I think I'm being realistic, and cautioning against the fiction that is the idea of the "self-made man".
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.
The argument that there are no self made men is typically made in the context of arguing that guys like Andrew Carnegie (or Adam Wiggins) don't have a right to the wealth they've created (i.e. since they didn't create the wealth in a vacuum, others must have a right to share in it.)
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.
They need the masses to buy their products, drive on their roads, etc. They need the whole society which provided them with infrastructure, food supply, safety, all kinds of working grunts supporting the whole thing. Before the invention of farming, for example, "entrepreneurship" was clearly entirely impossible, as everyone needed to forage for food most of the time (I recommend "guns germs and steel" for some insight on that). All "success" is dependent on the total system in which it takes place. Successful people have every right to their success but they don't have the right to claim the rest of the world below them had no effect on their success being possible. It's the ultimate in hubris.
Consider the flip side, which is an argument that (unlike your straw man) actually happens on this site: people who take pride in being successful "self-made men" denigrate those who are not as successful and either imply or outright say that those less-successful people deserve their lot on account of some inferiority or failing of character.
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)
It's a fascinating philosophical dichotomy. I'm quite sure the closest thing we'll get to objective truth varies widely between instances.
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.
They had the same chance to try, and fail, like everyone else has in a free country.
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.
Since they didn't create the wealth in a vacuum, others must have a right to share in it.
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.
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.