ER - the Rational Response to a world going crazy

[HFWR]

Just makes it a little sweeter...

 

[Gone4Good]

. . . Even with all those advantages, I feel like I had to work at success.  I made mistakes that set me back on more than one occasion.  If I had had fewer advantages or been saddled with a significant disadvantage in any of the above areas, who knows if I would have been able to accomplish as much.  Statistically, we know the answer is that I would not. 

Everything said here is true - but I nonetheless fail to see the point. Some people are luckier than others and many of the lucky take their luck for granted. My life would have been different if I were born in the Sudan instead of being born to a middle class family in the States. My life also would have been different if I had been born as a Walton, or a Forbes, or . . . So what?

The problem with saying that "everything is just a matter of luck" is that it lifts the onus of responsibility for ones self and transfers it somewhere else - most likely to society via some social program. When society stops expecting people to support themselves, or make better lives for themselves and their families, guess what happens? They don't!

It is simply not possible, nor desirable for a number of practical reasons, to have everyone start out at exactly the same place. Regardless of the well intentioned efforts of Socialists everywhere, some people will simply be more lucky than others. Those are the breaks. You can set up a society that frees people to make the most out of their individual situation or you can try to impose an "equality" on "everyone". History has taught over and over again that the greatest good to the greatest number is achieved by individuals who are free to pursue their own self interest and reap the rewards of their efforts. Tamper with that formula at your own peril.

 

[sgeeeee]

Everything said here is true - but I nonetheless fail to see the point.  Some people are luckier than others and many of the lucky take their luck for granted.  My life would have been different if . . .   

I guess that is the point. Several earlier posts seemed to be blaming the victim -- claiming their lack of success was only a matter of a lack of self-discipline.

The problem with saying that "everything is just a matter of luck" . . .

 
I didn't see any posts that said that.

It is simply not possible, nor desirable for a number of practical reasons, to have everyone start out at exactly the same place.

  I didn't see any posts that suggested that.

Regardless of the well intentioned efforts of Socialists everywhere, some people will simply be more lucky than others.  Those are the breaks.  You can set up a society that frees people to make the most out of their individual situation or you can try to impose an "equality" on "everyone".  History has taught over and over again that the greatest good to the greatest number is achieved by individuals who are free to pursue their own self interest and reap the rewards of their efforts.  Tamper with that formula at your own peril. 

Now it is me that fails to see the point.

 

[Gone4Good]

I didn't see any posts that said that.

No?

I don't disagree that personal choices affect the outcomes in one's life.  Having said that, I believe that the effect of personal choices is massively outweighed by the range of choice a particular individual is confrinted with. 

Certainly you and I can interpret things differently, but "massively outweighed" here clearly implies that "luck" is more important than choice.

  But here's the thing -- why does one person have self discipline, and another not?  Why does one person learn, and another not?  It could be that the answer lies in native ability, or in the circumstances of upbringing, or, of course, in some combination.  What else could it be?  The point is that both of these are out of our control.  Substitute the word "tall" for the concept of success.  I believe that a lot of the self-congratulatory attitude of "the successful" is completely inappropriate, as would be a self-congratulatory attitude of the tall.

Not much to interpret here!

I didn't see any posts that suggested that.

No?  Certainly a desire to "level the playing field" is implied here:

Statements like "bad choices"  "lack of discipline" and "lazy" don't help solve society problems and may even persuade me to become a soldier in the class war.  I am worried that we have become a country of winners and losers. And don't feel bad for the losers, it's all their own fault.  Paying less taxes and putting more money in the winner's pockets is what our country seems to value.  This is not the kind of country I want to live in. 

I guess that is the point.  Several earlier posts seemed to be blaming the victim -- claiming their lack of success was only a matter of a lack of self-discipline.

Now it is me that fails to see the point.   

In case you missed my point:

Being poor or "unsuccessful" does not make you a victim! 

No one benefits when people are told they are justified in blaming someone, or something, else for their problems (e.g. that they are victims).  Furthermore, society is better served when people are expected to make a positive contribution to their own lives.

Because the idea of a "level playing field" is impractical, and ultimately counterproductive, all the hand wringing about the influence of "luck" in peoples lives is pointless. 

Life isn't fair - deal with it.

 

[ProfHaroldHill]

You can set up a society that frees people to make the most out of their individual situation or you can try to impose an "equality" on "everyone".  History has taught over and over again that the greatest good to the greatest number is achieved by individuals who are free to pursue their own self interest and reap the rewards of their efforts.  Tamper with that formula at your own peril. 

My dogma detector just went off . . .

HH

 

[Gone4Good]

My dogma detector just went off . . .

HH

dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (Webster's 9th)


Now which position do you think is more fitting of that description?

1)  My position that history has shown capitalism brings the greatest good to the greatest number

Or

2)  Your position that one can:

Substitute the word "tall" for the concept of success.  I believe that a lot of the self-congratulatory attitude of "the successful" is completely inappropriate, as would be a self-congratulatory attitude of the tall.

 

[sgeeeee]

Yrs to go:

I don't feel like you are discussing the same issues others are raising. Instead, you have consistently misinterpreted what others post, then argue against that misinterpretation. You seem to have missed the points of most of the posts and to be angry about something. Sorry if I contributed to your discomfort.

 

[Martha]

Yes, life isn't fair and I deal with that on a regular basis. I say let us try to make it more fair. That is what civilization is all about.

I also do not necessarily buy that our system is the best. We still lag in a number of quality of life factors, and our lifespan does not lead the world. Research is showing class mobility is stagnating and is lagging behind Scandinavia and European countries.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Yes, life isn't fair and I deal with that on a regular basis.  I say let us try to make it more fair.   That is what civilization is all about. 

I agree that "life is not fair". However, no one is going to fix it.
That's just the way it is.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (Webster's 9th)


Now which position do you think is more fitting of that description?

1)  My position that history has shown capitalism brings the greatest good to the greatest number

Or

2)  Your position that one can:

Old joke:

My karma ran over your dogma.

JG

 

[wildcat]

Why the hot debate? Oh same ol' I know I'm right and you're wrong attitude

 

[wabmester]

Yes, life isn't fair and I deal with that on a regular basis.  I say let us try to make it more fair.   That is what civilization is all about. 

I also do not necessarily buy that our system is the best.  We still lag in a number of quality of life factors, and our lifespan does not lead the world.  Research is showing class mobility is stagnating and is lagging behind Scandinavia and European countries.

How far should we swing the pendulum?   If you want to quit working and start creating bad art, should tax payers buy your bad art so you can follow your passion?   Should we have incentives for being lazy?   I know lots of smart and capable Europeans, but I also know a few who feel a strong sense of entitlement and have no qualms about having the government support them simply because they find work too stressful.

I'd like to see some distribution of wealth, and for the underclass to be better supported than they are in the US, and I'd probably even like to see a merit-based subsidy for starving artists, but there has to a systematic disincentive to become a parasite, and a systematic incentive to bootstrap yourself to become self-sustaining.

How about this -- contribute to society or go to prison.   In prison, you'll get free board, free food, exercise, socialization, and even a library, but you lose your freedom and you have to do something mindless like make license plates.    Nobody starves, nobody is homeless, and you have a strong incentive to contribute.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

 

I also do not necessarily buy that our system is the best.  We still lag in a number of quality of life factors, and our lifespan does not lead the world.  Research is showing class mobility is stagnating and is lagging behind Scandinavia and European countries.

I don't necessarily buy that "our system is the best" either. I think it was the best when we were founded (talking the political set-up
here). What we have now bears little resemblance to what we started
out with. BTW, leading the world in "lifespan" is not necessarily such
a wonderful thing IMHO.

JG

 

[Nords]

How about this -- contribute to society or go to prison work in a cubicle.   In prison the cubicle, you'll get free board, free food, exercise, socialization, and even a library, but you lose your freedom and you have to do something mindless like make license plates.    Nobody starves, nobody is homeless, and you have a strong incentive to contribute.

Sorry about the editorial license, Wab, but I wondered how this would read if I replaced one penurious concept with another...

 

[Gone4Good]

Yrs to go:

I don't feel like you are discussing the same issues others are raising.  Instead, you have consistently misinterpreted what others post, then argue against that misinterpretation.  You seem to have missed the points of most of the posts and to be angry about something.  Sorry if I contributed to your discomfort.   

Please provide some examples of how I'm misinterpreting people. If anything, I 've provided quotes that support my interpretations. Enlighten me please.

PS.  I'm not angry

 

[wabmester]

Sorry about the editorial license, Wab, but I wondered how this would read if I replaced one penurious concept with another...

I think you're onto something here. There can be more than one level of prison. Many of us here recently escaped the broadest level. And, if fact, if you are economically desperate or mentally ill, there's an excellent chance that you'll end up in our traditional prison, so we already have the nobody-starves "utopia" I described.

So, in my new utopia, I propose that we simply add another level of prison. Voluntary confinement + government work program (a la Roosevelt's WPA). What do you think? Anybody want to nominate me for a Nobel?

 

[ProfHaroldHill]

Now which position do you think is more fitting of that description?

1)  My position . . .

Or

2)  Your position . . .

Here is something you will probably not understand, which I will try to explain by way of your example. In the example cited here, the two positions are not mutually exclusive re being dogmatic. Two positions can both be dogmatic -- one being dogmatic does not mean that the other is not. Both views could be dogmatic, or neither, or one and not the other.

Generally, social situations present a continuum, where the optimal point is not at either extreme, "Capitalism" v "socialiam" is an example (BTW -- "socialism" and egalitarianism are not necessarily the same things). Life is not binary, it is not black and white. Black and white thinking is the surest contraindicator for wisdom. Your broad, sweeping, overconfident statement is black and white, and dogmatic.

HH

 

[ProfHaroldHill]

Why the hot debate?  Oh same ol' I know I'm right and you're wrong attitude 

ERs and ER wannabees are geezers by nature (me, too, certainly) whatever their age. Thus, the attitudes . . .

HH

 

[Gone4Good]

Here is something you will probably not understand

Your broad, sweeping, overconfident statement is black and white, and dogmatic.

HH

Yup, I'm too dimwitted to understand any of that.

Incidentally, "more fitting" does not imply mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, the following statement does not preclude many possible social constructs along a continuum that allow people the freedom to pursue their own self interests. The Black and White lable is of your design, not mine.

"History has taught over and over again that the greatest good to the greatest number is achieved by individuals who are free to pursue their own self interest and reap the rewards of their efforts."

So it would seem to me that your "analysis" misses the mark by a wide margin - although that is probably just because I don't understand all your big words.

 

[unclemick]

HMMM

Curmudgeon - that's the word I like.

If things are slow - I'm willing to take both sides of - an er ah 'discussion' - if it will 'stimulate' an entertaining debate.

Heh heh heh heh.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

ERs and ER wannabees are geezers by nature (me, too, certainly) whatever their age.  Thus, the attitudes . . .

HH

Well HH, God knows I like to "mix it up". It's more fun
if your opposite number has something to say. Anyway, I agree with the gist of your post.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I think you're onto something here.   There can be more than one level of prison.   Many of us here recently escaped the broadest level.   And, if fact, if you are economically desperate or mentally ill, there's an excellent chance that you'll end up in our traditional prison, so we already have the nobody-starves "utopia" I described.

So, in my new utopia, I propose that we simply add another level of prison.   Voluntary confinement + government work program (a la Roosevelt's WPA).   What do you think?   Anybody want to nominate me for a Nobel?

I think the prize will have to wait, but you're a thinker. I will give you that

JG

 

[Martha]

"History has taught over and over again that the greatest good to the greatest number is achieved by individuals who are free to pursue their own self interest and reap the rewards of their efforts."

I am not sure this is the case. I am not even sure we have a sample of a society where individuals were allowed to pursue their own self interest without restriction. Instead, because we are a society, various restrictions are put into place. Can't murder people for their stuff. Can't have slaves. Must pay a minimum wage. Etc.

I think it is reasonable and good for society to have safety nets. As the Professor said, the choice doesn't have to be back or white.

 

[Gone4Good]

I am not sure this is the case.   I am not even sure we have a sample of a society where individuals were allowed to pursue their own self interest without restriction.  Instead, because we are a society, various restrictions are put into place.  Can't murder people for their stuff.  Can't have slaves. Must pay a minimum wage.  Etc. 

I think it is reasonable and good for society to have safety nets.   As the Professor said,  the choice doesn't have to be back or white.

Sigh.  Somehow I've found myself defending anarchy.   :

Try as I might, I don't seem to be able to find anywhere in this thread where I supported some "black" world view where murder and slavery were okay.  I guess because I didn't specifically say "I believe a society should not tolerate murder, slavery, stealing, torture, Boston winning another world series, child pornography, etc., etc." that you and the Professor were free to infer all of these things into my comments.  Fair enough - I guess.

However, I never thought my point was all that radical or difficult to understand - so I'll try again.

If you take the view that "all" or "most" of a person's success or failure is attributable to "luck" rather than personal choice and effort then you undermine the very basis for a society based on merit.  If someone's success is entirely a function of factors beyond their control, as the Professor suggests, than a capitalist system is patently, if not grotesquely, unfair.  Because the "successful" are rich by no virtue of their own, and the "unsuccessful" are comparatively poorer through no fault of their own, then it seems perfectly reasonable for a just society to redistribute wealth to correct this flaw. 

TO BE CLEAR, I am not saying that ANYONE here has put forward the conclusions in the preceding paragraph as their own personal beliefs!  I'm simply pointing out a logical conclusion to be drawn from the statement that "luck is the 'overwhelming' factor in determining a person's level of success." 

Note.  Whether the US system is, or is not, a meritocracy is completely besides my point.

 

[HFWR]

From a personal perspective, I'm okay with 90/10 split of capitalism/socialism (swag)...

Practically speaking, too many people want the govt to be a nanny...

Capital can react to changing circumstances faster than labor, so unemployment insurance, educational benefits, and temporary assistance like food stamps and AFDC seem a reasonable compromise to pure capitalism. But, the key word is TEMPORARY. It's probably better to get the pain over sooner, rather than later, sort of like removing an adhesive bandage.

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more..."
Ten Years After