On the rights of the Rich

Do the rights of the rich outweigh the rights of the poor?  I see variances on this theme often and they are invariably couched in terms that make them sound so logical they almost seem acceptable.  Almost.  However I ultimately find them unacceptable, regardless of how cleverly they’re phrased.

The rights of the rich should never outweigh the rights of the poor. Period.

I acknowledge we live in a world in which society has been stratified into various degrees of have and have not.  However I find this morally unacceptable, regardless of the form the social stratification takes.  To me it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about rich and poor, clergy and lay, royalty and peasant, chieftains and villagers, colonists and indigenous, conquerors and conquered, victors and vanquished, or even about highly sophisticated caste systems of ancient origin.

But there is something in all those cases which does matter to me.  Namely how certain people assume authority over others.

Assumptions of authority…

This is the 21st century.  How many more centuries is it going to take before people rise up and say “No!” to social inequity?  How far must the disparity in wealth become before the man in the street says, “Enough!” to the outrageous privilege assumed by the wealthy?

Have you ever considered the expression, “Outrageous Privilege“?  I have. It is the state in which a miniscule minority are treated with such outrageous privilege that it literally becomes an outrage.  What is a miniscule minority? It isn’t the 20% of the so widely touted and so often repeated 80/20 rule. I am a reasonable person, if I lived in a society where twenty out of every hundred people were wealthier than the other eighty I’d be willing to accept that, regardless of which category I fell into. However in regard to the disparity of wealth a miniscule minority means a tiny percent of a single percentage point.   A very very very tiny percent.

No matter how clever or eloquent the justifications for social inequity are, they remain nothing but justifications for something that is inherently wrong.

What kind of language am I referring to, and what prompted this post?

Statements like, “The poor will always be with us.”  Why?  Why is there a need for anyone to be poor?  Because they’re lazy and thus don’t deserve to be wealthy?  Before you subscribe to such virulent nonsense try living in a poor man’s shoes.  Not only are they a bad fit, they are extremely uncomfortable, and you will have to work harder that you have ever worked in order to barely survive.  The poor are not lazy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The poor are desperate.  The poor often work multiple minimum wage jobs in order to make ends meet.

Statements like, “Minimum wage is just a starting point.”  Hogwash.  Minimum wage is an ending point.  Once an adult starts working in a minimum wage position it becomes increasingly difficult to escape working for minimum wage. The receipt of every paycheck sees your situation worse.  Minimum wage paychecks are not a blessing, they are a curse.  An adult earning minimum wage cannot save enough for a buffer to tide them over for the time taken to find a better paying job. If they lose the minimum wage job they hold today, they had better get another by tomorrow or their circumstances will get even worse than they are.  Assuming there actually is something worse than living hand to mouth, day in and day out.  Sadly, there is…

Statements like, “The homeless are homeless by choice.” Where do you go when you have nowhere to go?  Where do you stay when you have nowhere to stay?  What do you eat when you have nothing to eat?  What mental hospital will treat the chronically mentally ill when all the mental hospitals that did so closed years ago?  Are any of those choices, by choice?

Statements like, “We should not strive to make the rich poor, but to make the poor rich.”  Did you entirely miss that mysterious subject known as “Mathematics” while attending school?  Statistically speaking it is impossible for everyone to be in the top one percent.  Statistically speaking if there are one hundred people, everyone cannot be materially richer than the other ninety-nine.  Simple math folks.  But apparently beyond the ability of many to grasp.

Statements like, “Be humble, work hard, and accept your lot in life.”  Why?  Why should the poor accept being poor?  Why do the rich deserve to be rich?  Why should people work hard if they can never aspire to improving their circumstances?  Why?

Statements like, “It has always been this way.”  So what!!??  If something is unjust, then I don’t give a single solitary damn how long it has, “always been this way“, I will fight to have it fixed.  Slavery existed for thousands of years.  Does the longevity of abhorrent behavior somehow render it tolerable?  Absolutely not.

And hundreds of other acceptably false statements we are constantly trained to ignore in the interests of the status-quo.  Those little lies so slight they aren’t worth the bother of refuting.  Those deliberate misdirections that take our attention elsewhere from the things that really matter.  Here is a heads-up.  The status-quo does not serve the interests of the poor, it serves the interests of the rich.

And now, finally, to the matter that prompted this post.  Examine the screenshot below and read through the dialog captured within it.  But before you do, please note this is not an attack on the person who tweeted the quote.  It isn’t even an attack on the quote itself, which holds a lot of truth.  After all, if we are not willing to contribute something, then what right do we have to expect anyone else to contribute?  None.  I think that was the frame of mind in which the tweet originated.  However, if I am anything I am contrary.  The nuance of words is exceptionally important to me.  That is what this post is really about.

Nuance.

It reflects on how thinking about words in a different way opens entirely different ways to understand what is being said.  There are other truths beneath all words, we only need to seek them to see.

the rights of the richSeem clear?  Now let me explain what I meant in my reply.  It seemed obvious to me, however what is obvious to the author is often obscure to another.

In order to be able to give, we must first have.” Literally the only thing I can afford to give are my words.  Although words are something I treasure, I have them in abundance and can thus afford to give them freely. I strive to do that, both here on my blog, and on Twitter.  But cash?  That filthy thing known as lucre? That thing most people think of when thinking of “giving”?  According to my income I am neatly positioned in the middle class.  However the truth is that I can barely afford to service my debt.  On paper, I own my own home.  If only paper were reality., for in reality I don’t.  The bank owns the home within which we live, and the bank will get the home if I am unable to pay the mortgage.  Who, precisely, is “the bank”?  I don’t know, but I do know that they are the ones who got and get to keep the homes when the real estate market crashes. What did the people who could not pay their mortgages get to keep?  A devastating dip in their credit-worthiness?  So, although I am allegedly middle class, the only material things I own are my debts and I’m pretty sure nobody, not even the poorest of the poor, wants me to give them those.

I walk past my own reflection every day.”  And what I see, when I can bear to look, is an apparently wealthy man who in reality is so poor he does not even own the dirt upon which his home is built.  Every day I pass myself and I know how poor I am.  What choice do I have, but to walk on past?  I wonder what you see when you pass your reflection?  Sadly, I think it is likely to be the very same thing I see.  A slave, who thinks they are free.

The best slaves, are those who think they’re free. #thought

And the last line of my reply read…

It never asks me to give.”  Perhaps my experience in life differs substantially from yours. Indeed there is no doubt in my mind it does, for we are each unique individuals ultimately created by the specific circumstances that have built up to and preceded this precise moment in time. No two lives are the same! Yet in all my life I have never met a single poor person who has asked me to give them anything.  Never.  Those in more dire circumstances than myself have asked me where they might find work they could do in exchange for shelter or food, but they’ve never asked me to “give”.  Indeed many poorer than me have offered to share their food and lodging, and sometimes I have accepted their generosity.  Are beggars poor?  I have met many of those and they invariably ask me to give, but I don’t think they are poor. I think they are just beggars.  Perhaps that is what the expression truly means, that beggars will always be with us.  I don’t doubt they will, for there are always lazy people, and lazy people are undeserving of sympathy.  However the poor do not seek your sympathy, they do not seek your wealth, they seek your understanding, they seek fair and equal opportunity.  Do you think they get any of those things?

Do you freely grant those minimal desires, or do you walk past your reflection and withhold them?

{P.S. Throughout my blog you will find proof of how much words matter to me.  Here and on @Twitter, I give them away for free.  Should you choose to purchase other words of mine you may do so by buying Malmaxa, a link for which appears in the top right column.

Recently I have been seriously considering adding a “Donate” button to my blog.  I wonder if that would make me a beggar, or perhaps a trader who offers words you probably don’t want to hear in exchange for cash you probably can’t afford to give. I wonder.}

About C.G.Ayling

Musing misuser of words, lover of lyrical literature, author, occasional contrary thoughts. An honorable man’s name, in memoriam.
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *