05 October 2008

The Values of the Rich

Money and politics seem to be connected at the hip. Hand and hand, if you will. There seems to be a direct contradiction in the belief that political speech is to be unlimited (by the first amendment), and that the rich should not play a more proportional role in the governing of the country. If speech in this country is a function of wealth (you would be foolish to claim that it is not), then in a way political action is also a function of wealth. Therefore, money is political power. C.R.E.A.M. Talking 'bout the money. Dolla dolla bills y'all. However, is this truly a bad thing? This country was founded on the belief that property is one of the basic human rights. An increase in property is an increase in ease of life. If ease of life is deemed desirable, then it follows that collection of property is desirable. If this is a right then cannot be denied, but it is also the fact that this collection is desirable, how is it undesirable that the expression of this basic American right is equated to speech and, indirectly so, political power? If wealth is a function of talent, and all men are guaranteed the right to keep what they make, then is wealth a function of talent and luck, and the expression through politics (guaranteed to all citizens) therefore dependent ultimately on inherent differences in ability, and any distinction based thereof a limit to these basic principles? To limit the influence of money is not to ward against corruption, and any claim otherwise is a limit to personal freedom. If every person in this country is truly free to the right of pursuing happiness(wealth), then there is an equal opportunity to express ones self politically through this money. An argument otherwise is to unfairly limit those who are the beneficiaries of talent on principle, and is against what this country guarantees. It is a basic human right to spend as much as you want. So says the constitution.

No comments: