A Blank Spot on the Map

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Two Types

He isn't starting with a false premise. He's merely pointing out (correctly, I believe) that given the single sentence we have from Nora, we cannot conclude that she was motivated by envy. He hasn't disagreed with Don's point per se, he's just pointing a bad inference.

Posted by: MnM


Its a good point. Sure we'd all like to have more money. But it's obvious there are 2 types of people in the world. The first goes into the world with the goal of making a contribution they can leave being proud of. When successful like Bill Gates there wealth is a simply secondary. They have provided the world with a great service and they often return it to society.

The second type of person goes into the world simply to get rich or famous. They see themselves as their contribution to the world. The means doesn't matter. Often the market steers them into something truly productive but too often they accumulate vast sums of wealth in no proportion to their true production. In many cases their to production is highly negative on others and on society..

For me personally I would point out that you don't become a pediatrician to make lots of money. My former roommates now anesthesiologist and ophthalmologist make 2-3 times what a pediatrician makes. The choice was clear to me then and I'm glad I decided as I did.

My father (grade school drop-out) owned and ran a multi-million dollar business that was mine for the taking but Overland Aviation Flight Safety Equipment held no interest for me. Oh and I didn't grow up wealthy. Dad's money came in late in my high school and in college years.

For some of us..... many of us the reward is not in cash but in the contributions we make... the things we create.


The libertarian society rewards the greedy and unproductive and neglects the most truly productive and creative people of all.


I don't envy wealth in proportion to production. I don't envy massive wealth with no proportion to production... I mostly pity it except for its negative effect on the rest of hard working society...for THAT I despise it. I once watched a show on one of the wealthiest men in the world. Some sort of scheming trader or financier who had billions but wasn't happy because there were other people with more money then he. HE was ENVIOUS and JEALOUS. He was a pitiful man and I suspect many wealthy people... especially those born into it are as well.


Yes I too wish there was a Great Invisible Hand God who distributed out checks in exact proportion to ones productivity... but unlike you all I'm just not a True Believer in such things. I'm an atheist, an intellect (with poor grammar), a pragmatist and a planner who lives in the real world. I dislike superstition... it's distracting and inefficient. We can do better we just need BETTER planning but not more planning.

7 Comments:

At 6:54 AM, June 16, 2009, Blogger LowCountryJoe said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeXPibDuy6M

 
At 7:01 PM, June 20, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>So do you honestly think social status at birth is NOT the most significant factor in determining ones success?<<

I honestly believe that's it's desire and focus myself but these traits might be significantly influenced by one's surroundings. So, I really question the direct cause you mention but I think that what you wrote does have merit since the environment to learn these traits I believe are most important are likely most absent in the 'lower' social status environments.

>>But we realize much of our success was a coincidence of birth.<<

So, you feel guilty and so do other progressives: for that we must all submit to the whims of your ilk? How about you make your own personal reparations for you being born into a situation of so-called advantage.

>>Where as people like yourself must believe that you have both superior genes and greater intestinal fortitude as the reason for your "success".<<

Greater desire and more focus, perhaps.

>>And yes I'm somewhat proselytizing because I really have no idea on what basis you believe the things you do... but I'm pretty certain it's not based on an objective rational evaluation of real world factors. Just the simple-minded idea that merit is always best metered out when the rules are most minimal.<<

This just demonstrates that you do not comprehend economic liberty; have a disdain for the individuality of people and their ability to trade their personal property and labor services; and do not understand that the billions of decisions made by people spending their own money, aggregated, don't establish merit. But you do trust less than half of the population to democratically elect representaives that make promises that appeal to our inner-tyrrants and our uncanny fascination with forcing our prefferences on others.

>>What we progressives DO understand and I think it's point we might actually agree on, is that all of civilization has been a struggle...<<

So, if you parrot Marx then why would you want to shun the Marxist label?

>>is ill defined or pretty much has been tried in the past and been shown to concentrate power just the same.<<

People of your ilk will not allow liberty to flourish -- that's what you really mean.

>>The fact that I can point to our poor longevity, the high cost and the likely dreary outcomes of a free market health care system and you guys can dismiss these findings pretty much on a whim is the evidence that it is YOU who are the inculcated. Regurgitating the same old same old regardless of the facts.<<

Poor longevity? Muirgeo, over half the amount spent on healthcare in the United States is spent by governments, bioth federal and state.

>>Simple because you like simple clear cut answers that seem like they would directly benefit you.<<

And you seek to steal to benefit others because you feel guilty. Do you not see your hypocricy ten-fold?

>>There's no room for compromise, no in between, no shades of grey<<

Dip shit, you are the one visiting a blog with limited-government thinkers. If you want people to agree with you, go somewhere else.

>>just strict adherence to a doctrine of individualism in spite of the fact you benefit and require the society and the rules it makes.<<

I'm guessing that liberty is not good enough for you and that you just cannot stand the fact that you will not be charitable unless we all go along with you. You're a piece of work, Doctor.

 
At 8:19 PM, June 29, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>Al Gore was dead on AN INCONVIENT TRUTH. At some point one's opinion of how the world is meets up with the hard cold defiant facts." -- muirgeo

I think I agree. It really depends on how you parse the sentence.

Posted by: SheetWise | Jun 29, 2009 10:57:54 PM

LMAO @ SheetWise!

Posted by: brotio | Jun 29, 2009 11:00:46 PM

<<

I second that, brotio. Great comment SheetWise. The second sentence is a doozy as well; I'm not used to seeing the 'hard cold' of the 'facts' in that order. Are the facts hard for muirgeo? Maybe the facts are that the climate is getting more cold? Or maybe the inconvient truth is that muirgeo is hard for Gore and wants to meet up with him.

 
At 10:40 AM, June 30, 2009, Blogger muirgeo said...

LCJ,

Your sitting their making comments on wording and phrasing of my post but nothing at all about the facts. And some how you've convinced yourself the wording of my post, the irony of my chosen words some how changes the facts. Again... you have nothing of substance to debate with to defend your position.

 
At 5:46 AM, July 01, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>I just spent a week on a spot of the planet where possibly no human has been for ever. A spot that is as pristine of human intervention as any. - muirgaia<<

Yes, it's possible but not very likely. But if you truly belived that this was a pristine spot that had never before been visited by a human, wouldn't this, according to your warped standards, be an incerdibly selfish place to visit and make you a pretty big a-hole?

By the way, I think that it is great that you visited such a place and have no ill feelings for what you did. But surely you have to be somewhat conflicted? My suggestion: go to confession as soon as possible so that the high priest can give you your pennance of five Our AlGores and three Rachel Carlsons!

 
At 8:56 AM, July 02, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>Your sitting their making comments on wording and phrasing of my post but nothing at all about the facts.<<

Here's just one fact for you: Al Gore, in that stupid movie, claimed that the rise in carbon levels preceeded warmer temps. That claim was bogus; warmer temps preceed the carbon release into the atmosphere.

>>Again... you have nothing of substance to debate with to defend your position.<<

Now, defend Al Gore for his misleading and disingenious claim. And defend yourself for defending Al Gore's bullshit!

 
At 7:15 AM, July 04, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>I'm sure the middle class will be glad to hear from the Ivory Tower that all is well... they just need to look at the data properly.<<

Yeah. I'm a part of the middle class, Doctor, and I was envious of your trip to Alaska. I think that you should have taken some of that compensation from Kaiser and sent it to the IRS with the instructions of: "Please spend this money in an appropriate manner so that many other in the middle class can have their tax burdens lowered. I'd prefer to have it go toward the EPA since that is my pet agency." But you didn't. No, instead you went to a place that you think no other human being had went to and fucked that up. Then you came back and boasted of it. Don't you think that you could have distributed your wealth instead of taking the trip? Or does it just feel good to advocate everyone else distribute their wealth instead?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home