Dear Friends,
I wonder, which seems more just to you? A vast disparity in wealth… or political power? Do you care more about someone having dozens of cars, while you can only afford two… or that someone can order you killed, and your stuff taken, without consequence? This is only possible when there’s a vast disparity in political power. Those driven by envy and jealousy, will say they would rather a huge disparity in political favor, than in wealth, while the pragmatist might reason, the negative effect on human Rights and humanity itself of over powered political favor, makes it the greater danger. Personally, I couldn’t care less how rich someone else is, or how much political favor they have, as long as they leave me alone. The rich usually leave us alone, while the politically powerful… don’t.
The wealthy also have great reputational political favor, but prosperity also carries political disfavor, in the forms of envy, jealousy and hate. Somewhat balancing out wealth in political favor. Unless that wealth is used to purchase political favor. As George Soros has done. Then wealth can make a madman a puppeteer. A wire puller who’s above the law and even criticism. This only works however when the conniver encourages the dominant political theology. Spending money on politically disfavored ideas earns political disfavor from the elite. As Musk has done. Though the lion’s share of the wealthy don’t engage in political intrigue, instead they engage in making more money or in lavish lifestyles. So while there is crossover between wealth and political power, they are indeed different things.
Over powered political favor is also called despotism, tyranny and oligarchy. Where all, or most of the political power, is vested in one person or a small cadre of elites. The rest of the citizenry can be killed in the street at the whim. Like in ancient times. Moreover, political power is always exploited to amass immense fortunes. As Nancy Pelosi has done with legal insider trading. The politically favored are above even common legal code. Like when Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick. Those with sufficient political favor are above even ridicule. Like Barack Obama, when a rodeo clown was personally destroyed, for wearing an Obama mask in a rodeo. Which means, those with over powered political favor, exploit it to become rich, are above the law, and even criticism.
What someone else has means nothing to me. I’m only concerned with my loved ones, what I earned by the sweat of my brow, and being left alone. In fact, the more everyone else has, the happier I am about it. Why? Because the more wealth there is, the higher my standard of living will naturally be, regardless of my level of gumption. So I like there being lots of rich people, wasting their money on frivolity, opulence or investing it to make more. I don’t even care how much political power someone has… as long as they leave me alone. The problem is, no one amasses political power to leave us alone. It’s just not done. They gain great political power to use it. Who will they use it on? Us of course! So, to have my druthers, I prefer a great disparity in wealth over political favor.
Which has the greater ability to harm civilization though? Wealth disparity or political disparity? If we are to act to limit one, or the other, that has to be the question. It can be answered pragmatically or idealistically. The pragmatist will answer it judged by the result of each. Even as the idealist will judge depending on his or her feelings on the subject. The idealist might feel like it’s unfair for some to have too much wealth, so prefer others to have over powered political favor, to put the rich in their place. The outcome be damned. It’s the goal that counts. Meanwhile, the pragmatist will observe the past results of both, and will conclude that the option with the greatest likelihood for a positive outcome be chosen… political power. Which is why we must limit political power, not wealth.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
