A Confused Work Ethic

There are very few instances where the route to personal success, is doing as little as possible, so I am trying to teach my son (9) the value of hard work.
The tidying of the bedroom scenario is one where I hope he can get the message.
It will not get done by sitting and looking at the mess. No matter how many times he says, "Ill tidy it in a bit", unless he translates the thoughts into action, it will never happen.
It is not as easy as you may think, to illustrate the benefits of the "Protestant Work Ethic" There is little supporting evidence to suggest that hard work equates to success.
Firstly, we have the sub working class who get along (nicely in some cases), by NOT working, then we have the opposite side of the spectrum, those who have succeeded by the merits of others.
I am thinking mainly of those who have inherited wealth and live a very comfortable lifestyle but do not appear to have actually done anything to earn it, unless you consider having a sense of duty to those less fortunate, as a job.

This led me to consider the role in society, of those who have inherited wealth (and therefore influence) when compared with your average hardworking bloke.

I do have great respect for those types who have built their lives on the basis of hard work and common decency especially when you contrast them with others who I do not respect. They seem only to be able to duck and dive, yet to the whole world, have the trappings of success.

I cannot help thinking about the way tribal societies are organised. The chief was once the fiercest warrior in his younger days. He was the strongest, best climber of trees, and most skillful hunter. This is pretty much how I would expect Darwinism to work in real life. The fittest would survive and pro-create. Those who wield power in this mixed up western society, would be the least likely to survive in the world of natural selection.

When you look at it this way, it could be argued that the greatest attribute, many of our current ruling elite possess, is pliability. I don't mind that as long as folks are straight about it. It's when weakness and lack of moral standing are paraded as integrity and honesty, that I get miffed.

No wonder we find it a battle to raise our kids properly with so many wrong messages and mixed up signals.

Adam Smith's Invisible Hand

Economist, Adam Smith's "Invisible hand of God" wasn't just invisible, it was never there in the first place.
As famous quotations go, it is as appropriate as, "Just like That" or ,"Now you see it, now you don't",  sayings which could easily sum up the sentiments of those who's wealth "disappeared", as if by magic at the sleight hands of Smith's Laissez Faire economic theory.

Smith did espouse altruism but it appears to have been discarded in the rush to own everything in the world.
Some reports, like this one, which suggests that those who died in the Irish potato famine, were a result of the British government's strict adherence to Laissez faire policy, rather than crop failure which was widespread throughout Europe at the time, do not convey any sense of compassion whatsoever.

I'm not knocking free enterprise but rather, the absence of responsibility whereby the less fortunate, suffer as a consequence of commerce. It is a lack of personal accountability that is the problem.
The irony is that those who benefit most from free market economics are also the most tax efficient, leaving the burden of taxation, squarely on the shoulders of the working class.

Socialism is an evil, made necessary by the greed of unscrupulous merchants, many of whom, would in any other walk of life be possibly regarded as sociopaths.

The existence of these two systems of government side by side, has created a false dichotomy, a dialectic through which "Big Business" has been able to strengthen and consolidate it's position in  government and society.