Why does wealth have to equal power and
influence? Why can’t wealth only mean
the power to buy more things, and not
the power to buy influence? Why is
influence for sale? Why is it in the
marketplace?
If I were to become wealthy overnight, would a sense
of entitlement to be an influential person be born in me at the same time, or
would it grow within me slowly?
Would it have to make an
appearance? Would it be possible for me
to be content merely with my new power to buy more stuff, and scoff at the idea
that I should now be one of the decision makers? Or would that sense of entitlement inevitably
overwhelm and overtake me?
I can only think of one reason, as a wealthy person,
to desire being a decision maker, to desire being a power broker: to preserve, protect, and increase my own wealth. One thing I
know that wealth wouldn't give me is a newfound wisdom for handling the affairs
of men. It would not give me a higher
level of respect or regard for my fellow human beings than I already possess. It would in no way better qualify me to make
decisions for society beyond whatever qualifications I may have had when I was
not wealthy. So why should some misguided "right to power" accompany the circumstance of wealth? Indeed, in Twain’s story,
the Pauper was far more qualified for leadership than the Prince. We like to imagine that if we were suddenly
wealthy, we would kick back and take it easy for the rest of our lives. And I believe we would if we had no fear of
falling back into the middle or lower classes.
But I think it’s that fear of falling that drives
the rich to crave influence. They can’t
relax if they see any potential leaks in their hot-air balloon. Mustn’t lose altitude! Must shore up the system so that, if
anything, I’m gaining altitude! You have to admit that over the centuries,
they’ve gotten pretty good at staying afloat.
But what if their fear could be taken away? We all do reckless things when we’re afraid,
right, like trample over people to escape a burning room? But where’s the fire? Why must the rich feel like they need to
trample on everyone else to stay afloat?
Is it a law of the universe that our increased prosperity means their
downfall? Must they crash so we can
soar? Is there not room in the
atmosphere for all of us to rise without knocking someone else out of the way?
Have the wealthy merely stratified society so that
they don’t have to share the sidewalk with the poor and risk being mugged, so
they can drive down their streets without the fear of being carjacked? So they can at least relax a little bit? What if the poor could rise to a level above
desperation, to where they would feel no need and see no sense in molesting
their wealthier brother? People tend to
do what makes sense to them, to do what they feel they need to do. Alleviate desperation and frustration, and
what is the result? Peace, prosperity,
security, freedom.
But where fear and anger and resentment reign at the
extremes of income levels, the best the wealthy can come up with – because we allow their wealth to purchase influence
– is to stratify, divide, subjugate. The
wealthy do this to protect themselves from the angry poor, and the poor are
angry because this is the wealthy man’s idea of how society should be run – and
it all works to protect their wealth. So the fears of the few lead to policies that produce anger in the many, which feeds the fear that then creates new policies for protection from that anger, which creates more
anger, which feeds the fear. And round
and round we go. And those who may be
enlightened enough to break the cycle are not allowed to be influential because
of, again, the fears of the wealthy.
Maybe we who are the many should grant an amnesty to
the few. Tell the wealthy that, even if
we know it to not be the case, we will grant that whatever wealth you currently
possess is yours legitimately. Whatever you have as of today, you have. You don’t
have to hide from justice, you don’t have to fear our confiscating it through
the courts, you don’t have to fear mob action to “collect.” We won’t even sneer at you and make snide
remarks anymore. You’re just rich, and
that is all. You can buy more stuff than other people. We're okay with that. In fact, when was the last time your piano was tuned? Here's my card.
Going forward, we are going to rewrite parts of the
rule book to create the most level playing field we can possibly put together. Oh, no thanks, wealthy, formerly influential
brother, your input won’t be needed, is not wanted. We got this.
As we’ve said, whatever wealth you possess is yours no-questions-asked,
but the only protection allowed for it now is for you to pursue, through our
court system, anyone who criminally violates your property – like, tries to
take it from you by criminal means. Any
protections currently allowed in the law to your wealth that are oppressive to
the rights of others, grant you unfair advantage over others, or are otherwise
unethical, will be stricken. You,
brothers and sisters of wealth, now stand on the same ground as we do – we are
equals. We share the same fears and aspirations as fellow human beings. You’re still unbelievably rich
and will no longer be criticized for it, but you will now have to learn to
handle legitimate competition. You may
keep as much wealth as you can hold onto, and make more if you are able, your
only rightful protections being your abilities, the police, and the courts –
and the protection of our wealth is exactly the same. Some of you will lose altitude, and some of
us will gain altitude, but the playing field will be leveled to everyone’s
equal advantage. The goal here is not to bring the rich down, or to take what is theirs and give it away to someone else, but only to
allow the poor to more easily work themselves to a place where they can breathe freely and
leave behind the pathetic existence of living in dire straits, leave behind a
life of having to skip meals and wonder if the electricity will stay on this
week, leave behind frustration, anger, and resentment toward their
wealthier, scheming, controlling brothers.
We could grant an amnesty, rewrite the rule books,
and hit a colossal, societal RESET button.
I think it would actually work, and I also think that human nature would
quickly lead many to try to game this newly constructed system to their
advantage. So I think that, going
forward from this happy place, the police and those who work in the courts
would need to be some of the most generously compensated public servants,
because they would need to do a stellar job enforcing the new rules without
being tempted to place their influence on the market; and all legislators,
state and federal, would have term limits imposed – two or three terms, and
then we save you from yourselves by sending you back to private life (we
would include mayors and sheriffs in this, too). Influence and wealth would no longer go
hand-in-hand, though we’re not naïve enough to think that attempts would not be
made. Some of the best decision makers
could rise from the ranks of our former paupers. It would be a rebirth of freedom, security, and
prosperity. How long it would last would
depend on our vigilance, on how seriously we value liberty and equality.
But I fear this will never happen, because we who
are the many, who have it within our power to make this a reality (a reality that doesn't have to be a terrifying nightmare for the rich), are mostly lazy, tolerant, and apathetic, like a bunch of cows just standing around chewing our cud. How about this for a simpler RESET? If you’re not willing to stand up and do
something positive and constructive, then we take away your right to complain.
No comments:
Post a Comment