It may be that I am in some way more sensitive to it these days or it may be simply the case that it occurs more, but I have noticed an increase in the number of people who seem to think that wealth gives them more rights. This is a mistake: wealth brings advantage, it does not bring precedence. At least it shouldn't. It should not change your position as a citizen in that the same laws should apply to you. Of course we know that this is not always the case, we know that there are those with enough money to pay to avoid the inconvenience of having to comply with the law. In the 20th century - with the wealth of the colonial period still sloshing about - perhaps we would have expected this to be a thing of the past, or a state of affairs restricted to tin pot dictatorships. However, as the UK slips back into its place as a medium sized country buffeted by global market forces, we tend to take on more and more of the values of the tin pot dictatorships we used to look down upon. This is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to the UK though, throughout the world, there appears to be a subservience attached to wealth that goes beyond simply reverence.
At a political level (and this is certainly true of the UK) there is a continual undignified scramble to get wealth into the country regardless of whether that wealth stays in the country or benefits the country in any way. This seems to be driven by a more general perception of wealth as good in some way other than the potential of it disseminating itself amongst others. It seems that we have been told that wealth accumulation is a good thing so much that we believe wealth to be some form of abstract moral force for good, rather than simply a resource that has no moral value except in its use. This perception seems to extend to the wealthy, who appear to believe that their ability to accumulate (or inherit) wealth makes them some sort of übermensch, soaring above the concerns and petty ties of the rest of us mere mortals. Unfortunately, because we are presented no alternatives, we aspire to be like these people, assume that this is possible or even probable and therefore cannot see why they should be party to the petty restrictions that we ourselves will happily rise above once we achieve their elevated position. We allow our media to lionise these people, presenting their lives as the utopia we seek and as a result we come to believe that they must be in some way better than us. It is a 'better' that we believe we can aspire to, but it is a 'better' none the less. So we sit like expectant children and lap up any wisdom that the grownups impart, safe in the knowledge that they have all the answers. We defer moral authority to them in the same way a child does to adults, but we are not children. We have allowed ourselves to be infantilised by the unfulfilled promise of shiny things and assurances that there are those more worthy than us.
Of course the narrative of the right is that I'm just a bitter lefty, jealous of others, but I beg to differ. I am not jealous of the wealth of others, I count myself perfectly well off. Of course I could always do with a bit more, but I would think that wouldn't I: I'm conditioned to. My issue is not with others' wealth or with others accumulating wealth, it is with those who think that wealth entitles them to more than those without wealth beyond the luxury that wealth brings, or that it gives them primacy over others, or makes them better people. It does none of these things: no one should mistake the fawning of sycophants blinded by the glare of their wealth for a change in their societal rights and obligations.
No comments:
Post a Comment