Socialists and
capitalists both claim that “the rich are different” — to which the proper Just
Third Way response is (with apologies to Papa), “Yes. They have more money.” Or, actually, they have more access to money
and credit for the proper purposes.
 |
| F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The rich are different." |
What the
socialists and capitalists mean, of course, is that the rich are inherently different . . . which
contradicts the most fundamental principle of reason, which for some reason
doesn’t seem to bother either socialists or capitalists.
The most
fundamental principle of reason? Yes,
the “principle of identity”: that which is true is as true, and is true in the
same way, as everything else that is true.
Thus, if that
entity over there is a human being, it is as fully human, and is human in the
same way, as every other human. Whatever
it is that defines a human being as a human being is an inherent part of every
human being, or “truth” has no real meaning.
Truth becomes whatever you can force someone to accept, regardless of
its objective existence, everything becomes relative. Might makes right.
One obvious
conclusion to this sort of sloppy thinking never seems to be raised — something
for which we can blame modern Academia and its hysterical rejection of the
basic principles of reason in pursuit of jobs, political correctness, and money. That is, if the rich are inherently different
just because they are rich (an “ad hominem circumstantial” argument, by the
way, and thus a logical fallacy in and of itself), then, logically, the poor
are also inherently different — think
about it.
 |
| "Papa" Hemmingway: "Yes: they have more money!" |
We necessarily
conclude that if everyone is inherently different on the basis of each one’s
social, economic, or political status, there is reason to believe that skin
color, ethnicity, mental capacity, height, and other physical characteristics
are an even better indication that each “human being” is inherently
different. After all, a rich person can
become poor, and a poor person can become rich, but a white person can’t become
yellow or black, or a yellow or black person become white, nor can you add one
cubit to your stature, or one hour to your life.
“Wealthism” (to
coin a word) inevitably turns into racism of one form or another, whether you
believe wealth is a good thing, or a bad thing.
In the framework dictated by wealthism, there is no commonality among
people, nothing that defines a human being as
a human being.
What happens
when external characteristics, some even ephemeral (such as wealth), determine
whether or not someone is considered fully human or is/isn’t human in the
“right” way? For starters, socialists
blame the rich for being rich, and for their presumed differentness from the
poor . . . as if poor people can’t be just as greedy and rapacious as rich people (albeit less successful at it), while capitalists blame the poor for being poor, as if rich people can’t be just as lazy and shiftless as poor people (only
better able to hide the consequences).
Both sides miss
the point. If the rich are inherently
different from the poor, and vice versa,
why should either group give a rodent’s rump about the other? Wealthism justifies treating members of the
other group — or the entire group — as your legitimate prey. They aren’t human, or are human in a
different way than “we” are, so anything is justified, whether allowing the
poor to starve, or redistributing the wealth of the rich. After all (as Msgr. Ronald Knox characterized
this belief system), the ungodly — or the unwealthy or un-anything else that
makes others different from “us” — have no rights.
Obviously that’s
wrong, as basic common sense — our reason — tells us. What happens, however, when we abandon
reason, and go with unsupported faith — in anything?
We’ll look at
that on Monday.
#30#
