Perhaps a perception that other people got their money through factional conflict makes one more likely to solve the problem using a factional conflict. People are more likely to use violence if they feel the violence was used against them.
Examples:
Some people don’t work and yet get money, because some philanthropist gives them? Not my problem.
Some people don’t work and yet get money, because they organized against me successfully and made government take my money and give it to them as welfare? Fuck them! I want a government that stops this!
Some people have billions, because they have put a lot of time and hard work to their projects, or they have an extraordinary talent? Not my problem.
Some people have billions, because they organized against me successfully and made government take my money and give it to them as subsidies and bailouts? Fuck them! I want a government that stops this!
Perhaps this is just my thinking, but I feel a desire to go to conflicts in cases of self-defense. In case someone is already attacking me and winning, not fighting back does not seem like a winning option. The dichotomy is not “lazy” versus “diligent”, but “attacking me” versus “not attacking me”. But maybe that’s just my personal reaction.
As a thought experiment, imagine a lazy person living entirely from voluntary donations, no welfare. I can envy them, but I don’t feel threatened by them. So it is not a problem for me. As another experiment, imagine a person spending 16 hours a day lobbying and bribing politicians to take our tax money and give it to that person. This is a problem; and knowing that the person works hard does not make it any better.
EDIT: And it seems to me that even a person who wants to attack a diligent non-stealing non-lobbying talented millionaire typically starts by convincing themselves and the people around them that the given millionaire is somehow responsible for their misery. They try to convince themselves that it is some kind of self-defense, and with a motivated thinking they usually find some excuse.
Perhaps a perception that other people got their money through factional conflict makes one more likely to solve the problem using a factional conflict. People are more likely to use violence if they feel the violence was used against them.
Examples:
Some people don’t work and yet get money, because some philanthropist gives them? Not my problem.
Some people don’t work and yet get money, because they organized against me successfully and made government take my money and give it to them as welfare? Fuck them! I want a government that stops this!
Some people have billions, because they have put a lot of time and hard work to their projects, or they have an extraordinary talent? Not my problem.
Some people have billions, because they organized against me successfully and made government take my money and give it to them as subsidies and bailouts? Fuck them! I want a government that stops this!
Perhaps this is just my thinking, but I feel a desire to go to conflicts in cases of self-defense. In case someone is already attacking me and winning, not fighting back does not seem like a winning option. The dichotomy is not “lazy” versus “diligent”, but “attacking me” versus “not attacking me”. But maybe that’s just my personal reaction.
As a thought experiment, imagine a lazy person living entirely from voluntary donations, no welfare. I can envy them, but I don’t feel threatened by them. So it is not a problem for me. As another experiment, imagine a person spending 16 hours a day lobbying and bribing politicians to take our tax money and give it to that person. This is a problem; and knowing that the person works hard does not make it any better.
EDIT: And it seems to me that even a person who wants to attack a diligent non-stealing non-lobbying talented millionaire typically starts by convincing themselves and the people around them that the given millionaire is somehow responsible for their misery. They try to convince themselves that it is some kind of self-defense, and with a motivated thinking they usually find some excuse.
This is a good counter example to the effort inequality concept I was ruminating on, thank you for mentioning it.