Rich people do have trouble understanding what it's like to be poor

I thought libertarianism evolved from anarchism?

Edit: seeing as this is being downvoted I’ll add this from Wikipedia: “Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.“

2 things on this:

1. Terrance Malik did a pretty good job of capturing the boolean of this article in knight of cups. the rich, despite this study, still have the same existential crises as us plebs. also, there's something inherent about trying to find purpose in life that even escapes the niceties of privilege.

2. those 'niceties' are currently being accounted for through policies made over 25 years ago [0]. they have been, essentially, mistaken as our prime purpose for life. when in reality, it's more that they are a sort of short cut for being 'allowed' to pursue what you perceive as your purpose [one day, collectively, we will realize that we can only provide this to x number of people for y quality of access to that pursuit]. essentially what i'm saying is that the policies were created to allow the entire system to inflate and eventually crash, while letting the rich create a nice puffy cushion for themselves to land on when it does crash. rather than say, the same thing happening but without the cushion.

this is rather just typical human behaviour at scale. ray dalio has been talking about it. we're reaching the end of a 300 year cycle. no one alive has experienced it before, but it happens regularly in human history. i think it is a natural phenomenon. inheritance is more to blame than any other element. we die and our bodies go to the same place, but our capital does not. we do know that capital allows us more opportunity to pursue more 'life', and i imagine that even people who only get that chance through inheritance sometimes believe they worked for it/deserve it whatever... but we shouldn't mistake the idea that wealth is the end game. it is, in many senses, just the beginning. but it is not the only. an example of this would be having kids. or finding love etc. wealth is just tylenol. temporary alleviation of symptoms. sometimes it allows us to do more art, or have more kids, or find more lovers, but its no guarantee. what we're all seeking is a common understanding that money is a tool; for each of us to pursue life as we see it. not the perverted way we've used it [and we live in a democracy so must take responsibility for its misuse]. the attitude in this article, to me, is less about wealth, and more about ego. it's egotistical people who can't understand the poor. and we get seduced by their confidence. ayn rand is a good example of this. the preacher who ended up on welfare.

when the bandaid comes off, just remember that it's not your fault, it's not society's fault, but it's our fault. fix the bugs, account for fault tolerance, and act accordingly. all that said, burning down the buildings, destroying the statues, raiding the halls of congress, is not the answer. but tampering the egos just may be. i think the only way we can do that is to not allow power or wealth to concentrate. that's the lesson to be learned. to an extent we must let it, but that's the thing. finding that sweet spot. understanding that is how the rich can understand the poor, how we can understand each other, and how we will eventually understand the greatness of that sweet spot.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKe38mVpHgk

This has changed hugely in Europe over the last generation. Certainly here in the UK there is zero appetite for nationalised industry and strong centralised industrial policy. The last labour government under Blair and Brown avoided such talk as utter poison, and Corbyn, the last Labour leader to openly talk about such things may well have killed the Labour party stone dead. They've now got a very centrist leader, but the harm is beginning to look incurable.

Socialism today in Europe mostly means Scandinavian style strong social policy combined with a very large private industrial sector. Even the Conservative party here in the UK is fully on board with this approach, it's just a matter of proportions. Conservative leaders ever since Maggie have bent over backwards to show support for the National Health Service for example. Now ok, whether that's at all genuine or not is a separate question, but the political reality is that switching to a system of private health care is inconceivable here even for the political right. It would be just as suicidal as talking about nationalisation was for the left.

So the voting public have resoundingly rejected both hard left socialism and radical right market reform, in certain sectors. It's not a matter of ideological purity or even consistency, just a matter of which model has worked out for which type of industry or service.

Seems like the solution to this problem is to figure out ways to have stronger networks of friends and family.

It’s like trying to build a robot to love me when the simplest thing is just to form relationships.

Stronger community bonds seem like the only long term solution to the problem of being taken care of when a hit and run driver knocks me out for a bit.

Of course short term disability insurance is effective for this specific instance, but loving parents, sibs, kids, cousins, etc is probably more robust.

That doesn't answer my question at all.