There's been a fair
amount of discussion in the public square lately concerning fears of
a plutocracy, which is a state ruled by the wealthy. But what about
a ptochocracy?
As well-intentioned
as some of this plutocracy talk may be, I fear a great deal of it
may just be more business-bashing and class-envy--something we have
too much in this free country which is infected by a sickening dose
of Marxism.
For the most part,
all nations throughout all human history have at least in some sense
been "ruled by the wealthy." After all, how many poor people and
beggars are likely to end up in positions of power?
Apparently someone
was able to conceptualize such a thing, because I came across a term
for it today: ptochocracy. A ptochocracy is apparently is government
by the poor, from the Greek "ptochos" meaning beggar.
But how likely is it
a beggar, a poor person, or even an average person will rise to the
top and lead a nation? Well, it's not impossible and it does happen
(after a fashion). Consider Bill Clinton, who came from a poor
background, and since he spent practically all of his adult life in
school or government, he may have earned a respectable wage, but
couldn't really be called "wealthy" as his tax returns while
president showed.
While there are those
people who come from poverty to accomplish great things (probably
because they figured out they didn't like living in poverty and
wanted a change), once they achieve success they could not
rightfully be considered poor anymore.
So how many people,
while remaining in a state of poverty, can or will realistically
pursue political leadership?
Someone who is poor
(or even middle class) is not likely to have the resources to mount
the political campaign necessary to achieve a leadership position,
at least not in great numbers and almost certainly not on a national
level. They will probably be spending most of their time making a
living, providing for their families and paying the bills.
Even if someone who
is poor could somehow magically ascend instantly to a position of
leadership without the resources normally required for such a move,
would it be good for the country? There are exceptions, of course,
but is a poor person likely to have the leadership and management
skills required to govern a state or nation? And if they did possess
such valuable and rewarding skills...then why are they still poor?
Considering this, would a ptochocracy really be a better idea than a
plutocracy?
It is therefore
unrealistic to expect the poor or middle-class will ever gain
positions of leadership in numbers significant enough to create a
ptochocracy. And even when a poor or middle-class person might rise
to a position of leadership, odds are that in the process of doing
so, they would amass enough resources that they could no longer
truly be called poor.
On the other hand,
since the wealthy have the financial resources and can afford time
away from the daily demands of earning a living, it is completely
realistic that they will end up filling the majority of leadership
positions.
The same can be said
of those who influence the nation's leadership through political
contributions. If most of your financial resources are required to
put food on the table and pay the bills, you're not going to be able
to muster very much money to influence public policy. Meanwhile,
those with considerable disposable income--whether they be a private
individual or a company--can afford to spend more money to support
political campaigns and lobby public officials.
It's simply the
nature of the beast. Beyond implementing and enforcing laws that
prevent outright bribes, mistreatment of other people, and other unethical behavior
(the kind of laws we currently have), there isn't a
whole lot that can be done to change this situation in a free
country.
Of course, that's
your other option: turn our free country into one where every
person's actions are strictly controlled. This can and probably
would involve wealth redistribution so that everyone has the same
amount of money, regardless of what kind of job they do or how well
they do that job. Many other controls would also be needed, since
some enterprising soul might save some of his income and spend more
of it than other people in supporting a candidate, lobbying, etc. Of
course, such a society probably wouldn't involve elections and
elected representatives, anyway.
Does anyone really
want this kind of society? If you do, take a look around. It's been
tried in places like the former Soviet Union and it didn't go over
too well there, either. A little thing called "human nature" caused
it not to work.
In the end, the best
thing to ensure that our country operates on a foundation of
fairness and justice is to encourage morality and a fealty to a
higher, transcendent set of values.
In fact, the Founders
of the United States were pretty adamant that this was the way to
build and maintain a healthy, fair country.
"We have staked the future of all of our
political institutions upon the capacity of mankind of
self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern
ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to
the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
"Of all the dispositions and habits
which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are
indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the
supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." -
George Washington's Farewell Address 1796
Without morals a republic cannot subsist
any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian
religion whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the
solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of
free governments. – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of
Independence
Only a virtuous people are capable of
freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need
of masters. – Benjamin Franklin
I believe that religion is the only
solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support
of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts
of religion and the duties of man toward God. – Gouverneur Morris,
penman and signer of the Constitution
Religion and morality…are necessary to
good government, good order and good laws, for “when the righteous
are in authority, the people rejoice” – William Paterson, signer of
the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Without the restraints of religion and
social worship, men become savages. – Benjamin Rush, signer of the
Declaration
Let it never be forgotten that there can
be no genuine freedom where there is no morality, and no sound
morality where there is no religion…Hesitate not a moment to believe
that the man who labors to destroy these two great pillars of human
happiness…is neither a good patriot nor a good man. – Jeremiah
Smith, Revolutionary soldier, judge, U.S. Congressman, Governor of
New Hampshire
Human law must rest its authority
ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. – James
Wilson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Judge
Men, in a word, must necessarily be
controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them;
either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the
Bible or by the bayonet. – Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U.S.
House
The Holy Scriptures…can alone secure to
society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and
constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In
vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw
entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong
entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.
– James McHenry, signer of the Constitution, Secretary of War
You see, if men will
govern (i.e. discipline) themselves then law/government does not
have to. And if men will not discipline themselves, more and more
laws are required to control them...until you no longer have a free
country.
The problem isn't
wealth, but the value system and dedication to integrity of the
people spending that wealthy. There are basically two ways of
controlling the misuse of wealth: laws and morality.
Laws may seem
attractive at first, but in the absence of morality you end up
needing so many of them that you no longer have a free country. As
John Adams said
We have no government armed with
power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by
morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry,
would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes
through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other.
If morality is
encouraged all the way from the top to the bottom of our society,
then you have a restraint far more powerful than any law or set of
laws: accountability to an Almighty God who knows not only
everything you do but the very motivations of your heart.
Which is more likely
to be obeyed: laws, that men will always find loopholes for, or God,
who can make your life here on Earth miserable and send you to Hell
for eternity? If morality is encouraged, as it was during the time
of the Founders, then the answer is obvious.
Remember, the Bible
doesn't say that money is the root of evil, it
says "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
There's nothing inherently wrong with money or wealth; it's what we
do with it that matters, so we should criticize wrong behavior
rather than wealth itself.
You can love money
whether you're rich or poor. But only transcendent values and
morality can restrain both rich men and poor men from doing the
wrong thing.
Ours is a free nation
where, as much as possible in a fallen world, people can determine
their own destiny. There is no class system that locks us into a
particular vocation or societal role. Any person can be imaginative,
creative and industrious and achieve wealth and success, as the Bill
Gates' and Sam Walton's among us illustrate.
And one man still has
one vote. That is another mark of a free country. As long as the
voters stay informed and guard their freedoms (and there is more
loyalty to morality than there is to self-interest), the United
States will never become a true "plutocracy" where the wealthy run
roughshod over the poor and defile their human rights as is common
in Third World countries.
Rather than bashing
the wealthy simply because they have wealth, perhaps it would be
more appropriate and productive to encourage morality. Maybe such a
focus would help each of us avoid the perils of greed and jealousy
ourselves, and point us all toward what the Bible
says is a great treasure:
