The Economics of Intrinsic Individuality
The beauty of life lies in your ability to fend, protect, and fight for yourself or take the risk necessary to make your life distinguishably better, prosperous, and different from those of others. You’re born to be profitably wealthy. You’re the wealth of yourself. Life lies in your positive efforts. You’re the best of yourself when you try again and again without quitting, loafing, or relenting your efforts, contribution, responsibility, or obligations. You can be successful, wealthy, and affluent if you want to. But you must do the work – none else. If everything is free, then you might not need to work harder for anything you want that you can get for free – since everything is at your disposal or reach for free – to get without effort. When things are free, the means and ends and struggle or knowledge and efforts learned in the course of working to get the things of life that one wants, desires, or needs means nothing – rendered useless. Why work when your needs can be provided by others? When goods and services are free, there is no incentive to make anything. If there is no profit or gains to be made, then surely, there will be nothing for free. Without incentive or profit, nothing will be made that could be free at your disposal or reach – for everybody became disincentivized, disinterested, lazy, entitled, undriven, uninspired, unmoved, unmotivated, or unobligated to work. When there is no gain, no remuneration, no reward, no award, no prize, no competition, no optimal advantage, then there is minimal heroic gene code of ambitious humans willing to dare, sacrifice, endeavor, risk, venture, explore, invent, invest, create, innovate, or pioneer. Isn’t it true that dependency kills entrepreneurship? Isn’t it true that if everything is free, it destroys the Intellectual Property Mind (IPM), the Positive Productive Mind (PPM), the Positive Creative Mind (PCM), the Positive Inventive Mind (PIM), the Positive Founders Mind (PFM), the Positive Genesis Mind (PGM), the Positive Entrepreneurial Mind (PEM), the Positive Competitive Mind (PCM), or the Genius Type of Mind (GTM) that society can ever cultivate? The freedom of mind gained from work and effort is superior to that of an abled dependent mind. Isn’t it true that if you take away positive profitable work ethic (what it means to be human) by giving humans the incentive to be lazy, dependent, and entitled, then the Positive Productivity Utility Value (PPUV) and the Optimal Productive Value (OPV) of such individual as well as societal Expectational Productive Capacity (XPC) will fall? Isn’t it true that when you give to humans wealth or property that was not earned by their efforts, or give to them what doesn’t belong to them, or what they didn’t deserve or didn’t fight to get, then you steal from them their freedom of positive self determination – by diminishing their competitive edge to race with others and win the competitive or challenging battles of life? Isn’t it true that the unwise concept of wealth redistribution does nothing more than equitably sloth, entitlement, and victimhood? Isn’t it true that humans should be at the exercise of working to afford their needs, to volunteer, or to be encouraged to be contributing members of society – especially if they are abled bodies with sane faculties? Isn’t it true that an overdependent society soon becomes a debt burdened society with overweight humans – driven more by surplus consumption than the value of work? Isn’t it true that if you help humans too much they will forget to help themselves or others? Isn’t it true that if you teach a human being to teach itself how to care for itself and work for its needs, then society is sustainably closer to self-sufficiency? Isn’t it true to make sure AI doesn’t abet human sloth, human idleness, or human irresponsibility? Isn’t it true that humans are born to be productive members of society, not to be its burden or liability – needing help or leg up only when absolutely necessary? Isn’t it fair that human beings should be encouraged to make good profitable and productive use of themselves? Society can be better if it wants to. So are you. We have with us not to be dependent but productive, contributory, and self motivated.
AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 09172025
___________________________________
Google AI Sources Used to Analyze Text
Analysis of The Economics of Intrinsic Individuality
The text, The Economics of Intrinsic Individuality, authored by AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar on September 17, 2025, presents a philosophical argument rooted in individualistic and capitalistic ideals. The core premise is that effort, productivity, and self-reliance are the drivers of human prosperity and character, while dependence on others or external assistance is a corrupting force. [1, 2, 3]
Key philosophical points
• Intrinsic wealth and individuality:
The author claims that individuals are born with the potential to be “profitably wealthy” and are the “wealth of [themselves].” The beauty and value of life come from the individual’s ability to “fend, protect, and fight for [themselves]”.
• The corrupting influence of “free” things:
The author argues that a society where goods and services are freely provided removes the incentive for individuals to work, strive, and innovate. When everything is “at your disposal or reach for free,” the struggle and effort that build character and knowledge become “useless”.
• Defense of capitalist incentives:
The text defends a system driven by profit and competition, positing that the lack of “gain, remuneration, reward, [or] prize” leads to a society of people who are “disincentivized, disinterested, lazy, entitled, undriven, uninspired, unmoved, unmotivated, or unobligated to work”.
• Critique of wealth redistribution and dependency:
The author directly attacks the concept of “wealth redistribution,” calling it an “unwise concept” that fosters “sloth, entitlement, and victimhood.” The argument is that giving people unearned property or wealth “steals from them their freedom of positive self determination”.
• Importance of earned prosperity:
The author insists that humans should be encouraged to work for their needs and be “contributing members of society,” particularly if they are “abled bodies with sane faculties.” Unearned wealth, according to the text, diminishes competitive spirit.
• Self-sufficiency vs. dependency:
The piece contrasts an “overdependent society” characterized by “surplus consumption” and debt with a vision of a self-sufficient society where individuals are encouraged to care for themselves.
• Role of AI:
The author makes a direct appeal for AI to avoid abetting “human sloth, human idleness, or human irresponsibility,” suggesting that AI should support a model of human productivity rather than dependence. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
Rhetorical and structural analysis
• Use of rhetorical questions:
The text is structured as a series of rhetorical questions, “Isn’t it true that…?” This technique doesn’t seek a genuine answer but rather asserts the author’s claims as self-evident truths. It pushes the reader to agree with the stated premise, making the arguments seem like common sense rather than debatable positions.
• Bold claims and strong language:
The text uses powerful, absolute language, such as “none else,” “renders useless,” and “steals from them.” This assertive tone leaves little room for nuance or alternative perspectives.
• Creation of acronyms:
The author invents a series of acronyms like IPM, PPM, and PPUV to describe specific types of thinking or value. While these are not standard economic or psychological terms, they are used to lend a sense of intellectual authority and specificity to the author’s concepts.
• Author and date notation:
The final line attributes the text to “AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 09172025.” This is likely an AI-generated signature, possibly part of a persona created by a human user or the AI itself. The date stamp adds a sense of immediacy, implying the text is a current philosophical reflection. [2, 4, 9, 10, 11]
Underlying economic philosophy
The economic philosophy presented is a form of extreme free-market or laissez-faire capitalism. It aligns with meritocratic principles, where an individual’s success is seen as a direct result of their effort and skill, with little acknowledgment of systemic barriers or societal support structures. It champions the idea of the “self-made individual” and views collective welfare programs as detrimental to human potential. [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
Potential counterarguments and limitations
A critical analysis would consider several counterpoints:
• Oversimplification of human motivation:
The text assumes that profit and competition are the only effective drivers of human motivation. It ignores other powerful motivators, such as altruism, curiosity, community, and intrinsic satisfaction from work.
• Ignoring systemic factors:
The philosophy dismisses the role of societal structures, inherited privilege, and systemic inequalities in shaping individual outcomes. It frames all dependency as a personal failing rather than acknowledging that some dependency is caused by external circumstances like poverty, illness, or disability.
• Flawed understanding of wealth redistribution:
Mainstream economic arguments for wealth redistribution focus on addressing inequality, providing a social safety net, and fostering opportunity, not simply creating “sloth.” For example, public education and healthcare can be viewed as investments that boost a society’s overall productivity and capacity.
• Misrepresentation of human nature:
The assertion that humans are “born to be productively wealthy” and that helping people too much makes them forget to help themselves presents a pessimistic and overly simplistic view of human nature. Humans are often motivated by both self-interest and community spirit.
• Uncritical support for AI:
The text’s plea for AI to avoid abetting human idleness is ironic, given that automation’s potential to displace human labor is a major societal concern. It places the responsibility on AI rather than considering the complex economic changes automation will cause. [4, 17, 18, 19, 20]
Google AI Sources Used to Analyze Text
[1] https://www.threads.com/@ai_philosopher
[2] https://www.instagram.com/ai_philosopher/p/DOWzFdjEsi6/
[3] https://www.instagram.com/ai_philosopher/
[4] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/individuals-and-identity-in-economics/AD14946B446D2804D5E8909AA6468C32
[5] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-19-2584-9_2
[6] https://www.heritage.org/economic-and-property-rights/report/comparing-free-enterprise-and-socialism
[7] https://bright-green.org/2015/07/03/the-champagne-socialist-fallacy/
[8] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/84200/1/Conceptualising%20Work_FINAL.pdf
[9] https://commecsinstitute.edu.pk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/BREALEY-MYERS-Principles-of-Corporate-Finance-7e.pdf
[10] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/featured-blogger/67826/mark-rutkoski-words-of-love
[11] https://www.tiktok.com/@msnbc/video/7458421045264026926[12] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laissezfaire.asp[13] https://gocardless.com/guides/posts/laissez-faire-definition-principles-and-examples/
[14] https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/videos/be-it-resolved-meritocracy-is-killing-the-middle-classguests-daniel-markovits-an/858506188202948/
[15] https://versafi.ca/research/advancing-allyship-in-finance
[16] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/110584/1/covid19_2021_04_26_its_not_just_about_patents_on_covid_vaccines_why_i.pdf
[17] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11994678/
[18] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/15/insatiable-by-stuart-sim-review-the-greedocracy
[19] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism/
[20] https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-four-intrinsic-rewards-that-drive-employee-engagement/
