> Zuckerberg doesn't get to do what he wants. He's in meetings constantly and rarely has a free moment
This argument of
Conclusion: $RichPerson doesn't get to do what they want.
Premise: They're under constant obligation to $MoneyMachine
is both unsound and invalid.
The premise is wrong: at that levels of wealth, the obligation is not real, it's opt-in and you can opt-out at any time.
The conclusion is wrong too: At that levels of wealth, the person can do everything anyone else can do in their off-time, and they have much more off-time than the person making the argument anyway.
Disagree. To me this is like saying parents can always just abandon their children. Zuckerberg likely feels an overwhelming responsibility to show up as the CEO. Could he technically not show up? Sure. And any parent can technically not show up for their children. Both of them feel overwhelming responsibility to show up. In fact often the draw to work is stronger than children, hence so many stories of parents putting work first, not because they need the money, but, because they feel responsible for things at work.
> To me this is like saying parents can always just abandon their children. Zuckerberg likely feels an overwhelming responsibility to show up as the CEO. Could he technically not show up? Sure. And any parent can technically not show up for their children.
I strongly disagree[1]; I think it is incorrect to equivocate a non-living thing that needs no care from a particular person to a child's objective need for their parent.
If we reduce all arguments to "well, of course that person cares about $FOO, because parents care about their kids", then any $FOO is then as equally valid to kill oneself over[2].
You created a well-loved piece of art? Well then it's okay to jump in front of a n oncoming train to save it because that's what parents do for their kids!
You wrote a research paper on good UI guidelines? Well then it's okay to jump into a burning building to get the only copy because that's what a parent would do for a child.
I guess I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are few, maybe even none, "I created this thing" comparisons with the parent->child and child->parent relationships.
[1] But I see your point, so upvoted you anyway. I just think that your point is not at all comparable to a parent/child relationship.
[2] Parents will not hesitate to put their life in danger to save their child.
Zuckerberg is a famous person though, and famous people can't go to places which are sufficiently open to the public without causing major issues.
A random billionaire nobody knows might walk around the Colosseum undetected, but try doing that with a profile like Zuckerberg's.
Also, there is the personal security concern. If you are rich, you have a lot of ability to pay kidnappers of you and your family.
There is the story that shortly after Pichai became Google CEO, he walked around a conference and he barely got recognized, but if you stay in the limelight for long enough, people recognize you.
This argument of
is both unsound and invalid.The premise is wrong: at that levels of wealth, the obligation is not real, it's opt-in and you can opt-out at any time.
The conclusion is wrong too: At that levels of wealth, the person can do everything anyone else can do in their off-time, and they have much more off-time than the person making the argument anyway.
It's a poor argument and should not be made.