@Mattxduchak@CosmicSophon@Austen I am not asking what most people think. I am asking if *you* think the world would be a better place if his money went to charity.
@Mattxduchak@CosmicSophon@Austen If 90% of his wealth (stock) went to charity, do you think the outcome for society would be better than if he retains it?
@Mattxduchak@CosmicSophon@Austen So let's say the cap is 100 BILLION.
In the case of Musk, the majority of his wealth is stock. Do you think the stock (~900 billion) should be donated to a non-profit?
Yes, I totally agree with everything you are saying but I think it is valuable to drill down even further. Can we agree on this: everyone has BOTH instincts and personal choice. But here is the more controversial point: The instincts that men and women *tend* to have is different on average therefore drive different group behaviors *on average*. It is this fact that explain many of the group differences.
@Victori94632861 @Jack_Schmidt_TM Yo - I am starting a thing right now called: Good-faith reply to a person who seems reasonable but doesn't have any likes or comments. Next message contains content.
@slavakozlov@growing_daniel Columbus' odds of survival would have been much higher if he would have stayed home, taken over the family wool business and spent his spare time drinking mead with his homies.
I think the default behavior is to follow the consensus. Consensus is pretty reliable for survival. So those who don't consider anything have 1 option. The independent thinker has 17.
Your Columbus example isn't really applicable because explorers, innovators don't have any choice - they must break convention.
@andyvanfossen@friedberg@ChrisWillx I don't think he is right about AOC, but even if he is, the optimistic argument could be that the macro forces of human progress are too powerful to be stopped by a political party. ๐ค
Unlike others, I love the writing style, but I do have a huge criticism of the implications of her philosophy.
In both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, her protagonists are builders (Great!) who ultimately resort to terrorism (Destruction of institutions because they view themselves as oppressed), which is wild to me. I totally agree that society is built and maintained by builders, and that value is generally extracted by social parasites, just as she describes. However, the builders should not, and don't in practice, identify themselves as an oppressed class and resort to terrorism. I wish the ending of both books was different. In my view, should America be overrun by parasites, as it is in her books, builders have 3 choices: A) Continue to fight to fix it. B) Move to a builder friendly place or C) start a society that is builder friendly. The idea that builders should become terrorists is super counter productive IMO. And if you don't think her protagonists become terrorist you should reread the books. At the end they literally start blowing shit up and taking hostages because they lose control and feel oppressed.
It is not that different from other transformations. Just 300 years ago, 90% of people worked in farming. Today, it is 2%, 88% of the workforce was displaced, and the vast majority of modern jobs would have been unimaginable. Almost certainly, life will be better, and people will be doing relatively 'silly' things with their time and getting paid. It won't be dystopia, and it won't be communism; it will simply be evolved labor markets that are fundamentally better for humans just like every other technological revolution.
@Deanna_Jacques@DrJohnVervaeke Yep. I get the whole picture now. I wish upon you so much personal growth that you do not recognize this jaded person ๐ง๐ช. The effects of this spell will begin soon but not be fully realized for decades. God speed.