Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Diogenic_Seer t1_j75flwq wrote

Reply to comment by nightraven900 in There Are No Natural Rights (without Natural Law): Addressing what rights are, how we create rights, and where rights come from by contractualist

I’m not taking about the right to be happy.

The problem is that those of wealthier upbringing get to think about survival less than poor people. It gives an advantage.

It’s actually about trying to find ways to reward people with high mental fortitude, but their poverty keeps them from really gaining the momentum to intellectualize their minds.

The goal is to see the wealthy and weak willed displaced from power

Of course intellectualization comes after survival. That’s my point!

“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”- Stephen Jay Gould

0

nightraven900 t1_j75fzwa wrote

Isnt it the logical conclusion that those who have become so wealthy are wealthy because they were competent enough to forever escape the need for basic survival? They are the ones with high mental fortitude and they used that to gain their wealth.

And that those who are poor are that way because they lack the mental fortitude that is required to climb through the ranks of society?

−7

[deleted] t1_j75kvqd wrote

[deleted]

3

nightraven900 t1_j75ljrd wrote

Well yes you would expect the people that are born into wealth to become wealthy more frequently than those who arent born into wealth. Life isnt going to be statistically perfectly balanced so you are always going to get anomalies and outliers. You could even attribute that to americas unique culture when it comes to people being able to become wealthy.

Of course a person in power doesn't ALWAYS "deserve" to have said power but most of the time they are, at least in western countries. Who are we to say who doesnt and doesnt deserve what anyway.

Logically just having intelligence isnt going to guarantee success. But it does already greatly increase the chances of success and is large reason why a majority of the rich have the positions they do.

1

[deleted] t1_j75zc6d wrote

[deleted]

1

nightraven900 t1_j76euyb wrote

There forever and always has been and will be power imbalances. That's how power works, not everyone can or is even suppose to have the same amount of power. And its the nature of power to accumulate.

The US does indeed have a unique culture of people becoming wealthy. It allows for people to keep more of the wealth they earned compared to other countries. Most millionaires in the US aren't born into wealth, they earn it.

Class mobility in socialist countries is a bit over stated as there is already a smaller class disparity in those countries in the first place so of course it would be easier for people to raise class status when the gap isn't as large. In the US you still have class mobility but it happens in a much wider range compared to other countries. IE the potency of the class mobility in the US is much higher. Not to mention the US having more freedoms than those other countries comes with the downside of letting people make the wrong decisions.

Darwin is referring to biology were as we are referring to society. Both have separate rules as to how success is gained. But even by evolutionary standards wealthy people did adapt to some situation they found themselves in and became wealthy as a result of said adaptation. So wealthy that they no longer need to worry about adaptation ever again and in alot of cases neither do their children, thats what success is.

Forced redistribution of resources has never worked out well. I dont think its in peoples best interest to attempt to topple a stable societal structure that has provided all the resources we have in our modern world. Its like saying someone deserves to get something stolen because they were tempting a thief. Its the thief that is the problem, not the person who get stolen from.

1

[deleted] t1_j76k1yx wrote

[deleted]

1

nightraven900 t1_j77ujre wrote

They are related yes but are not the same thing. So their concepts dont exactly transfer over. But still i even said that by evolutionarily standards that wealthy people have adapted and succeeded.

Society isn't a scale, its not mean to be perfectly balanced ESPECIALLY not when there is a focused goal to achieve some kind of forced balance, that often leads to societal catastrophe. Thats what the purpose of capitalism is, the ability for a economy to correct itself with extremely limited intervention.

Wealthy people very often can afford to forget about adaptation after they have lost their mo at. If you see that as a bubble that is about to pop then there shouldn't be any issue then since the bubble popping would be the problem fixing itself.

People have large amounts of wealth currently have a much different position than something like a monarchy did in the past. They dont control the government and there isn't just some singular target or family. Its just a bunch of individuals many of whom people dont even know the names of.

No one is forced to follow capitalism, if they want to they can move to one of the non capitalist countries and try any number of alternative economic systems that they want. Socialism may not be as extreme in its forced redistribution compared to its contemporaries but it is still forced. And in a country that values individual liberty above all else those two are not a good fit. Natural laws are hard set into reality, and even those we be can occasionally bend, man made laws hold even less meaning than them. The goal is less constraints of freedom, not more.

0

EclipseGames t1_j75l8u4 wrote

That might be the case if levels of wealth weren't inherited. In most cases it seems that luck is the main factor at play, instead of mental fortitude or any kind of competence. If you are born into wealth, survival is easy. If you are born into poverty, working just as hard as the born-rich will be unlikely to get you anywhere near as far

1

nightraven900 t1_j75lrty wrote

Obviously if you are born wealthy you have an advantage but thats just it, its an advantage, not a gurentee. The same goes for someone being poor, just because they are at a disadvatage doesn't mean they wont find success. Luck is always a factor but the main factor still is competence.

−1

EclipseGames t1_j75m7vx wrote

There is a theoretical level of (dis)advantage that would deem (in)competence to be a very small factor in comparison. I believe this is the case for an extremely large number of people.

1

nightraven900 t1_j75mzbq wrote

I dont think there is an level of disadvantage that can't be overcome with enough competence. If the disadvantage largely exceeds the competence then yes the naturally the competence makes up a smaller proportion of an individuals agency, but the opportunities still arise to take advantage of said small level of competence to SOME degree at least.

There are people whos disadvantages out way their competence but that doesn't mean they have no options at all. And id think its a very very small minority of people in the first place.

0