Justifying the Wealth Disparity is an empty path.
Being separated from the problems of poor people requires justification in a civilised society, but this justification does not exist
Date: 9/5/2006 1:37:23 PM ( 15 y ) ... viewed 1222 times
I was inspired to write this by Jamie Lee Curtis' new children's book about "The Human Race" where we are "racing" like in a competition.
The race that we find ourselves running is just a way for the wealthy to not have to be involved with the troubles of the poor people. This has been the "way of life" of the human race, in almost every culture now, ever since money was created.
Money allows us to measure our wealth, it is the vehicle for the competition.We jump on the vehicle in our childhood and never get off of it until we die. Every day of our lives revolves around the vehicle in the competition. This is not an analogy.
Being separate from the poor allows the wealthy to spend their time and efforts [doing stuff] without the anchoring effect of lower expectations, lesser abilities, and basic survival necessities. We have created a system where life gets easier as you grow richer, and it becomes easier to aquire more and more wealth once you attain enough wealth to raise yourself above the monthly struggles of liveing paycheck to paycheck.
Justification for this divide [of rich and poor] is not a law, it is not a rule, but is just an accepted bit of rhetoric. Otherwise such a law or rule would be struck down as a violation of the human rights bills and rules and laws. We keep it as an "unspoken but accepted justification" for that reason.
The essence of the justification is that some people try harder, work harder, have more skills, education, and talents, and therefore deserve more and indeed require more wealth to encourage them to contribute to the human race with their talents, otherwise they would not be used, those talents would not serve humankind. The gifts of the wealthy, their merits, and in service to the human race MUST be rewarded. And the only reward we can think of is money.
This 'justification' opens up several questions like:
- why not some other kind of reward, something that does not appear to be greed and ego driven as money? Things like direct service to the human race, perhaps service to the poor [but that would take away the incentive they say].
- where did the merit come from, the talents, the drive? Are they not a product of the entire human race, that we exist and that any child has the potential for being gifted, meritous?
- Ambition may be a result of successes early on, like doing well in grade school can inspire them to strive to be even better at it, whereas 'the failures' lose interest in things they are not talented in - early successes are natural gifts and not only do they have the reward of the early gifts but then continue to be rewarded with money for having that gift. "Rewarding the gifted" is a way of recruiting the best, the talented, to serve with the wealthy, to ensure that the mainstream accepted paths keep separate from the paths of the less gifted ones who shall become the poor.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page