I like the story, but I feel it's important to mention that the authors stated opinion on Karma is terrifying.
Karma is essentially the worst sort of belief, in that superficially it seems to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This appeals to a lot of people because of its clear "carrot/stick" mentality and overall simplicity. This is the "Just-World" hypothesis.
In reality, this kind of thinking means that if you believe in Karma, you can ignore less-fortunates because clearly they screwed up their lives on their own. Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway. It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort.
This is a very superficial interpretation of the idea of karma. What you're describing is just someone rationalizing being a judgmental asshole.
Karma is about "paying it forward", not in an attempt to gain the favor of the universe, but because it is the morally correct thing to do.
If you believe in karma, you believe that the machinations of the universe will reward and punish justly, but you don't participate in the process directly. Individuals don't get to meter out "karmic retribution" to people they perceive to be unworthy.
While I don't think that the author of the piece meant it this way:
If I believe in Karma, arguably I believe that the best thing I can do is to fulfil my station in life as I aspire to break the cycle of rebirth. It's definitely worth remembering that Karma existed in a society that did have, and still does in some ways, a very strong caste system where the good of the society was often seen as a consequence of everyone doing their assigned role. Notably, in the Bhagavad Gita, one of the arguments that Krishna uses to convince Arjuna that he should fight against his own family is because it will fulfil his verdic duties - in this instance his station in life as a warrior.
Not to mention arguably the worst aspect of Karma belief: that the successful deserve it. This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives.
The problem with a flowery eastern concept misinterpreted and adopted in the west is that the original meaning gets distorted. Karma is merely a way of understanding "cause and effect".
> This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives.
That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine".
>That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine".
Since I never clarified what I meant and you came up with such a specific notion, it would appear you're projecting some defensiveness here.
But I will go ahead and clarify my position: The fact of the matter is, the US is a combative system. For it to work properly, each side has to take the extremes of their own position so the result ends up in the middle.
The rich don't need the poor or middle class to vote as a rich person, they can literally pay people to do that for them if they wish. A poor person should vote for issues that help them specifically and directly. Forget trickle-down even if you're ignorant enough to believe in it.
A perfect example is right-to-work states. Within the last year or so I read a story about a husband in (I believe it was) Kentucky who was sent out on a neglected platform to do some work, it collapsed and he died. The family was simply out a husband, father and provider. They couldn't even sue because the way the laws worked in that state meant the company would have literally had to try and murder the man for the family to be able to sue over the indecent.
I bet if you talked to most people in that state, they would be for this law because they don't want people suing McDonald's over hot coffee, for example. But why would they care? They're closer to the burned woman than they are McDonald's, voting their interests would mean they vote for the ability to sue McDonald's if they accidentally burn themselves.
Of course ditto-heads will scream "yea but if we did that it would ruin the whole country!" and indeed if the poor and middle class always got their way it would. But that wouldn't happen. Voting their own interests would simply pull the final result closer to the middle. That is, it would present ridiculous situations like a family not even being able to sue a company for a true case of near-criminal negligence and wrongful death.
> Since I never clarified what I meant and you came up with such a specific notion, it would appear you're projecting some defensiveness here.
Correct, I was taking up an example, which is why I used the phrase "one might say". I didn't advocate a specific position (higher or lower taxes). I am completely detached; I don't participate in the political system in America (neither do I plan to ever) so I simply don't care.
I am not in disagreement with your thesis. The problem that bugs me is this presumption that the people are not cognizant of what is good for them. Maybe, the people do something for a reason which is of interest to them (but not the reason that someone else thinks is right for them). E.g. maybe, the people who sue McDonalds don't want their neighbor becoming rich while they are poor. This of course is not limited to the poor; this is a human thing. I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes; then again that is my opinion and is not necessarily the same as his. If you examined your decisions over a certain period of time, you will find that the reasons you do something are not necessarily in accordance with what society (or $person whom you think is smarter than you) does them for.
>The problem that bugs me is this presumption that the people are not cognizant of what is good for them.
Go to America. Live there for a while. Move to a red state and actually talk to people. This presumption won't seem so arrogant when you meet so many people for which there is no other logical conclusion to make.
>I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes
It's not, but the voting environment has gotten so skewed that people like Buffet feel they have to abandon voting in their best interests to try and get some kind of balance. At least they claim to publicly.
I grew up in and retired to a reddest of Red State America, spent a dozen year in the very Blue State Boston area and a dozen in the D.C. area, which was sort of mixed but plenty Blue State, and I have to say that this "What's the Matter with Kansas" false consciousness thesis is presumptuous bunk.
It basically labels our different concerns, or different weighting of various concerns, as illegitimate. In your case, a lot of this seems to reduce to the economic man world view ... and even then, since you don't consider things like "trickle down economics" (sure seemed to work better for us in the '80s than what's been tried after Clinton) or our "libertarianism" AKA classical liberalism at least debatable points vs akin to the KKK....
I mean, is there any room in your world view for religion, e.g. "Man does not live by bread alone", or, say, non-economic principles that are worth dying for??? Any non-economic reason why anyone would volunteer for the military?
Sadly, you sound very much like what I'd expect from a red state. I bet you also think Obama is very left wing, don't you?
>since you don't consider things like "trickle down economics" (sure seemed to work better for us in the '80s than what's been tried after Clinton)
If you're not going to educate yourself, there's not much point in bothering with this. The stats are in, trickle down never worked [1]. And trickle down was continued through Clinton (somehow you don't realize he was more conservative than a lot of so-called republicans) on to the present time.
>or our "libertarianism" AKA classical liberalism at least debatable points vs akin to the KKK....
Of course libertarianism has some debatable points. But luckily, those points also belong to legitimate political movements as well (minus the naivety inherent in an-cap/libertarianism).
>I mean, is there any room in your world view for religion, e.g. "Man does not live by bread alone"
Sure.
> non-economic principles that are worth dying for???
As a matter of fact there are, though I would phrase it as "worth risking your life for" since simply dying is extremely unlikely to help anything.
>Any non-economic reason why anyone would volunteer for the military?
Sure. For example, if an imperialist, evil world power claimed my country was "terrorists friendly", "has weapons of mass destruction" or some such nonsense I would volunteer for the military to try and help push back these scum from our lands.
But blind patriotism? No. I don't believe someone "died for my freedoms" simply because they joined the military and died. For me to believe they died for my freedoms, my freedoms would have to be in danger from something they actually fought.
> Go to America. Live there for a while. Move to a red state and actually talk to people. This presumption won't seem so arrogant when you meet so many people for which there is no other logical conclusion to make.
I lived in a red state (TX) for three years. Tell me more how this is supposed to have exposed me to the idiotic masses who have one exact reason why they vote conservative.
In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. "The God Delusion" by Dawkins includes a great (and somewhat Rawlsian) rule, 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
E.g., as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
Yeah, I'm a libertarian also. Most people think the way people understand taxes is a.) screw the poor, it's mine b.) screw the rich, you don't deserve it.
But there's an entirely different philosophy out there. Taxes, which are non-voluntary by nature, are theft and therefore unethical. It's hard for many to conceptualize, but you can actually help the poor and those causes you care about and be anti-tax. It's not like we're a bunch greedy bastards. We just think voluntary society and government is the more ethical path.
Sadly, that's the exception rather than the rule for libertarians (I say this as a left libertarian). Far too many self-styled libertarians are convinced they'd be rich if they weren't being held down by taxes and regulation. Sigh.
What I've started telling every single one who parrots this nonsense - "Show me an onerous regulation that causes real pain for individuals and businesses, and I'll show you an opportunity for a REAL entrepreneur to get rich by making their lives easier." For all the talk of entrepreneurial spirit among right-libertarians, they have shockingly little faith in the capabilities of entrepreneurs to turn other people's problems into business opportunities.
If you define theft as non-voluntary taking, then I would argue that theft is not always unethical. The traditional example is that of a father stealing bread to feed his children. I would not call this to be unethical. Why, then, would I call it unethical to steal of funds to feed a nation?
>In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain.
Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties.
> 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
This is a Utopian way to govern, which would be great. But it doesn't apply to the US system. If your position is reasonable and the other side is pushing extremely toward their interests you're going to end up with the middle point between you both.
> as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
Your last paragraph couldn't be more further than the truth. Comparing libertarians to KKK members in not just insane, it's insulting.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy more akin to classical liberalism than any modern movement today. Don't confuse the Libertarian party with the libertarian movement. Also, there are many libertarian organizations in the US and world wide.
Well yes, I rather intended it to be insulting as I find the fact that in today's world of instant connections to information, the fact that people still see Libertarianism itself as legitimate as insane and insulting. Any movement that considers Ayn Rand anything other then the uninventive, unoriginal hack she was is worthy only of ridicule.
And I suspect any international "Libertarian" parties are actually american expats. The international community does have something comparable though: ancaps. I feel the same about them.
You are mixing things up. Ayn Rand is more associated with the right-conservative movement. Libertarianism (with a lower-case l) is simply the belief in a voluntary society - one without coercion. The problem with most peoples political beliefs is they are ego-centric and are based the individual thinking their way is correct and they are so certain of it, they're willing to force others to comply via the barrel of a gun (or proxy gun - aka, military, police, etc) using property confiscation (non-voluntary taxes) as the primary means.
Ask yourself, are you so certain of your position that you are willing to shoot or imprison me even if I'm causing you no harm? This is the modus operandi for both the left and right.
>Ayn Rand is more associated with the right-conservative movement.
Then why was she all over those links you gave me? I think your movement has moved on without you.
>is simply the belief in a voluntary society - one with coercion.
You meant without here, right? Then we're talking anarchism. Since libertarians always talk about free markets, that would make it ancap. Which is an oxymoron.
> they're willing to force others to comply via the barrel of a gun (or proxy gun - aka, military, police, etc) with property confiscation (non-voluntary taxes) as the primary means.
A but this is exactly my issue with libertarianism: it's so much more complex than this but libertarians just hand wave all the problems away. Just a few more incantations of "laissez faire" and Utopia will arrive.
I'm not pro-coercion, I simply recognize that capitalism itself implies a level of coercion no matter how you package it up.
> Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties.
Well, I'm not an american, so I don't vote in the US, but if I could I would vote for Libertarian Party candidates.
> Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical.
> I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian
Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
>No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical.
It's not about helping yourself. It's about consistent voting. If everyone votes for the rich person, the entire system will be skewed hopeless in their favor.
You think taxes are unethical? Then how does the government pay for itself? Would you rather they just printed the money they need? That would also be a tax; a flat tax.
And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system.
>I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt. If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.
> You think taxes are unethical? Then how does the government pay for itself? Would you rather they just printed the money they need? That would also be a tax; a flat tax.
> And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system.
Well, since I'm also an opponent of fiat currency, the government couldn't very well print any money :)
I'd prefer a night-watchman state, with the government handling police, courts, the military and possibly other services relating to emergency rescue, the justice system or government administration.
I would prefer the following for funding the (very small) government in ranking order: 1. Donations, 2. Fees, 3. A small flat tax levied either as an income tax or a corporate tax.
And yes, the third option isn't a very good option.
> By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt.
Indeed. I can't speak about the BNP, since I don't know anything about it, but the classic liberal party of Sweden only got a few hundred votes last election.
> If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.
I'll do that once the US stops being a collectivist surveillance state corrupted by cronyism, and actually starts respecting the principles set forth in its constitution again. (Not to mention when it actually starts allowing immigrants again.)
Until such a time, I'll try to make the situation better where I happen to reside.
>Well, since I'm also an opponent of fiat currency, the government couldn't very well print any money :)
So you want the gold standard again? Hasn't being in the EU shown you the dangers of having a currency you can't adjust to respond to international conditions?
>I'd prefer a night-watchman state, with the government handling police, courts, the military and possibly other services relating to emergency rescue, the justice system or government administration.
And somehow you imagine that the megarich corporations aren't instantly going to (a) start using unregulated practices to set up all kinds of monopolies and (b) start spending money to turn the country to their favor resorting in the exact same place the US is right now?
>1. Donations, 2. Fees, 3. A small flat tax levied either as an income tax or a corporate tax.
Donations? Seriously, donations? The police, military and so on will be at the mercy of what people decide to give of their own free will? Why am I not surprised to see such a position from a self proclaimed Libertarian.
>Until such a time, I'll try to make the situation better where I happen to reside.
Turning Sweden even more over to corporations isn't going to make it better, you must be out of your mind.
> So you want the gold standard again? Hasn't being in the EU shown you the dangers of having a currency you can't adjust to respond to international conditions?
Being in the EU has shown me the dangers of government meddling in the market.
> Donations? Seriously, donations? The police, military and so on will be at the mercy of what people decide to give of their own free will? Why am I not surprised to see such a position from a self proclaimed Libertarian.
Yes, because it's far better to steal the money instead of it being given freely. I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?
>Being in the EU has shown me the dangers of government meddling in the market.
Oh ffs. What place has shown you the joys of a completely laissez faire market? I'd be interested to hear about it since no such thing actually exists at any reasonably large scale. It was tried in Chile once and failed so hard that Friedman's own "Chicago boys" had to back it off.
>I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?
Well, no actually. I'm not willing to spend a dollar on those services until I know those getting more value out of them (i.e. the rich) are paying their fair share. In reality, they'll probably be paying nothing so I will join them.
> Well, no actually. I'm not willing to spend a dollar on those services until I know those getting more value out of them (i.e. the rich) are paying their fair share. In reality, they'll probably be paying nothing so I will join them.
Okay. That would be your right. Just don't start complaining once the underfunded justice system won't have the resources to handle burglaries in homes which cannot afford private security.
I will complain because I wasn't paying because the rich weren't paying. What could my pennies do if they won't contribute? Seriously, this has to be the most naive nonsense I've ever read on HN.
The reason we have a corporatocracy now is due to the opposite of libertarianism: cronyism / crony-capitalism. When you have huge bureaucracy, you get a situation where corporations have to bribe (aka, lobby) for special rights, favors and bailouts. In a libertarian economy, a company would have to stand on it's ability to solve a marketplace demand.
>a company would have to stand on it's ability to solve a marketplace demand.
This is the libertarian hand waving I complain about.
As long as you have a group with guns, companies will be paying that group to use their guns to enforce the rights of those companies. That's the most rational thing for a company to do. You can't out-innovate your competitors forever, you can't undercut their price forever and you can't provide better quality forever. Doing any of these things is very hard work, can be very expensive and you will lose eventually. It's a safer approach, once you win in a market to use those winnings to buy government-created barriers to entry against you're biggest enemy: new competition.
>Are you against voluntary society?
No, I assume it's inevitable given a large enough timescale. I have simply read enough to know that such a society is incompatible with capitalism.
If you give a billionaire a tax break he is likely to invest in things that make people like myself happy. Examples include SpaceX, Netflix, Facebook or whatever.
If the government instead keeps taxes high, the money will simply pay people not to work. We are all poorer as a result.
>If you give a billionaire a tax break he is likely to invest in things that make people like myself happy.
People often make this claim and similar claims - ie tax cuts for the rich create jobs and growth. These are empirical claims; you need evidence for them. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine being a billionaire and not deciding to invest in cool stuff because my tax rate went up 5 or 10 percentage points.
I made no claims about creating jobs or growth. I rarely make such arguments, since a) I think a focus on creating jobs is nonsensical and b) empirical evidence showing stuff causes growth is virtually nonexistent.
My claim is much milder. As a billionaire, basically everything you have is invested. If he has $100m less, then $100m less is invested.
Investment has a chance of benefiting me. Consumption by the leisure class (i.e., beneficiaries of government redistribution) does not. FlyinRyan is simply incorrect in his claims.
What a bunch of nonsense. A billionaire investing millions has virtually no chance of helping you. The only conceivable way he can help you is by participating in an IPO so that particular company gets an injection of cash to use to hire more people, etc. But virtually all trading that will go on with his/her millions/billions is buying and selling of stock that IPO'ed long ago and no longer bring the issuer any money at all.
The kind of investment the billionaire is doing is zero-sum in nature and doesn't help anyone but them.
It's hilarious that you imagine some billionaire playing the stock market has more value to you than people spending money on products (that you could be making). The 80's called and asked for their misconceptions back.
You're being thick. People consuming creates a market. You have the opportunity to capture a part of that market to make money. This is the entire point of capitalism. You somehow imagine that fucking billionaires investing in funds is more beneficial to you than the actual markets? Take a step back and think about what you're saying.
A poor person should vote for issues that help them specifically and directly.
Why? Your vote doesn't matter. The probability of your vote affecting the outcome is so small it can't be represented with a double precision floating point [1].
So why shouldn't the poor do the same thing everyone else does, namely vote for the guy who makes them feel good?
Why do you believe every voter has not already adopted this belief?
Political campaigns certainly behave as if they believe voters already do vote this way. That's why Bush is the regular guy who clears brush from his estate, for example, and why everyone who disagrees with Obama is racist.
While frivolous lawsuits are certainly a problem, I think everyone citing the McDonald's coffee example should watch the documentary Hot Coffee. It puts that incident in a new perspective.
For those not interesting in watching a documentary about the incident, the summary is that McDonalds served a woman, Stella Liebeck, coffee which was approximately 85C. Most coffee shops, at least at the time, served coffee about 60C. After getting the drink from the drive-through, she spilled the entire coffee on herself while adding sugar and cream to it. She was the passenger in the car, and the incident happened with the car parked. She received third-degree burns and needed a skin graft. She eventually won a substantial sum from McDonalds in a civil lawsuit.
The coffee's temperature met McDonald's policy. They set it higher than their competitors because they assumed people would keep it in a cup holder and want it to be a more drinkable temperature when they arrived at their destination. Today, McDonald's has not changed their policy and still serves coffee at 80-90C, and places like Starbucks serve it at similar or higher temperatures. They are able to do this because of better packaging that's less likely to spill the entire drink even if it's dropped on your lap like Liebeck did.
Personally, I don't think that it was a frivolous lawsuit. She did receive serious burns, more serious than I would expect someone to receive from spilled coffee.
Sure thing. I just thought I would dump this hear for anyone who happened to be reading this thread because I found that documentary pretty informative.
I don't know if my American history books were particularly biased (although I had a great and seemingly unbiased one in AP US History), but expressing aspiration through voting has been a long common thread through US history. For example, slaves were expensive so only a small small minority owned them. The vast majority supported it because (or at least some of the primary reasons cited by my history books) it a) established someone lower on the social ladder than them and b) they all aspired to the "American dream" which at that time was owning slaves and didn't want to end it before they even became wealthy.
Yeah, I have heard of that narrative; Steinbeck did say “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”. I still find it patronizing; it is reductive. The model assumes a caricature of a poor man who votes for slavery in the hope of owning a slave one day. Maybe, he just doesn't like black people? Maybe, he worries that his precarious job will be lost by new competition? Maybe, Colonel George from the plantation threatened him if he votes for abolition?
All so close, seeing the trees, but not the forest.
HN is pretty good at programming and startups, but even the shortest expedition into history gets even the most amateur historians all wound up and LOL.
The fundamental problem was regionalism and federalism vs states rights. Not talked about for obvious political reasons now a days because that would bring up obvious difficult questions... All the issues mentioned were trees in the forest being fought over as PR fodder for the bigger issue of the south wanted to be the south and didn't want some yankee telling them anything, even if the yankee was correct. Extreme stubbornness on both sides. Then the war of northern aggression started because the southerners told the northerners to F off and leave them alone too many times.
If you could have magically removed slavery and plantations from the history of the south and reinsert another set of trees like space alien contact and medieval era 3-d printers, the forest would remain and the civil war would have been fought more or less the same way over PLA vs ABS figurines of intellectually protected property of images of space aliens or something.
The Trees Just Don't Matter (compared to the forest)
To some extent I believe this comes from the HN population consisting of many unmarried people. Trust me, once you get married you can bicker over stuff that has nothing to do with the real issue all day if you want.
I'm very aware of the reasons the North actually went to war. It was, incidentally, that southern stubbornness that lost the South the war since France would have almost certainly come in on their side (and from the Northern front where Grant couldn't have hoped to deal with them) had Robert E. Lee been half as smart as Lincoln and simply claimed they wanted to be a separate country.
But you can't ignore the slavery though. Without it, there would have been no wealth in the south worth going to war for (nor enough resources to support succession).
That's a rather dogmatic way of thinking about karma.
'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' Anguttara Nikaya 5.57 (translator: Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
Lesson to self: practice noble habits and refrain from ignoble ones.
> In reality, this kind of thinking means that if you believe in Karma, you can ignore less-fortunates because clearly they screwed up their lives on their own.
Disagree - If some one is "less-fortunate" and you are in the capacity to help them, you accumulate the negative kind of karma by ignoring them.
> Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway.
Maybe. But do not forget the implications on you for being a jerk.
> It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort.
Your interpretation of Karma may be correct, but I was responding to the author's views on Karma. I urge you to go read it again, his are the under-informed, dangerous sort.
Philosophical perspectives on karma notwithstanding, I'm not sure I agree. You can ignore the less fortunate whether you believe in Karma, god or other imaginary friend.
Second, at times it should be your obligation to be a jerk to others. Not saying always, but where not doing so puts you into a worse place than you would otherwise be, you should.
To explain (followed by an extreme example): consider the most important things you need to accomplish in life (remember also that these will vary depending on what you intend to achieve with your life) -
1. Stay alive. You can't do squat if you're dead.
2. Love unconditionally, but take no crap.
3. And so on.
If being an arse to someone keeps you alive then this may give you the opportunity to save your child's life. There are many less-extreme scenarios that are just as valid. Why, for example, does the FAA suggest putting your own oxygen mask on before helping others?
PS. Everybody can be successful. Ref. Wallace D. Wattles' vol 1: The Science of Getting Rich
So Karma is right some of the time is your defense? A broken clock is right two times a day. I still wouldn't advocate replacing your functional clock with a broken one. Similarly, I don't advocate Karma because it's an extremely flawed philosophy.
Karma is not a dialectic, as if there is a synthesis/anti-syntheis position from which to posit the workings of Karmic responses.
At the essence of anyone who wishes to live a better life, is responsibility. Karma is a cultural mechanic by which we humans can discuss the phenomenon of responsibility in a manner which, while it may be broken or incomplete, has indeed - by simple stint of communication - resulted in many an individual, family, group of people, improving their lives.
A little more consciousness of the responsibility of the individual to interact with the wider universe, is all one can truly hope to 'gain' from a Karmic point of view.
Just so its clear, I don't think Karma as you understand it is necessarily complete, or at least you cannot apply the dialectic materialist point of view, if you think you 'get' Karma.. imho, of course.
I don't really mind things that are said a lot, especially when they express genuine doubt, rather than people playing devil's advocate or intentionally muddying the waters with far-fetched speculation. My problem is the misuse of the word. "Terrifying" is to HN as "slightly concerning" is to real life.
The more general and, perhaps, more correct notion of karma is dependent causation, which means that everything what we are is caused by our actions - thoughts, deeds, desires (including those in past lives.))
This concept, considered broadly, eliminates any kind of external, super-human forces, including deities and gods. It also opens the path for changes in oneself (a way to enlightenment) due to lack of any other obstacles but ones own mind.
Our own actions is only part of the big notion, and of course, according to ancient teachings, "good" and "bad" doesn't exist outside ones mind, there are just actions and the objective reality, which just is.
Remember kids, if you work hard, sacrifice, and have parents with a spare house in Tahoe they can lend you rent-free indefinitely, you too can make it as a programmer.
Who your parents are and who you know is a big determinant of what you're going to do with your life. I don't see anything wrong with using these resources if they're available.
Also, as a European, I am continually amazed by the low, low real estate prices in some parts of the US. There are very nice big rural properties that even I could afford without a lot of hassle.
I must admit I've actually toyed with the idea of buying one, but to make it full circle with the article, decided against it because I thought it would be utterly unfair to my cat (she suffers enough absences as it is) - I realized that she has very little time left and that we're going to make the best of it :)
More than just who your parents are... who your role models are. Who are the most successful adults you know when growing up as a child, what are they doing with their lives, and how did they get there?
I grew up in a poor, uneducated family. The only wealthy/successful people I met were people my dad worked for, and he had nothing but contempt for them generally. It wasn't until I went to college that I really started meeting people who made something of themselves. My sense of scope, of what I can do on my own, has grown with the kinds of people I know. I left the limitations of my childhood behind long ago.
There may be something to that, but it's kind of unrelated to the article. The article claims to be about sacrifice, but it's actually about pursuing happiness.
And his lesson in pursuing happiness is pretty universal: Be willing to make very big life changes in the pursuit of happiness, and supposed "obligations" to others are never significant enough to sacrifice your happiness to.
P.S. In anticipation of a potential criticism of this, no, having children is not a "sacrifice." Do it because it makes you happy to do it. If it's a sacrifice, you're doing it wrong.
I can't understand the general hostility toward getting (financial) help from your parents or living with them until you are financially independent, even after 18/25/30.
I know I am biased as an italian (and pretty much adhere to the true stereotype) but I can't find anything wrong from getting help from the people that brought you in this world and which probably love you more than anyone else on the planet (and therefore have more reasons to do so). There's no shame in getting helped.
> I can't understand the general hostility toward getting (financial) help from your parents or living with them until you are financially independent, even after 18/25/30.
Personally, I never had that support structure and had to figure out my shit the hard way; that doesn't mean I was never helped by people, it simply means that I had to work harder to get help. This means that I find it mildly annoying when those hoops are skipped easily by people who can run to mommy and daddy when things go bad.
> I know I am biased as an italian
There is a cultural element to it. I am of Indian origin; those people are big on the family support structure thing. I think it gets way too codependent. On the other hand, America has both kinds: There are enough people who run to daddy to handle their credit card bills. There also is this Randian image of a hero who arises magically from the dust and conquers everything.
My issue is with the title more than anything. Sacrificed everything? This guy has traveled the world, was able to dump truckloads of money into 2 rounds of post-graduate study, and was finally able to throw it all away and live in his parents' house in the name of changing his career path.
Sacrifice is about hardship, tough decisions, and tangible loss, not about your parents shaking their heads and wagging their fingers at you. I'd argue that this guy's parents sacrificed more than he ever did just to give him the privilege of saying that he "sacrificed everything".
To me, I think of it as this: it's great that the author was able to get help like this. What about people who have poor parents? Or worse, abusive parents or no parents at all? I know, "life is unfair," but what if we, as a society, can do better?
OK, I tend to make resentful comments about kids with trust funds or who still live at home, but honestly, they would be fools to not tap into the resources available to them.
shrugs Everyone has advantages. You being born in the U.S. or having the ability to work in the U.S. is an advantage. Hell, whatever shit that happened to you in your life that made you who you are today, that makes you wake up everyday and decide to work (whilst your fellow man sits drinking a beer and bemoans the lazy Mexican stealing his job) is an advantage.
(Although, I would fucking love a family with a spare house in Tahoe. )
Pretty sure he would have found a way even without these advantages. Might have taken a longer time, might have been a pretty ugly show, but once the conviction the hardest part was over.
Your point is really snarky. I also don't like that he tried to externalize his decisions, though. His dog made him do it? Oh, look - I'm being snarky now, but that's what I got out of it.
I actually respect him for explaining his motives and position even if I don't agree with him. Everybody acts irrationally and we rarely admit it openly.
He admits in the article that the Guiding Paw of Deimos is a disingenuous story; in truth he was dissatisfied with his career path. He motivated himself by being accountable to an external party, a psychological "hack" that works for many people.
The bit about having to overcome feelings of guilt about disappointing your advisor in order to live the right life for you really resonated with me. Taking the long-term view to make the right short-term life choices is something that many of my unhappy colleagues still toiling on their doctorates would benefit from. We PhD dropouts have decades of experience meeting and exceeding the expectations of others by the time we reach graduate school, so it feels like a radical step to finally place our own needs and desires above the need for validation from others in our lives.
Second. I'd also like to point out that I am a cat person and also feel bad about not being able to spend more time with my cats while I'm in the lab all day!
> If you’ve ever owned a dog, you know just how intelligent they actually are (especially larger breeds)
yes, some larger breeds rate higher on obedience scale, and we, humans, equate that to the intelligence in animals. There is another bias also is that large breeds are more frequently working breeds, thus a lot of specialized effort is invested into training them, and thus more of the obedience results achieved.
about anthropocentric design of the tests - reminded me about how they tested chimpanzees for ability to recognize faces (an ability which we consider a necessary trait for a high intelligence), and there wasn't much progress until instead of human faces chimpanzee faces started to be used in the test.
Quite a bit of discussion around the meaning of Karma in here.
As an Indian, I'd like to chip in with the actual meaning of "Karma" - the closest synonym in English is "fulfilling your purpose".
The Indian culture is heavy with assumptions that everyone has some purpose in life. The concept of karma urges you to act upon your purpose in life - intended or perceived. It never promises any rewards or punishments by itself. That is primarily taken care of by the rest of the philosophy in these books - unsurprisingly similar to all the other religions of the world.
By itself, karma has no positive or negative association. In fact, one of the holy texts dissociates your "karma" with the fruits reaped subsequent to it. "Continue fulfilling your purpose in life without expecting any rewards for your actions whatsoever." In other words:
Happiness = Reality - Expectations.
The lower the expectations and 'better' the reality, the greater your happiness. :)
I like this guy. Except for when he acted like cat owners couldn't make sacrifices too. I once had to cut a trip short because my cat missed me so much that he made himself sick.
I found it a happy little jab at the end of a serious, introspective article. Thank you for the neat read! I, personally am looking to get a dog and cat(s) soon, and I, too, realize the massive time commitment these animals require to make it worth it. I'm shooting for a stronger at-home presence before I make the leap.
My roommates told me that when I went home to visit family for vacation, my cat apparently sat at the door every day as if she was waiting for me to come back. What am I supposed to say when I hear that? She demonstrates her affection in other ways too. Dang, you get attached so easily. Definitely be prepared to be committed before you get a pet.
Haha no worries. I totally understand that one. I feel like I walk a strange line as someone who was born a dog person, but whose life is mostly ruled by cats (I have a dog too though).
I'm a dog and cat person, though mostly I've only been what my roommates have been. My current roommate has a dog. My last few roommates have had cats...Living in New York now, what I wouldn't give for a mouse-killing cat...
It's hard to say which animal is better, overall. I will say though that a cat whose devotion you've earned, to the point that it's as loyal as a dog (yet knows how to use the litter box)...is my favorite hybrid pet of all.
Regarding the litter box situation, I prefer dogs. They let you know when they have to go so you don't have to scoop foul-smelling poop and stink up the apartment.
I have two cats, and they don't stink up the house. Use good litter, not that clay crap, but the wheat or corn based ones, and scoop every day into something like a litter genie.
It works perfectly, except when my older cat forgets to bury. The younger one usually takes care of that though.
I don't know, our two kittens (now grown) make the stinkiest poop imaginable. We scoop them up right after they do it, but they still manage to stink the whole apartment up. I don't know why that happens, they only eat pate/dry food, but it does.
I live in a village of 40 people in the mountains a large part of the year for my dogs. Programming from home. Living in a city and working in an office I thought was horrible for animals so we changed our lives 6 years ago radically to not go to 'the office' (office at home now) and live on a large (30000 m^2) plot of land where dogs can be outside without us worrying about cars.
I don't have the karma thing; I just moved because I thought dogs should be able to run around all day instead of sit in a small apartment (the apartment costing actually 4x as much as the villa + large plot of land making it really insane to me now that people actually choose and like living on 80m^2 vs 200m^2+30000m^2 for 4x as much money, but he, I loved it in the city; I'm not sure if that feeling grew or was always there). We would never move back to our previous life; there is no stress anymore and money is simply worth a lot more in the countryside.
The author's opinions on incurring credit card debt strikes me as naive with a hint of survivorship bias.
> As long as you use the money properly, and investing in yourself is the best possible way to use money, credit cards can give you a new life.
If by using the money properly he meant investing in his business, then, what would have happened if his business instead failed (as most do)?
Incurring high-interest debt like that isn't really advisable unless you have a solid plan B to deal with it in case things go awry (which they probably will).
That's the wonderful and horrible thing about the US. There are a myriad of high risk high reward options like credit cards and student debt. For some people they pay off, for others they end up drowning in debt. There are some wonderful success stories and some terrifying stories of lives reduced to abject poverty.
I think it is mostly wonderful. In the part of the third world my parents are from unless your family is independently wealthy then you simply won't be able to afford to go to college and thus are destined to (at best) have some very low-paying menial labor job.
Contrast this with the US, you can get federally-backed, low-interest loans, go to school majoring in engineering and move from poverty to middle class in one generation.
Well it's a huge difference with Europe. Specifically in Austria where I'm living everyone gets an education for free, there's free health care, even menial jobs are well paid. Everyone lives a pretty solid middle class life but there are much fewer people struggling to change the world. Fewer success stories but everyone is taken care of. It's an interesting situation, hell there's not even credit card debt since if your credit isn't paid by the end of the month it's locked until you pay your balance down to zero.
Another thing to factor in: for whatever reasons, you aren't reproducing. Per Wikipedia, your fertility rate is 1.42 to 1.44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_de...), which is perilously close to the "lowest low" of 1.3 from which societies don't recover from, and certainly isn't even close to the 2.1 needed for steady state replacement.
I.e. absent serious change, your society is doomed, you'll die out in due course; many say the example your and other counties like you provide are object lessons in what not to do.
That's a strawman unless you can produce data that relates the reproduction rate to the standard of living. If you can do that then apparently what you're saying is that a country needs to enforce low standards (or at least wildly differing) standards of living in order to ensure survival.
I.e. absent major changes your argument has been refuted; Many say the example your argument and other's like it provide are object lessons in what not to do.
Also as a side note you can't compare the US to third world countries and get meaningful results, normally all first world countries are better than third world countries. By comparing the US to other first world countries you will see it's strengths and weaknesses more easily.
I was a bit struck by this:
> I see credit cards as being the saving grace which prevented another great depression during the recent economic collapse.
Partly because the economic collapse was driven by banks allowing high-risk credit on mortgages, loans and credit cards, and thinking they staved off a true great depression is a very weird way to approach it.
Great story. However, this clearly was not a sacrifice.
It would be a sacrifice if he had made himself miserable for the sake of the dog.
We have a culture that glorifies sacrifice, and we need to stop doing that. Sacrifice is a barbaric, religious notion. Nobody truly gains by others' sacrifices.
We have a culture that glorifies sacrifice because sacrifice deserves a good reputation in general. The source may be religious. To quote a religious source, "Great love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Whether it's a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to protect his fellow men in service, my poor immigrant aunt forgoing university to work right away so that all of her poor immigrant younger siblings would be able to afford to go to university, or a kid using his allowance to donate to charities that help kids in wartorn nations instead of buying himself a new toy, sacrifice is laudable.
And sacrifice does not necessitate misery. That's a false definition of what sacrifice entails. Yes, sacrifice can involve misery, but it does not necessitate misery. Many who sacrifice do it because it is meaningful and they have no bitterness from doing it. My aunt regrets never going to university. But she would make the same decision again in a heartbeat.
Sacrifice is glorified for a reason. In the example of the soldier, it is because of bravery and courage. In the case of my aunt, it is because of responsibility. In the case of the kid, it is because of warmheartedness. In all three cases, you could say it traces all back to a deep sense of love and wanting to do what's right. And there is nothing wrong with that at all.
Really sweet story. As a two-cat household (no doggies allowed in apartment unfortunately) I understand the desire to be home with them. I always tell people being with my kitties all day is a major plus for being a programmer. And didn't mind the ending line, cat people have their dog people jokes too so it's fun for all of us.
I've got tremendous respect for this man - honestly identifying what's important and then changing direction so fundamentally is very hard. It takes a lot of courage to do all of that, we need more loving people for sure.
I honestly don't know where I'd be without my dog. They really are amazing animals. It's been a rough few years and just knowing that every time I get up from the computer that he's ready to make me smile and go wherever I go, whenever I go... it's a perfect reminder of why I work as hard as I do.
Even though I do walk him multiple times each day, I feel bad for sitting at this machine working 70+ hours a week trying to build a business. It's taking longer than expected and it's gotten to where I can't tell if he's just getting old or possibly depressed from lack of stimulation, so I tell him (probably more so myself ;) that we're going to move on soon and have all kinds of fun. That's the main thing that keeps me going. I just hope that by the time I do get back on my feet, there's still time to give him the life he deserves.
I know. I thought I made that clear with the "probably more so myself" bit. But me feeling bad for the dog who has a much shorter lifespan than I do and who seems to already be losing his sight and hearing is not projecting. My sight and hearing is perfectly fine.
There are probably a lot of people out there who balk at the idea of personal sacrifice for a dog. It’s easy to spot these people, however. They are cat people.
I spent $1000 last month so one of my cats could get an abcessed tooth removed on Memorial day, out of about $2500 that I took in. You're not special.
So dogs don't deserve to be locked up all day inside, but kids, and people, do?
Humans are happy outdoors. Children need to be outside exploring, playing, figuring out the earth and nature, not sitting inside on iPads all day. Just because there are "good jobs" in tech doesn't mean it's OK to withdraw your child from nature in order to allow more time tinkering with computers.
Let kids get close with nature. Let them connect with animals and the earth. It will lead to calmer, more empathetic adults with less anxiety and more confidence and compassion.
The writer's comments were not primarily about a dog being locked _inside_, there were more about the dog being left _alone_. It's illegal to lock a kid inside alone all day (or at all), but that's how many dogs are left, even though dogs are pack animals that decline without interaction.
Yes, there is the additional element of nature (i.e., Tahoe) in the narrative. And nature certainly enriches both our lives and a dog's life. But having interaction with others is a more basic and even more important requirement in our lives. Nature, important as it is, is more like the frosting on top.
Kids might not be locked alone but they are definitely left all alone with their iPads in practically all families I have seen. The trend is especially true in the western world where the parents are too 'busy' and send their kids off to preschool way too early since they can't be bothered with parenting.
As someone who lived in South Lake many years ago, I do get the Tallac reference. In the spring of 90 I hiked that mountain (started at 2am and reached the top at 9am)and snowboarded down the "cross". That day is one if my best memories. Thank you for the reminder=)
I really wish this trend of pressing left and right arrow keys to change articles/blog-posts would hurry up and die. Maybe I'm just stupidly clumsy, but so many times I'll try and scroll down on one of these pages and get thrown to some random story that doesn't interest me because I hit the wrong arrow key.
Perhaps the author knew he was on the wrong path subconsciously, but convinced himself it was okay if he was making the change for his dog? To turn his own words around, why would someone who lives a life of 75-80 years decide the course of their life-time for one that will only be around for 10?
I don't know I don't have problems making changes in my life for someone who matters to me. I don't look at life as a single event. Better split it into 5 - 10 year periods, a lot of things change in that time.
Also if you like having dogs you'll have another one with similar needs in 10-15 years.
It seems like he might have solved his problem twice. I have a friend who's a serious dog person, and having a significant other who gets home several hours before he does has helped his dog to be happy. Perhaps Lisa also has an easier schedule than dsowers would have if he continued being a chemist.
Just imagine if people were that dedicated to each other.
I've often noticed that we treasure the unconditional love and dedication that dogs have for their owners, yet the same behavior seen among people would be considered weak, co-dependent, etc. Why is there such a disconnect here?
Part of the reason I won't take a higher paying job in an office environment is the satisfaction I get working from home and having my dog(s) by my side. Being able to step out of the house for fresh air and take them on a walk is worth it's weight in gold.
Or you could get a job where you can bring your dog to the office. That's what I do - he likes going to work more than I do, since he gets to see all of his friends at the office.
Dogs focus their energies on pleasure and curiosity. Being around them can really change your point of view on things. I'm very glad to be able to work from home and spend that extra time with my 13 year old dog.
I'm in the same situation, getting sick of spending too much time away from home, but I am already a programmer who's made to commute 2.5hrs a day for a job I can do from home :(
> A dog is a living creature, just like a child is.
Ok, mosquitoes are too.
I'm really worried for those people equating their prefered pets with human beings.
I remember those technokids playing the beggars in front of a somethingmarket in France, they had four enormous dogs and wanted money supposedly for their pets' food.
Bullshit. If you like dogs, you do not chain them allday long to some grocery entrance, and then bring them back in some small stinky appartment. You either live with them in the countryside and go hunting rabbits with them in the morning, or you just don't breed them.
Clearly the author loved his dog more than his research advisor who supported the author through finance and other things.Glad for him though that it worked out.
Karma is essentially the worst sort of belief, in that superficially it seems to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This appeals to a lot of people because of its clear "carrot/stick" mentality and overall simplicity. This is the "Just-World" hypothesis.
In reality, this kind of thinking means that if you believe in Karma, you can ignore less-fortunates because clearly they screwed up their lives on their own. Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway. It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort.