"Deserve to win" and "deserve to lose" rather than "deserve the money". That's an interesting direction you're going with there. I don't think those are all the same philosophically, but its certainly worth thinking about. For my part I'd agree to extend that reasoning into... "Since no lotto winner deserves the money, no lotto player deserves to win and all lotto players deserve to lose." I'm comfortable with that, because it means that when you win its not because you deserve it... to quote my favorite William Munney line "Deserve's go nuthin to do with it."The lotto winnings are compiled by people buying a ticket, hoping to win. Interestingly, if I don't deserve to win, then that's true of every player that built the pot. And no one does. They all built the pot, and they all deserve to lose.
If you think her "looks", meaning the ultra-glamourous look she (or any of them FTM) displays publicly and is so famous for was "inherited"... I've got this bridge in Brooklyn...But the ratio of luck is going to be confusing. Kardashian inherited looks.
No. You' deserve an attempted murder charge regardless, which generally carries the same penalty. Criminal law punishes intent, not results.If I play Russian Roulette with a hostage, whether I deserve a murder charge is based on luck.
No. In your hypothetical, as I understood it, there was no "trading". The hero made one purchase and one sale. It wasn't like he spent months or years poring over charts and articles, studying market trends and flipping trade after trade to work his way up to a billion dollars. The way you posed it, he just got lucky and hit the jackpot with his first and only purchase. To me that's too much luck to make a case for "deserving" anything.But you'd also said that actively trading crypto didn't accumulate deserved wealth.
Last edited: