The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.
They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.
But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.
There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.
~ Oscar Wilde
You would think smart men as these would want to cure the disease instead of curing the symptoms.
Oscar Wilde said this because he believed in the complete abolition of private property. I do not think you can convince any VC that that is a good idea.
A beautifully written but easily misunderstood statement. Thanks for sharing. I have read it at least 3 times today.
I came here expecting the worst from what can be a youth-worshipping and wealth-worshipping crowd at times but was rather pleasantly surprised by this and other responses today. Perception altered.
This is a subtle comment, with the key statement being "The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible."
I'm not so sure socialism is the answer there, but it's definitely a goal to have for the long term.
The only part I don't like about the idea of trying to reconstruct society on a basis that poverty will be impossible is that previous attempts to do that tended to result in millions of people being killed. Funny how that works :-).
SpaceX did not come from nothing. The science, technology and infrastructure that enabled SpaceX to exist was created by tax payer funded programs. I'm not saying he's not a great guy. I'm just saying he's standing on the shoulders of giants.
The taxes paid by people sending cat pictures funds the infrastructure that enables SpaceX to exist.
When the OP stated something from nothing I think he/she meant tangible 'things' from investment and research(ie. rockets). As opposed to Instagram which is a form of communication and entertainment that will forever exist within a software context.
If an employee does NOT publicly speak about her or his experience she or he is providing the company with less of an incentive to value his or her experience there.
The public image of a company has value to a company and if the company knows that an employee can speak out about the employee's experience at the company they will have more of an incentive to ensure that employee's experience is pleasant because to do otherwise would harm their public image and their hiring abilities.
By being silent you are creating information asymmetry(the employer knows more than the employee) in the job market which contributes to people making less informed decisions. Less informed decisions leads to inefficiency.
The mature thing to do is to inform the public to ensure that competition between companies does not stop.
By being silent you are throwing wrenches in the wheels of regulated market capitalism.
This one can be taken even farther and be applied to the "don't discuss your salary". My opinion has always been that this rule exists so that companies can continue to underpay employees.
They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.
But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.
There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.
~ Oscar Wilde
You would think smart men as these would want to cure the disease instead of curing the symptoms.