How The Left Controls the Debate: “Wealth Inequality”

My kid had to write an English 101 paper on “Wealth Inequality”. I said WTF!? This is like Soviet education/ indoctrination. Soviet math: “If 1,254 running dogs of the Imperialists are set to running away by 430 brave revolutionary pioneers, how many Imperialists would 40 Pioneers chase?”
WEALTH INEQUALITY does not exist as a thing. By making it into a topic one is actually creating an issue where there is none. This is typical of how the Left works. They create terms or realign old words into slightly different definitions. “Privilege” is a newly realigned word. From its roots in Latin for “private law” it meant a legal (the “lege” part of the word) boon granted by a feudal lord to a dependent. Because it came from the legitimate law maker, privilege was license to do something that others were not. 
The glibness with which the “problem with privileged groups” is addressed is exactly like the newly minted “Wealth Inequality”. By creating a proper noun phrase “Wealth Inequality” any debate about it concedes its reality. 
What can wealth inequality mean? Is it simply a value-free observation of wealth strata by percentages? There has always been a disparity between the wealthiest and the rest in all societies more advanced than hunter gatherering. In fact, finding evidence of wealth stratification in an archaeologic dig implies a settled agricultural polity. So, ever since the neolithic age there has been wealth inequality. There is also physical strength inequality. Of course there is. But can we speak of Physical Strength Inequality in capital letters as a proper noun phrase? Physical Strength Inequality: what to do? WTF you ask? “I did not know that was a problem” you might add. It became one as soon as the caps appeared. OH, Physical Strength Inequality, that is indeed troubling. What to do? 
How much inequality between the richest person and the poorest person is tolerable? Or is it to be a metric (another cool word) like the wealthiest 1% vs the poorest 1%. Or the wealthiest 25% versus the poorest 25%. Or the wealthiest 50% vs the poorest 50%? Who is to say? Why is it presumably wrong for their to be wealth gradients in society? Are there not gradients of intelligence, ambition, industriousness, willingness to delay gratification? Of course there are. So why is your term a term that needs a video, a comment, a prescription, a revolution etc. 
Is this the upshot of a beneficent society that protects the poorer members from abject 3rd world poverty? IOW from charitable care of the poorer members comes the new demand for equality of wealth. What guttersnipe whining.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s