Since he's mentioned specifically, and idolized a bit, in the article, consider Andrew Carnegie. Where would he have ended up without the charitable library established by Colonel Anderson (consult any decent biography of Carnegie for the details)? Also, note that when Anderson's library encountered financial difficulties and instituted a two-dollar-a-year fee, Carnegie wrote a scathing letter of protest, demanding that the library remain free. If you must, to paraphrase a bit, demand the fruit of others' labor free of charge, than just how "self-made" are you?

(Carnegie did, at least, remain morally consistent and recognize the impact the library had on him, since he used his later wealth to establish free libraries)

And this isn't an unusual example, nor is it just a cherry-picked scene from one famous businessman's life. If you look at any highly-successful person's background, you'll find episodes like that one; success does not and cannot happen in a vacuum, and the idea that it does (and is correlated with certain qualities, such as rebellious anti-authoritarianism, which many HN readers would like to perceive in themselves) is a self-deluding myth.

But the question that's rarely asked is, who are those people that helped them create the wealth? is it random strangers? is it welfare bums? no, of course not. They were able to create great wealth by working and benefiting from other successful people, by voluntary mutual cooperation.

So you're right, people don't create wealth in a vacuum, they create it by working with other similarly ambitious like-minded people. They had the same chance to try, and fail, like everyone else has in a free country.

Which, when you think about it, isn't too far off from the old notion of the "nobleman" -- all we've done is shift nobility from something granted by God to something granted by monetary wealth.

(also, since the article contrasts the modern era with the old hereditary aristocracies, take a look sometime at how many prominent Europeans today are descended from or associated with descendants of the Habsburgs and the Bourbons, or just how incestuous US government has been over the past fifty years)

On the one hand, you are right, no success happens in a vacuum, and a lot of wealth is acquired directly through a good ol' boys network.

On the other hand, most successful entrepreneurs probably deserve credit for building a company no matter how many people help them. Aside from being well-compensated in many cases, it's a tenuous argument that the employees of a successful startup would be creating the same amount of value without the inspired leadership and focus created by the entrepreneur.

I don't think the statement: "all we've done is shift nobility from something granted by God to something granted by monetary wealth," is fair. Clearly society distinguishes between inherited and self-made wealth. The question of who deserves what is subtle, and I'm hard pressed to come down on one side or the other.

You're right everyone has the same chance to try and fail, but not everyone has the same chance to try and succeed.

Some people get the deluxe starter kit, and some people get a blank sheet of paper. You can turn both into a billion dollar business, but one's a lot easier than the other.

I don't think it has to go there. I think there can be a responsibility to give credit that is distinct from the responsibility to share the spoils.

The question here is not whether Andrew Carnegie had a right to keep his wealth, but whether we as a society have a responsibility to give some of the credit for "his" achievements to the other people who made them possible.