In the socialist west today, where wealth is evil and people who waste their time being productive exist merely to support those who “join the conversation,”i politicians are forced to play a game wherein they publicly villainise powerful institutions while privately relying on the very same institutions to fund their campaigns and keep their kitties topped up while in office.
At the same time, these elected officials must pretend to be humble people of humble means, starting a “mine’s bigger” competition with the opposition over who came from lesser means, as if such a thing were honourable instead of a mark against their parents. The press is all to happy to follow suit, publishing articles about “xx% of congressmen are millionaires,” therein implying that anyone with two
pennies nickels to rub together people is “out of touch with the common man.”
Well guess what, being in touch with the common man is just about the most pointless exercise imaginable, so overflowing is it with concerns of the minutiae of street sweeping and pothole filling, that it’s ethically and morally corrupting for anyone who would suppose to guide humanity on any sort of path other than one towards self-referentialii irrelevance. Because just as the life of the cashier at the grocery store is fungible and limited, so too is that of the politician who wastes his time trying to address her small-minded concerns.
The proposition that a politician should be of humble means is quite ignorant of what it takes to achieve and maintain office, much less make productive use of it. At the very least, political endeavours takes a modicum of funding, which can either come from external sources, being campaign financiers, or internal sources, being the politician’s own piggy bank. This latter altnernative is so far and away more preferable as to make the former like a midget in the NBA: at a woeful disadvantage.
The advantage of being, and therefore selecting, a wealthy politician is five-fold:
1. During his campaign, the wealthy politician doesn’t need to strike up new relationships with strangers for the express purpose of extracting their wealth only to find himself in a position where he must repay the favours once in office.iii
2. The wealthy politician knows the value of a dollar (or bitcoin) and how hard hard it can be to balance a budget in the face of various competing interests and opportunities.
3. The wealthy politician doesn’t have to spend the latter half of their term in office drumming up new favours to finance his re-election. He still has to plan his campaign, but in a purely strategic sense.
4. The wealthy politician, like all wealthy people,iv has time to think and reflect. This can only lead to wiser and more considerate policy.
5. The wealthy politician has the spine to tell uppity interest groups to “fuck off.”v
This isn’t anything particularly new. But what is ? Justinian I, Byzantine Emporor, figured this out when he ended suffragia, the sale of provincial governorships, in 535, as did the Canadian government when it made the entry requirement for senators $4,000 in 1864.vi
Having poor people in positions of power, no matter their intentions or ideals, can only lead to a perversion of political incentives away from culture and dignity and towards sucking dick for marijuana.
At the end of the day, the nice soundingness of the “humble civil servant” is trumped by their material shortcomings and resulting corruption.
Once again, it seems, there’s no beating a true shepherd.
___ ___ ___
- From an earlier article:
In Socialistania, “money” is an evil no good very bad word. It’s not to be uttered any more than “Merry Christmas” is to a stranger in December. Both expressions are seen to be insensitive and politically incorrect simply because they’re so precise. Not only is Jesus not all of our saviour but how could a single number represent all that a human being has to offer?
In Socialistania, the story goes, those with more money were simply lucky in their acquisition of it, and since luck isn’t fair and nice and everything twice, money is justifiably and necessarily reappropriated from the lucky few to the unlucky many.
This reasoning is further predicated on the belief that, since we’re all born with an equal ability to use money productively, everyone should have the same opportunity and access to it. Thus minimum wage, living wage, etc. are moral obligations. Nothing less.
- Obama with a selfie stick, anyone ? [↩]
- Granted, the wealthy politician has a cadre of people he might favour while in office, but having developed these relationships over many years, he knows he can trust them, unlike the poor politician who must fellate any sizeable contributor to his campaign, even if they’re malicious fucktards like Monsanto. [↩]
- Defined as those who can sleep ad libitum and do with their time and money as they please, not just those with xxxxxxxxxx in their bank accounts. [↩]
- The wealthy politician has experience with telling people where to go, the poor politician doesn’t and must therefore “be nice” to far too many people and interests. The poor politician will therefore run a deficit and eventually debase the currency. [↩]
The Members of the Legislative Council shall be British subjects by birth or naturalization, of the full age of thirty years, shall possess a continuous real property qualification of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00), over and above all encumbrances, and shall be worth that sum, over and above their debts and liabilities, and in the case of Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island the property may be either real or personal.