Just a thought for the day:
A world in which all personal success depended on virtue would be insufferable.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
15 comments to Michael Young was right… about one thing |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
It would; FA Hayek made this point. In any event, how would prove that one’s success stemmed from virtue, from making the “full use” of one’s talents? The idea of only the virtuous being allowed to be successful is that it begs the question as to who gets to sit in judgement on all this.
Actually, accepting that some people are rich/handsome etc through the luck of chance events, through the genetic lottery of life, is healthy. People need to be philosophical about this. Of course, it may be a useful “lie” to encourage the idea that hard graft and merit lead to success; there is even some empirical evidence that cultures where this sort of belief operates are generally, richer and more happy places than those where people are resigned to their fates. Even so, a world based strictly on merit where no “luck” was allowed to drive one’s economic or social standing would be insufferable.
I’ll toast to that brother!
What if all personal success depended on vice? Wouldn’t it be just as bad?
Ah, if only!
Never fear, the gluttons are going to inherit this world. With some assistance by the greedy, the lechers, the wrathful, the envious and the prideful. And if you can persuade them to get their behinds in gear, even the slothful might lend a hand.
Who the hell is Michael Young?
Late British sociologist, co-author of The Rise of the Meritocracy.
Also father of Toby Young, the journalist.
Who said, “There is no such thing as luck”?
Obi-wan Kenobi, wise Merlin-substitute for the modern age.
As an esoteric Christian, I do believe that it is possible to accumulate good Karma, and so should all Libertarians. If you talk about life being unfair, you’re opening the door to the State and the meddlers. If, for example, you say ‘It’s unfair that Paris Hilton was born rich!’, then you’re justifying Estate Taxes and Death Taxes. If you keep promoting the idea that people can work for their own success, you’ll undercut the idea that the Government Should interfere.
Stick to your Philosophical guns, fellow Libertarians!
Remember ‘LIB equals RTY!’ (Lessening Intrusive Bureaucracy equals Rightly Treating Yourselves!”= LIB=RTY!
Ralf wins. I’d offer to help him get those people he mentioned organized, but I’m late for my nap.
A world in which all personal success depended on vice would be far worse…
Define vice.
Vice is the opposite of virtue…
An example would be more useful:-)
F.A. Hayek was fond of pointing out the importance of luck and chance. And attacking the notion that income or wealth should be “justified” by talk of what someone “deserves”.
The lazy and stupid can end up rich, and the intelligent and hard working can end up starving in the street.
It is also true that moral conduct is not about reward – in this world or the next.
A person should act honourably even if he believes it will not help him (even in the long rund by creating a good reputation) and he does not believe that there is any life after this one.
The virtures (honesty, hard work, temperance, charity….) should be followed because they are virtues, becaue that is the sort of person we should be.
However, I would like to think that people who were thoughtful, hardworking and honouable in their dealings tended to prosper more than people who are not.
Although there are a lot of “perverse incentives” in modern society.
Wild taxation, endless regulations, a warped legal system and credit bubble finance tend to favour a very different sort of businessman.