The Veil of Opulence
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/the-veil-of-opulence/
A very interesting article, one I am quite glad I came across. While I continue to have fantasies that I can claw my way into the top ranks of the wealthy, having spent time homeless and destitute I have a rather acute understanding of what it means to have potential that is unrealized due to circumstances (while arguments could be made that I made some bad choices (not getting the PhD in Biochem being a major one), prior to my class, where 70% had offers upon graduation, my MBA program routinely had more than 90% of the class with offers). Bill Gates, after all, was the son of a wealthy, well connected family. While it is certainly _possible_ that he could have achieved the same level of success, it is rather unlikely.
Thus, when I think of ‘fairness’ in our society, I think of how our society should treat those who have not (yet?) achieved success. Why should one bad mistake cost you any hope at success? Why should a car accident result in bankruptcy, homelessness and destitution? Why can’t the richest society in the world treat its citizens better? I do not believe in a zero sum game; indeed, I believe that if the poor are better off, _everyone_ is better off. I believe that the taxes paid by the favored fraction of a percent (how many of them inherited that money?) would actually be returned as higher income to those same people! However, once the zero sum mentality has settled in, it becomes very difficult to get the wealthy to consider that their taxes are an investment in society that will be repaid (indeed has already been repaid, since without the tax paid infrastructure they likely wouldn’t have been born wealthy to begin with).
This quote is very interesting to me…
…the veil of opulence operates only under the guise of fairness. It is rather a distortion of fairness, by virtue of the partiality that it smuggles in. It asks not whether a policy is fair given the huge range of advantages or hardships the universe might throw at a person but rather whether it is fair that a very fortunate person should shoulder the burdens of others. That is, the veil of opulence insists that people imagine that resources and opportunities and talents are freely available to all, that such goods are widely abundant, that there is no element of randomness or chance that may negatively impact those who struggle to succeed but sadly fail through no fault of their own. It blankets off the obstacles that impede the road to success. It turns a blind eye to the adversity that some people, let’s face it, are born into. By insisting that we consider public policy from the perspective of the most-advantaged, the veil of opulence obscures the vagaries of brute luck.
It always blows my mind that so many people in the middle class will vociferously defend the perks of the 1%. I guess they are living under the “veil of opulence” as they do so, content with the fantasy that, but for a bit of hard work and a little luck, they would be there at the peak of wealth. Why do these people defend that tiny population that, in so many cases, did not one single damn thing (but be born to the right parents) in their entire life, yet pay _less_ taxes for _no_ effort on income from capital gains and dividends? Why do they think it is OK for society to treat these exalted few with such kid gloves and treat the poor like such shit? The veil of opulence explains so much of that behavior!
So many of these same middle class people seem to be unshakably convinced that the social safety net is a ‘hammock’ for the lazy to drift along, living off the efforts of their betters. Sure, any system is going to be subject to abuse, but they are so determined to root out the abuse that they condemn those that just need a bit of help to get self supporting again. While those that abuse the system are certainly living well beyond the intent, I challenge every one to try to live on the dribs and drabs of help our government grudging parcels out and tell me they are relaxed, happy and enjoying themselves.
Not only have the rich bought our government, but they have somehow bought the souls of so many of our citizens at the same time. Of course it is about class warfare! And the upper class is winning! They have bought the hearts and souls of a large enough chunk of our society that Romney is polling even (within most margins of error) despite him probably being one of the worst candidates in the last century. (Not that I am defending the dickhead in office now, but I am convinced that Romney will continue every bit of the current evil AND lard on more evil as icing on the cake.) To say he was the least bad of a horrible group is quite true, but why do we have to keep settling for the least bad (as I do when I promote Obama: at least he give you lube when he fucks you!)? Why can’t we, as a supposed democratic nation, actually elect people who will represent society as a whole, who will operate on the tenants of the greatest good for the greatest number? I have heard so many of the wealthy elite complain that a democracy is destined to failure as people will just vote to give themselves gifts without ever paying for them (though that does sound a lot like California!), yet here we are, in a dead heat with one candidate already having given trillions of dollars to Wall Street and the other candidate complaining that that wasn’t enough.
