Utopia and the Rich

Ideally, everyone in utopia is rich. Without getting into a detailed definition of what is rich, let's just say that the rich, in this case, simply refers to the top 5% of the population. In the US and Canada, this represents the people who owns more than 50% of the assets, or is that 50% of the income. In any case, it is a highly skewed curse, nothing Bell, nothing Gaussian, nothing normal about it. In utopia, hopefully the distribution is more even.

In utopia as well as today, the rich has a responsibility to act as the leaders of their society. In the old days, the kings ruled by divine right, the aristocrats ruled by hereditory lineage. Both are by coincidence of birth. Today, the rich get there by the strength of their character, the intelligence of their decisions, and the hard work of their courage; they get there by the coincidence of their genes, and to some extent, the coincidence of circumstances called good fortune. Bill Gates was there at the right place, and the right time. Admittedly, without long hours of hard work and being smart enough to anticiplate the trend of personal computing, no amount of good fortune would be enough. However, just like oxygen is to fuel, no amount of hard work and intelligence is enough without good fortune. Hence, the responsibility of the rich, with the power given to them, is to be stewards of society, to help shepherd the rest of us towards utopia. With great power comes great responsibility, so says one of my favorite movies.

It is a wonder that the powers bestowed on our richest and most powerful have not produced more corruption and evil in our society. After all, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think it has to do with the democratic institutions of our society, and the vertical mobility that allowed the best to rise to the top. Most people who reached the top the hard way usually remember their origin. Combine that natural humility with the checks and balances of a civil society, and it is no wonder that the liberal democracies of the world continue to get richer and more prosperous than any other time in history.

However, what has been missing in our society that would be highly visible in utopia, I think, is the work of the rich to support the bottom 10% of the other end of society. For whatever reasons, there are always the poor amongst us. In a just society, the poorest is not much poorer that the richest. Until we reach utopia, the poorest will always be much poorer. The definition of "much" is left to another time, but it is not as important as the work of the rich for the poor. The concept of a leader washing the feet of his disciples was revolution in Christ's time, and even today it is rare.

When Immanuel Kant taught his classes, he focused his energy at the middle of the class, the average student. He reasoned that the brightest students will always find their own level, and learn according to their own abilities, while the bottom of the class required much more time and energy than he could reasonably provide. By lifting the average students to their highest level, he hoped that he added something to society in the most efficient and effective manner.

In the same way, governments can only lift the average population to their highest level, while allowing the best and brightest to achieve their levels. And in all cases, except perhaps the most idealistic of societies, like communes, the bottom always suffer, not from ill-will, or from conspiracy, but from simple neglict, because resources are limited, and those least able to fight for themselves, to speak up for themselves, receive less than everyone else.

It is this reason, that the rich has the responsibility to speak up in a just society, for the poor, to give strength to the weak, and give voice to the voiceless. It is this emerging trend that is becoming evident in American society. What is needed, is for this generosity of spirit to extend across boundaries of prejudices, to stand up as the good samaritan did, not only for those in our family, our ethnic group, our country, by for all mankind.

Julius Caeser was popular with the Roman people because he spent the riches after his return as a conquering hero, not to buy up votes from the aristocratic senators, but to build public projects such as roads and buildings for the people. For this generosity, the senate became jealous and accused him of ambition. Shakespeare told the story much better than I can in his play.

In utopia, jealousy is a negative emotion recognized for what it is, and people of all strata in society, though not immune to it, will see clearly and be able to deal with it without resorting to daggers, real or verbal. Only then, when society is a community, without hidden agenda, can it become utopia when everyone works together for the whole, instead of fighting for the small portion of their own.

The rich, by virtue of winning the biggest portions, has the responsibility and the luxury to reach back to the least able in society, to lift them up to the average, by providing opportunities, not hand-outs, so the less fortunate would have a level-playing field in luck, to climb up out of the hole, the abyss, that separates them from the rest of society.

This generosity of spirit will also free the government from the demanding tasks of caring for the few whose needs drain the public purse the most, effectively keeping the average from rising to its highest possible level. Instead of inefficient public bureaucracy taking on the duties of caring for the bottom 10%, it requires the skills and effectiveness of the top 5% to shepherd the stragglers and keep the community together.

The poor, on the other hand, also has responsibilities in utopia but that's another chapter in our story.