What I don't understand is - why is it a problem that somebody performs better on medication? Life isn't sports or a game. It's not a competition. Shouldn't people be happy that someone else can keep their life together? That's less of a burden on society.
>Ever spent a day off staring at a wall dreading the possibility that you might waste a day until you realize the sun has gone down?
That sounds silly and boring. I was daydreaming instead of looking at the wall.
> Shouldn't people be happy that someone else can keep their life together?
There are entire large groups of people in this world who feel the need to drag other people down with them. Some of them are extremely good at it. Pray you never attract their attention. It's a nightmare.
This seems like wishful thinking. We all have a place in the hierarchy of our societies and your performance certainly impacts your position. Don't believe me? Decide to stop working. Eventually you loose your job, can't pay rent, and become homeless. You will find yourself falling down the hierarchy pretty fast.
Not trying to make any kind of judgment about this being good or bad. Just trying to point out reality. This is the world we live in - performance matters.
I get the idea of the hierarchy, but why does performance matter? Performance matters because we want to promote those that generate value the most. This correlates with improving the world for everyone. If your coworker invents cold fusion, then yes, she's going to be promoted over you, but the long-term effect is that you're also going to be better off because of that invention. Most improvements to the world are just smaller, but they're still there.
Sometimes you benefit from others doing well. Sometimes you are hurt by it. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. Globalization, for example, is zero-sum for many people. Since we're now buying <wheat/metal/electronics> from <x country>, people who did that here lost their jobs. It's absolutely a competition. In capitalism you have to fight for your right to feed yourself, and if you are in the bottom x% of society, you quite literally have to live on the streets.
>Globalization, for example, is zero-sum for many people. Since we're now buying <wheat/metal/electronics> from <x country>, people who did that here lost their jobs.
Considering that those are some of the hardest and most dangerous jobs, it probably is better for you that it's done somewhere else for cheaper. This means that everything that depends on those jobs, such as the price of food, will also be cheaper for you. You can learn another job and do that. I realize that many people don't really want to do that, but it is an improvement for society.
>In capitalism you have to fight for your right to feed yourself, and if you are in the bottom x% of society, you quite literally have to live on the streets.
This is true by definition, because if you are homeless then you're by definition poorer than somebody that is not homeless. Essentially, it's not an argument, but I do understand that there are poor people under capitalism, but they are much better off than poor people 100 years ago, and they're much better off than middle class people 150-200 years ago. Society, especially the US, is so rich that almost anyone has a supercomputer in their pocket. All western countries offer lots of support for the homeless and poor.
Because the way they would have to do it is by offering people something even better in return. In a voluntary trade both sides end up better off, because both sides get something they want more than what they give away.
>Ever spent a day off staring at a wall dreading the possibility that you might waste a day until you realize the sun has gone down?
That sounds silly and boring. I was daydreaming instead of looking at the wall.