“The System Is What It Does.”: Challenging Ryan Grim’s View on Success, Responsibility, and External Factors
After watching the exchange between Ryan Grim and Matt Walsh on Counter Points (which is a great show, by the way), I wanted to dive deeper into a concept Ryan mentioned:
“There is an argument that a system is what it does. Claiming otherwise is kind of ‘hocus pocus.’ If the system produces a certain result, but you, as an observer, say, ‘well actually, that’s not what the system is supposed to do’… those words are just meaningless.”
“The system is what it does” is a systems-thinking heuristic. In essence, if a system consistently fails to produce X (the system’s claimed purpose) and instead produces Y, we should consider the system designed to produce Y. While this heuristic offers a useful framework for analyzing certain kinds of systems, there are significant challenges when applying it to societal outcomes in the way Ryan does.
First, Ryan’s perspective overlooks the fact that individuals within the system possess free agency. His argument assumes that the system is designed to produce specific outcomes without acknowledging that systems often serve to create environments in which free agents can determine their own paths. From a systems perspective, people are the variables. Just as setting variables differently in an equation leads to different outcomes, personal decisions within societal systems lead to diverse results. Imagine a system designed to build roads: while it provides pathways, where individuals end up depends on the choices they make along the way.
Ryan’s argument centers on the outcomes produced by systems and infers flaws based on these results. However, this critique overlooks the role of individual choices in shaping those outcomes. By doing so, it either dismisses personal agency or suggests that individual choices don’t matter. The latter position is particularly troubling, as it aligns with the view that bad decisions can be excused due to external factors, such as luck or systemic disadvantages.
This line of reasoning is flawed. If external factors can excuse failures, they must also explain successes. Yet, people often excuse poor decisions by blaming externalities, while claiming full credit for their achievements. This undermines personal responsibility and encourages a dangerous narrative that individuals have little control over their own lives, thus justifying state intervention to “correct” outcomes.
External factors, whether positive or negative, certainly influence decision-making environments. People born into wealth may have more favorable conditions to make positive decisions (and famously, the opposite can occur in these environments), while others face greater challenges. But external factors are not the whole story. Elements like culture, intelligence, personality, and community also play significant roles—factors that are external to government policy but still shape individual decision-making environments. It is important to recognize that external factors and personal agency interact in complex ways. While conditions can shape opportunities and create challenges, they do not negate the individual’s capacity to navigate them and make meaningful decisions. Above all, personal responsibility remains the decisive factor in determining outcomes.
This logic also informs societal views on taxation. High-income earners, often praised for their success, are simultaneously subjected to heavy taxation under the belief that their achievements are the product of systemic privilege or favorable external factors. The notion of paying their “fair share” is framed as a way of redistributing wealth, with the assumption that success is less about individual effort and more about benefiting from a rigged system. This implicitly downplays personal achievement and effort, furthering the idea that success is more about circumstance than agency.
The underlying assumption here is that wealth is unfairly accumulated and that the system, rather than individual talent or hard work, is primarily responsible for that accumulation. This view perpetuates the belief that those who achieve financial success owe a greater debt to society because they have benefited from privileges—whether through education, family background, or other advantages—that others did not have. While external factors undoubtedly play a role in shaping opportunities, this perspective ignores the countless examples of individuals who have risen from humble beginnings through sheer perseverance and personal responsibility.
Moreover, the concept of a “fair share” becomes murky when success is viewed as the result of privilege or systemic advantages. If society begins to believe that success is largely predetermined by external factors, then high-income earners are seen as merely the lucky beneficiaries of a system that granted them their fortune. This logic creates a moral justification for higher taxes as a form of rectifying the system’s inherent “unfairness.” But is it truly fair to penalize success in this way?
Taxation that excessively punishes the wealthy risks undermining incentives for personal initiative and achievement. When people feel that their efforts are undervalued or that success will only result in greater confiscation by the state, it can reduce the motivation to innovate, invest, and contribute productively to the economy. From a libertarian perspective, the argument that wealth should be redistributed based on the assumption of systemic privilege ignores the importance of individual autonomy and responsibility in generating that wealth in the first place.
Framing high-income earners as the beneficiaries of a system stacked in their favor undermines the very principles of meritocracy and personal responsibility. If society views success as a byproduct of luck or privilege, it justifies an ever-growing role for the state in redistributing wealth and controlling outcomes. This not only diminishes individual achievement but also fosters resentment, as those who work hard to build wealth may feel that they are being unfairly penalized for their success.
Ultimately, while external factors undeniably shape our environment, they do not determine the outcomes of our lives. The system may set conditions, but individuals navigate them. External factors and personal agency interact in ways that shape but do not predetermine outcomes. Personal responsibility and free will are essential in any society that values autonomy. When we attribute failures solely to systemic issues, we erode the concept of individual accountability, opening the door to excessive state intervention. As we debate issues like taxation and equality, we must strike a balance—acknowledging external influences without negating the power of personal agency. Only then can we preserve the value of individual achievement and ensure success is viewed as the product of effort, resilience, and choice.
Check out the clip yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUEhx6QD-0w