~
There is nothing wrong to treat your work/family seriously but remember you have to draw a bottom line. If anybody tries to take advantage of you in whatever reason, please cut them off immediately. If not, an endless horrible life is what you'll get. I believed in good heart and being kind to all the people around me but this ideal does not work in real life. We have to know when to be an asshole in order to survive. Winners always take it all and losers get nothing.
Not letting to use you is one thing, but being an asshole is entirely another. We, humans, have been building a world where assholes have small chances to survive, and sympathetic and helpful people have bigger ones. The times of those "winners" that "take it all" have passed, but, as we can see, many people haven't noticed that.
Again, don't let leeches to use you and keep you apart from your financial freedom, but know this: being an asshole is bad for your survival at the present times.
I guess you misunderstood my point. Being an asshole, wether it's in its real meaning or just an metaphor, is used against those people who are scumbags that don't play by the rules. You'll never win when dealing with those people if you still play decently. I am talking about the real world surviving, not at a fair competition situation. The "sympathetic and helpful people" are only rewarded when the enviroment is fair and sound. Otherwise they are more likely to be used or exploited.
Interesting discussion and good points from both of you!
This is a topic on its own, but @Marcellin9 it seems as if you had to make some bad experiences that had a major influence on your general thought process. Sympathetic people win when the environment is fair and sound, well, that also depends on the time horizon. I believe being an asshole can in most cases be at best a short-term strategy only and also, a single asshole doesn't make a good environment a bad environment. You can still face an asshole and think your environment is bad in that very moment, but perhaps your perception is biased right then.
If you take the prisoners' dilemma and you are the one not betraying your friend and therefore sitting in jail for 10 years, you do lose those 10 years and people will notice because obviously the other person being in freedom took advantage of you. The person taking advantage of you will have a hard time getting along in life because everybody knows what happened. The person isn't trustworthy. But once you get to rise from the ashes again, everyone will heap praise on you and trust you like nobody else. An endless number of opportunities might occur for you in the long run after you suffered relatively hard in the short run.
Both of you guys are right though and I did like your points, but it is too complex to discuss within a couple of messages off-topic
Regarding financial freedom in specific, envy is definitely of major importance when it comes to so called "friends". I believe that having a friend who is truly happy from the deepest of their heart for someone else's financial freedom rarely happens. Too many unexpected events can change perspectives of those friends and what I have seen quite often is that with one's own financial freedom often increase the expectations of people around you, especially from those who are less financially free. In other words, financial freedom is a very specific aspect of the whole spectrum of freedom is not automatically to be extended to overall freedom. Some prefer to even hide wealth because they know it might negatively influence some of their social relationships.
Wow, I am so impressed by your thorough thinking on our discussion. Although we have not talked that deep and might have disagreements, I thank you very much for speaking your mind and inspiring others to think. In regard to the financial freedom, I actually agree with you and can also share an example here. Well, the example is part of my privacy so I try to be not that specific. Please understand. My father has been comfortably retired for many years but he is not that old. He was a business owner and made a lot of money decades ago. Even to this day, he does not need to do anything for a living and all his passive income from deposit interests, reatal etc can cover all his expenses. He is a typical person who achieves finanical freedom. However, most relatives in my extended family, let alone his friends,do not get along with him or vice versa. Why ? His doing nothing every day is quite an envy to the people around him. Some of them may have a good heart, such as one of my uncles, he often says to me that please don't make too much money, especially when you are young. Being like your father achieving financial freedom is not pleasant in many cases. I won't say I agree or disagree because that really depends but he actually made a good point, just as you said, wealth is a major factor that influences one's social relationships. I tend to focus on my own life and not care much about other's opnions. Having a low-profile and comfortable life is much more important than the so-called fame and face.
No need to thank me actually
It is totally ok to use placeholder scenarios in order to describe personal experiences and keep privacy. Nothing wrong with that.
I believe at a certain age we all have gone through more or less the same set of issues, negative and positive.
Your example is interesting because as you described it, your father got financially independent and then became somewhat lethargic? Not that he became dependent on anyone, but slowed down on being active and full of energy? This is just an assumption and by no means an insult. For as long as he meets his responsibilities, I guess it his your father's choice how to go about life.
Again, if he can take of himself and of those he took responsibility for, there is nothing wrong about his lifestyle unless he foregoes opportunities and desires that pleased him even more would he have pursued them. That is something only someone really close to him can judge. Someone like a son, but maybe someone else.
Financial freedom as the only goal can also and probably necessarily will be narrowing down your scope of life purposes. There is a difference between:
I want to become rich...
so I need to get educated > get a good job or become an entrepreneur > be successful, period.
or
I want to help as many people as I can (or a specific cause or group of people)...
so I need to become rich > etc. > etc.
I think that too many people thrive for just becoming rich. And then what does
rich even mean? I think defining an
open end goal or a certain vision can make a whole lot of sense, but only when you are eager to apply realistic expectations and conditions. Sure, I could say I want to save the world from hunger. But that's not realistic. Setting a realistic goal that is beyond money itself is a good way to define a direction in life you are thriving towards.
A goal could be: I want to save people from hunger, instead of saving the world from hunger. So you got to earn some money in order to have spare resources that are then available to attain your goal. At first, just a few people. That motivates you and you understand that there is more potential inside you in order to quantitatively expand your initial idea of "saving people from hunger".
Financial freedom can be to just call it a day, and that is not a bad thing because people might have their individual reasons and experiences. There is nothing bad about someone who took care of themselves and decides to call it a day.
There is also so much morality involved. When there is someone in front of you that you know is able to outcompete the smartest people in the world, but that person doesn't want to, yet is not dependent on anyone, should we push that person to take responsibility and turn the world into a better place? Difficult to answer.
So one of the biggest obstacles to achieving financial freedom is to consider whether financial freedom eventually goes hand in hand with moral, ethical, social , etc., overall freedom.
If you live in a place where being rich is a dangerous thing, financial freedom perhaps doesn't even exist depending on how you define it.