Chris, Woods, and all --
Although I dislike injecting politics into philosophy, this U.S. election
has stimulated a lot of discussion on state welfare and wealth
redistribution. Some of the assertions posted here border on the
ridiculous, or just haven't been well thought out.
For example, Chris said:
I'm suggesting that society today is made up so that
intellectual values always comes secondary, because
the capitalist system puts focus on social level values. You are born into
this society, and as you grow up you
realise that unless you can get some money, you really
can't do anything. ...
FIRST you need to make sure you can make some money, and THEN you can
explore you potential. Some people are lucky, and what they value happens
to be something
you can make money out of, but that's far from everyone.
And this limits humanity.
A welfare state, kind of like the one we used to have over here, should
among other things make sure that
when you are born and grow up, you are free to pursue
your potential, no matter what material conditions you have.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Certainly, we grow up needing
the basic necessities of life, and the vast majority of us were fortunate
enough to have parents who could afford food and shelter. But to say "you
really can't do anything [without] getting money" is just not true. Even
the poorest children can learn and develop their their creative potential
while taking on simple responsiblities, like a paper route (which is how
multi-billionaire T. Boone Pickens started).
Research reveals that billionaire entrepreneurs are not driven primarily by
money, that the desire for financial success is no stronger among
entrepreneurs than among those not starting a company. According to Wharton
School management professor Raphael Amit, "No one is saying they don't like
their wealth; but what matters more is the innovation, the intense
commitment they have to an idea and the difference it can make. Money is a
byproduct." Even a college degree in not a prerequisite for success.
Among the world's super-rich today, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Fred DeLuca
didn't graduate from college. And David Murdock (Dole Foods), S. Truett
Cathy (Chick-fil-A), and Richard Desmond (British publishing magnate) didn't
even finish high school.
Nor is pure "luck" as important as making the best of an opportunity. If
you are good at something you value, such as art, design, or writing, making
a comfortable living from it is not luck but parlaying your talent into a
lucrative career. In a recent Forbes poll of the 400 richest people in the
world, none said they had become wealthy by luck. Some said they considered
luck to be a minor factor, but most, like Oprah Winfrey, consider luck an
outsider's way of describing someone who works hard and seizes opportunity.
"Luck," Winfrey says, "is preparation meeting a moment of opportunity."
The simple truth is that successful entrepreneurs work harder and longer
than the people who work for them. Most say they work 50 to 55 hours a
week. Centibillionaire Canadian communication mogul Ted Rogers works 12
hours a day. Bill Gates (when he worked at Microsoft) and eBay founder Jeff
Skoll, took no vacations for years while their businesses were growing.
If we all believed financial success depended on a paternal welfare state to
"give us money", there would soon be no source of money to grease our palms.
I don't know whether that's "philosophy" or not, but one would expect it to
be taught in Economics 101.
Regards,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
