge of public reinvestment should instead tax other activities (in my opinion conspicuous consumption by individuals via a sales tax) and they should earn that right to spend more by convincing individuals collectively to forego their conspicuous consumption in the present (via raising sales tax) because they will return more value for society through their proposed reinvestments. Government should tax things you want less of (wanton indiscriminate conspicuous consumption) and not things you want more of: reinvestment
jiriknesl 6y ago
Of course, there are self made men. If you have two people from similar background, education and access to infrastructure and wealth, and one successful and the second not, the first one is self-made.
- swat535 6y ago
  I don't think that's what OP is referring to. The one who is "self-made" is not truly self made because they had rely on many more resources and intellectual data by the group to succeed. Therefore there is no such thing as a truly self-made man. There is only: those who can leverage existing infrastructure to improve the status quo or innovate.
  - jiriknesl 6y ago
    Yes, but for people claiming there's no self-made man, when you ask them, when they would define them ("What person would you accept as self-made man?"), they usually create absolutely artificial cutoff. Like if there were no public education or infrastructure and you still suceeded (in whatever, science, business), you are self-made. But why? Still, such a person didn't have to invent their own DNA, so they aren't really self-made. "Society matters, not DNA, not personal initiative, not discipline, not habits..." is a form of bias. And I just refuse this bias. All this matters. You can be self-made as a seventh child of poor Burmese farmer. Then, you could be maybe as rich as an average developer in Facebook. It is self-made. Or you can be a child of someone rich, inherit $1B and decades later leave the world with 1/10 and it not self-made, even when you still will be way better off that the child of that Burmese farmer. Self-made is relative, not absolute. Also, you can grow a lot just by luck. Winning a lottery ticket is luck. But picking a career in IT is not. Thirty years ago, everyone knew computers are going to be ultra important. So not every vertical mobility is self-made. It's complex, but they exist. People who decide to grow in their field. People with right habits, posessing great decision making skills, problem solvers, energetic people.
- anemoiac 6y ago
  This assumes all factors relevant to success can be observed and measured, at least to the extent that they might be deemed reasonably equivalent between two people. That doesn’t seem possible in the real world, whose complexity can hardly be accounted for by the broad sort of categories you mention.

freebreakfast 6y ago

It seems to be popular to attack the "self-made man" idea as of late, but these attacks seem to be addressing the idea as "man in isolation" or "man with absolutely nothing." This runs in contrast to what the idea originally meant. Frederick Douglass considered[0], "Self-made men ... are what they are, without the aid of any of the favoring conditions by which other men usually rise in the world and achieve great results." For Douglass, the self-made man lacked "favoring conditions by which other men usually rise." This doesn't mean the self-made man cannot rely on that which is available to everyone in a given society (e.g., courts, roads, existing scientific knowledge, etc.). It simply means the self-made man is not one privileged over others. This being so, I would reason that your post doesn't really address the idea of the "self-made man." I also think the evaluation of Amazon is unfair. It is presented as Amazon taking value from society and never giving back. But what value has Amazon given in return to people? It is often more convenient to shop on Amazon. It offers a greater selection of products than local stores. It often offers lower prices. It also provides reviews to aid decision making. So, to frame it as Amazon only taking and never giving back is an unfair criticism. Does Amazon take more than it gives? Possibly. That's a difficult discussion though. As for individualism, yes it can definitely be abused. But, that alone is not sufficient grounds to reject the idea--particularly when one looks the benefits gained as described in the parent to your post. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men

bryanlarsen 6y ago
The original article is a discussion of Ayn Rand's work, so andrepd's comment is a criticism of Ayn Rand's concept of a self-made man and individualism rather than Douglass's.

macspoofing 6y ago

>Unless you live in a self-sufficient homestead in the middle of a forest, there's no such thing as a "self-made man". Where did I argue individualism means you're in a "self-sufficient homestead in the middle of the forest"?? This type of straw man is employed frequently and is aggravating because OF COURSE we live in a society and we rely on others. Even hardcore libertarians don't make that claim. Having said that, society is an ever-present constant, like the environment. An individual by themselves cannot really affect it. An individual, however, can certainly affect how they interact with it and the choices they make. In that sense, there sure are 'self-made men'. >individualism is often found in practice to be pulled as a justification for privatising our economic output in the hands of a lucky few, and for ever-greater concentrations of wealth and an unjust distribution of duties and rewards. We're way beyond debating whether we should live in pure capitalist-type of world with a tiny government and everything is privatized. We live in a mixed system, with a market-based economy and a social welfare state. There is no mainstream debate to change that. The political debate is centered around whether to move the dial a little towards the welfare state or the market-based side. So move on from that argument it's not relevant. The attacks on individualism I'm talking about are ones that deal with attacks on basic enlightenment values like getting rid of due process (as was done on collage campuses when dealing with accusations of sexual assault) or treating immutable characteristics of an individual as boosting or discreding an argument they make ... you know, anytime an argument is taken more seriously when it is preceded with "As a member of identity group X here's what I think...". How about the immoral idea of 'privilege' promulgated by academia and media, as a way to dismiss all individual experience in favour of group identity.

malandrew 6y ago

Amazon (and other corporations) do reap enormous revenues and do good with it for society contrary to your assertion: they reinvest those profits instead of paying out dividends to investors. This creates more jobs and produces more innovations for society. The idea in practice is that you pay taxes on profits, not revenue. People confuse the two. Not paying taxes on revenue is a feature not a bug. This is there to encourage reinvestment, which long term is good for society. If they didn’t reinvest and instead realized profits, a portion would be taxed and a portion would be paid out to investors. The taxes portion would be both invested and wasted by inefficient bureaucracy. Either way, reinvestment in society is happening, but in one case it’s going back into reinvestment by a relatively unaccountable private entity and the other case a portion of it is going into reinvestment by a relatively unaccountable public entity. My personal observation is that the private entity, by virtue of earning the profit in the first place (especially if in a fiercely competitive market), has proven itself a more capable steward of reinvesting that money to produce things people in society want (which they demonstrate by buying that company's goods/services) That’s not to say that there isn’t value in having public reinvestment, but that those in charge of public reinvestment should instead tax other activities (in my opinion conspicuous consumption by individuals via a sales tax) and they should earn that right to spend more by convincing individuals collectively to forego their conspicuous consumption in the present (via raising sales tax) because they will return more value for society through their proposed reinvestments. Government should tax things you want less of (wanton indiscriminate conspicuous consumption) and not things you want more of: reinvestment

jiriknesl 6y ago

Of course, there are self made men. If you have two people from similar background, education and access to infrastructure and wealth, and one successful and the second not, the first one is self-made.

swat535 6y ago
I don't think that's what OP is referring to. The one who is "self-made" is not truly self made because they had rely on many more resources and intellectual data by the group to succeed. Therefore there is no such thing as a truly self-made man. There is only: those who can leverage existing infrastructure to improve the status quo or innovate.
- jiriknesl 6y ago
  Yes, but for people claiming there's no self-made man, when you ask them, when they would define them ("What person would you accept as self-made man?"), they usually create absolutely artificial cutoff. Like if there were no public education or infrastructure and you still suceeded (in whatever, science, business), you are self-made. But why? Still, such a person didn't have to invent their own DNA, so they aren't really self-made. "Society matters, not DNA, not personal initiative, not discipline, not habits..." is a form of bias. And I just refuse this bias. All this matters. You can be self-made as a seventh child of poor Burmese farmer. Then, you could be maybe as rich as an average developer in Facebook. It is self-made. Or you can be a child of someone rich, inherit $1B and decades later leave the world with 1/10 and it not self-made, even when you still will be way better off that the child of that Burmese farmer. Self-made is relative, not absolute. Also, you can grow a lot just by luck. Winning a lottery ticket is luck. But picking a career in IT is not. Thirty years ago, everyone knew computers are going to be ultra important. So not every vertical mobility is self-made. It's complex, but they exist. People who decide to grow in their field. People with right habits, posessing great decision making skills, problem solvers, energetic people.
anemoiac 6y ago
This assumes all factors relevant to success can be observed and measured, at least to the extent that they might be deemed reasonably equivalent between two people. That doesn’t seem possible in the real world, whose complexity can hardly be accounted for by the broad sort of categories you mention.