[caffeine]

> We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven.

Totally agree.

> We are NOT companies

Actually, we are humans. However, when it comes to our economic activity, we are also a company. Both things can be true at once.

> this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people.

Woah. Anything you specifically disagree with?

I put it in economic terms to address the article, but if you replace “company of one” with “life” and “returns” with “outcomes”, the message is largely the same..

Edit:

I think you disagreed so hard because you think I’m saying “you’re only an adult if you think everything is about money and personal gain.”

But what I was trying to say was “you’re an adult once you realise you’re it; you can fail; and it’s nobody else’s job to make sure you don’t” - which I didn’t think was such a controversial point..

[kqr]

What set me off (not the one you're responding to) about your comment was the bit about not having a right to a good outcome.

Depending on what one means by "good", that one doesn't have a right to it is a fairly strong statement of political opinion, but it was presented as a universal truth.

I also think it's very important that people are allowed to enter risky ventures and "fail" while still being secure of a somewhat good outcome. Anything else puts a lid on innovation. (As they say, if you don't fail a lot, you aren't running bold enough experiments.)

----

You may have meant it descriptively ("I have observed that most societies don't allow for individual failure") and not prescriptively ("societies shouldn't allow for individual failure") but the rest of your comment was written in a prescriptive tone so it was hard to pick up on.

Either way, congrats on writing a popular and controversial comment!

[vasco]

How is it political opinion to realize a fact of the universe, which is that living beings need to take care of themselves and make good decisions for themselves or else "they fail". Barring the simplification, what you're responding to sounded like just a descriptive statement rather than a political stand.

[pavlov]

But it is not an axiom of the human condition that everyone must take care of themselves or fail. Taken literally that means no infant could survive, and then we'd have no adults either.

From that point of view it's probably more defining of humanity as a species that we take care of others, not that we survive personally at all costs. There are thousands or millions of species on this planet that only do the latter, and they don't write books and invent recipes and create startups.

[andrewjl]

This is a common pattern in social science discourse. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

[RosanaAnaDana]

>What set me off (not the one you're responding to) about your comment was the bit about not having a right to a good outcome. Depending on what one means by "good", that one doesn't have a right to it is a fairly strong statement of political opinion, but it was presented as a universal truth.

I think this is a really important thing to highlight in what I think is a real contradiction that is exposing its self and largely driving our global political narrative. Does one have the right to a "good life"? It looks like oop edited his original phrasing, but I'd like to take a moment and step into this question, because to me, it seems like its one that is still working itself out in real time. Its a question that for me, the US declaration of independence and framers were trying to address (for their identity, not necessarily for others).

Does one have an inalienable right to a "good life"? Do rights exist if we aren't will to fight, tooth and claw, to maintain them?

I think there is a real divide out in the wild about ones right to a 'good life', and a lot of people are being swindled by failing to think through and understand where the right to a 'good life' is borne. So many on one side argue that

Oop is getting a ton of flack for their framing, however, for me, it was once I adopted an almost identical framing that I started getting my worth at my place of employment. I started understanding that I was responsible for and being paid for or paying for all of my time. I may not like the game, but I didn't make it and playing ignorant to its rules wasn't going to help me.

There's clearly a lot of hate for neoliberalism in the responses to OOP's comment. I despise neoliberalism as much, and likely more than most of those respondents. But you can't fight something you don't understand. Sometimes its important to think through and understand how another group might frame something. Just because a belief happens in your mind doesn't mean you are that thought. Its ok to look at things from other perspectives, especially those you disagree with.

[andrewjl]

> “you’re an adult once you realise you’re it; you can fail; and it’s nobody else’s job to make sure you don’t”

There's an embedded ambiguity in your sentence in that there are two kinds of failure. One is a failure of endeavor where one don't get what one necessarily wants but who has the basics. Two is a catastrophic type failure with some combination of deprivation, insecurity, and health problems as a result.

Most people would agree with your statement when it comes to one. When it comes to two I don't think such a consensus exists.

My interpretation of the disagreement you are replying to is that possibly differing definitions of failure are being used.

[caffeine]

> There's an embedded ambiguity in your sentence in that there are two kinds of failure.

Fair enough.

In 2008 somebody asked me if I wanted to try cocaine. I didn’t. He eventually moved on to heroine and his life is now utterly “failed.” in the worst sense. My life is good.

In 2013 somebody told me I need to buy as much bitcoin as I can. I didn’t. That guy is now a billionaire and I’m still an average dude.

Personally I see those two situations as basically the same: decision -> outcome.

There is a continuum of outcomes and the “fail” end could be really catastrophic, for you, your finances, your life, loved ones, possibly even the whole planet in the extreme.

[dxdm]

What you wrote sounds extremely biased towards turning life into economical transactions on the labor market, while I think there's already too much of this mindset, and people need to be reminded that there is much more to life than economic theory.

[jbverschoor]

It’s the other way around.. a company act as a legal person. Companies are people. (natural person vs legal person in Dutch)

[blaser-waffle]

Maybe "people" in a "legal entity" sense, but companies are definitely not people, and shouldn't ever be.

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

Despite enjoying Smurfs, a show about hardcore social animals, as a kid, I still hope young people believe they can fail.

[javajosh]

Being a parent, you get a sense for what young people believe, and why. It comes from you, but also from friends at school, and of course media - books, tv, movies, games. IMHO the 'ability to fail' message is quite poor, overall, from media. Mr. Rogers being the (usual) exception. That said, failure occurs often in real life, desired goals always exceed capability, hopefully you can give them iterated games they can experience failure, adaptation, and success at their own pace. Often they will invent their own games, which we too often call "misbehavior".

But yes, entertainment obsession in kids (on-demand media plus working single parent works out quite badly for the kids), media emphasis on those who are unaccountably good at a thing, means media portrays failing far less often than is realistic, and when it does it's a Rocky style training montage. Plus no-one really wants to write the manual for kids on how to give up on your dreams.