Anyone competing in any kind of business/competition isn't having their free will violated because of course they accept that not everyone is going to be #1 from the start.
It's like going on to a casino. No one is forcing these people to be in those environments. Not a lot of people feel sorry for someone with a gambling problem because no one is forcing them to be there.
Violating free will isn't the same thing as having service-to-self orientation, and everyone involved in a competition does have that mentality to some degree. The people losing out aren't necessarily victims considering most people for example if they could claim land as their own wouldn't have any hangups about collecting rent from people even though they hate that they themselves are charged to live in nearly every city by a landlord. If they could easily kick back and collect money from people for doing next to nothing, I bet most people would.
I think it's interesting when these kinds of real world questions are asked because most people have to work, pay tax/rent, and oftentimes want a partner. Understanding and practicing the Law of One doesn't entirely guarantee you'll get any of those things. In the modern first world if you want an average life it oftentimes means you need to come up with the many thousands of dollars to live in an average house or raise a family. Family often means when you make all that money you spend it on people who you see yourself in. Is it wrong? Well if you think it is and are looking to set a better example, just open your door and let strangers live in the house you pay for--free of charge or in the living room or your car while you are with your wife.
A joke I make with people sometimes like I ask if they are so close to their neighborhood, does it mean that if they got kicked out of where they were living that their loving wonderful neighbors would adopt them? No, you'd find yourself on the sidewalk in most cases. That tells me no one in a neighborhood really cares about me at the end of the day so I don't feel too in touch with the community most of the time. People care about what they get from you most of the time. If you arrive in some town without any money don't expect to be welcome.
Being a millionaire is probably not likely from doing something creative but it isn't unimaginable that you could live comfortably if you took the time over decades so that your name was known as you developed a following as an author or in some other creative endeavor.
Edit: I think the part about how you likely wouldn't allow a random person to live in your home for free makes me think of what you're describing. Are you a service to self entity because you aren't enacting the infinite divine love of the creator by not adopting people to live in your house without charging them? That isn't 110% altruistic. Do you think it's immoral? Maybe you don't live alone but let's say you did. What do you think of that? It's not something to lose sleep over.
It's like going on to a casino. No one is forcing these people to be in those environments. Not a lot of people feel sorry for someone with a gambling problem because no one is forcing them to be there.
Violating free will isn't the same thing as having service-to-self orientation, and everyone involved in a competition does have that mentality to some degree. The people losing out aren't necessarily victims considering most people for example if they could claim land as their own wouldn't have any hangups about collecting rent from people even though they hate that they themselves are charged to live in nearly every city by a landlord. If they could easily kick back and collect money from people for doing next to nothing, I bet most people would.
I think it's interesting when these kinds of real world questions are asked because most people have to work, pay tax/rent, and oftentimes want a partner. Understanding and practicing the Law of One doesn't entirely guarantee you'll get any of those things. In the modern first world if you want an average life it oftentimes means you need to come up with the many thousands of dollars to live in an average house or raise a family. Family often means when you make all that money you spend it on people who you see yourself in. Is it wrong? Well if you think it is and are looking to set a better example, just open your door and let strangers live in the house you pay for--free of charge or in the living room or your car while you are with your wife.
A joke I make with people sometimes like I ask if they are so close to their neighborhood, does it mean that if they got kicked out of where they were living that their loving wonderful neighbors would adopt them? No, you'd find yourself on the sidewalk in most cases. That tells me no one in a neighborhood really cares about me at the end of the day so I don't feel too in touch with the community most of the time. People care about what they get from you most of the time. If you arrive in some town without any money don't expect to be welcome.
Being a millionaire is probably not likely from doing something creative but it isn't unimaginable that you could live comfortably if you took the time over decades so that your name was known as you developed a following as an author or in some other creative endeavor.
Edit: I think the part about how you likely wouldn't allow a random person to live in your home for free makes me think of what you're describing. Are you a service to self entity because you aren't enacting the infinite divine love of the creator by not adopting people to live in your house without charging them? That isn't 110% altruistic. Do you think it's immoral? Maybe you don't live alone but let's say you did. What do you think of that? It's not something to lose sleep over.