Hacker News Reader

You talk about still different things, like resilience.

The idea, a business owner must be "independent" refers to them being financially independent regarding their income streams relative to "dependent" employees.

That doesn't necessarily hold true in all cases, it's an over-generalization to begin with. But it also is independent from your "lower end of the spectrum": you can be disabled and own a business. And demands of disabled people aren't worth less?

So, (in)dependence is context-dependent. Hence your spectrum. But the author's point is, it's not the same as (it's independent from) autonomy.

Shaping society based on vaguely defined/understood concepts leads to undesirable outcomes.

> And demands of disabled people aren't worth less?

You’re making an implicit argument about the nature of worth. I am using a simplified model based on economic value; if the author has a certain lifestyle that she believes she is entitled to live, and she cannot provide this lifestyle for herself, then the obligation to provide it will necessarily fall on other people. Disability advocacy groups obscure this detail constantly; they want to purchase their dignity using other people’s money.

I think there is a strong case to be made that a just society would be organized around these sorts of principles, but where disability advocates have failed is in wanting to put these obligations on others while resenting the idea that the disabled should even have to show gratitude for the gift they are being given (because this would, in their minds, diminish their dignity). Social justice in the 2010s was built around this idea that marginalized minority groups could treat the majority of the population as workhorses simply because it was considered to be the right thing to do. The model fell apart when people realized they could game the system by claiming marginal status, and also led to a trend of people traditionally tasked with serving as workhorses checking out of the workforce altogether.

A wildly grotesque framing you engage in there.

Apparently you didn't even read the article, otherwise your exposé hardly makes sense. She is bodily disabled, not financially.

There is a thing called human dignity and it involves granting everybody the basic right of dignified sustenance. You seem to have difficulty imagining yourself in such a situation, but that is the fundamental starting point to understand it and its justification.

How would the disabled "show their gratitude" to you, the supposed provider of the financial support? Why do pretend it was a "gift" and not a simple necessity for you to live in a just society?

You go on veering off into generalities about imaginary 'leeches' to your efforts. The author details how you yourself are dependent on that society you denigrate here.

> A wildly grotesque framing you engage in there.

This is an extremely boring way to engage with others.

> There is a thing called human dignity and it involves granting everybody the basic right of dignified sustenance.

I think I am still obligated to throw you the life vest even if I don’t personally like you, but if after the fact you then scream at me that I didn’t do enough, I think you’ve committed a transgression. Screaming that no one is doing enough is by and large all that comes out of these circles and why they ended up fading into irrelevance. People were discussing this issue during the Obama years; you haven’t brought anything new to the discussion.

> The author details how you yourself are dependent on that society you denigrate here.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing to the contrary. My premise was that the word independent is semantically meaningful and that the article is making an attempt to undermine that meaning in order to further an agenda. I don’t disagree that e.g. someone who buys their food at a grocery store is dependent on the logistics system in a way that someone who is dependent upon having an oxygen tank delivered is dependent on others, but like I said, this is a spectrum based on the ability of the dependent to make substitutions between the person or thing they are dependent upon. It still makes semantic sense to say that so-and-so is independent of his father, but the children of so-and-so are dependent upon their father, even if so-and-so’s existence is ontologically dependent upon the existence of his father.

Yes, it is.

You appear to over-generalize personal experiences beyond their domain of applicability. Then you ignore the crucial points I made, pretending to know it all already, contradicting the absence of rational arguments on your part.

Because you do. You take your own vague "meaning" (that you never specify sufficiently) and lament how it's not being adhered to by others.

The meanings of words are context-dependent. You ignore that here. Dependency in particular has many different meanings. Nobody "denies" you the specific ones you use there.

Your own agenda, that you argue in favor of, is somehow invisible to you? It contradicts the essence of the article, clearly the source of your antagonism here.

> This isn’t true. A business owner completes tasks with the help of employees, but unless he is indebted to a lender, he is still ordinarily thought of as being independent. Independence is a spectrum, and people who require that the world be re-engineered so that they can access it are generally on the lower end of that spectrum.

This concept is a myth - the "self made" isn't any such thing

The business owner has the illusion of independence until he/she pisses off enough of their staff all at the same time that they walk out and there's nobody to open the store.

If the average employee was less reliant on his employer than vice versa, why doesn’t this situation occur every day?