I'm not sure the leftist that you describe in this piece actually exists. The idea that leftists are angry at the rich because they are jealous of the wealthy is a strawman put up by the wealthy as a way to dismiss their political rivals. We on the left are ALL liberals in this sense. The distinction between leftist and liberal is one between an imagined foe and a real one.
You don't know some of the people I know. I have some pretty intense class resentment in my life. I grew up working class. I would suggest this element on the left, particularly its more radical elements, is very much present in the polity.
Mike, I grew up upper middle class. While I've been down to my last dollar several times in adult life, I've never gone hungry. I've retired comfortably. I've had friends of great wealth, never resented. I've dined with a billionaire. And I'm a leftist. Also liberal, as you've defined it. But leftist, although certainly not as you've defined it. One need not be without wealth to believe wealth should be shared more fairly, social programs far stronger, and corporations required to work primarily for the public good, and only secondarily for stockholders, as a requirement of incorporation.
Yeah, I mean, I don't reject the fairness argument. I am in favor of redistributive policies to reduce suffering. To be clear. I just don't think that wealth itself has the kind of normative character that leftists and Marxists attribute to it. I am not saying it doesn't matter. One cannot view poverty up close, as I have—in the slums of Lagos, Ghanna and Malawi, personally—and deny that. But I agree with my leftist and Marxist friends who look upon my liberalism with distrust, that we should alleviate this suffering through taxation and redistribution. I just don't think that equal-distribution is the goal. I think living one's life trying to achieve a more equal distribution of "stuff" is a distraction from the real goal of an equal distribution of power. And I'm sorry if this offends my socialist friends, but I think they're quite confused on this very nuanced point.
So for you, stuff equality = leftist, power equality = liberal. By those definitions, maybe I'm neither. My socialist interest is more in distributing good education to all children in the nation, good healthcare to all in the nation, plus an entitlement to housing and basic nutrition for all.
Corruption of power and monopolistic concentrations are bad, should be strictly forbidden. But there are areas where the Venn circle of power overlaps with the circle of capability. Capability requires capital investment, often in the form of concentrations of "stuff." It also requires competent management with a degree of authority, even in employee-owed B corporations.
Both stuff and power will be unequal in most any workable approximation of Utopia. So, what should I call my stance?
I mean, there's this place where socialist democratic politics looks perfectly liberal to me. I personally think the socialists are the ones making the epistemic error here. They want to sit in the tradition of Marx for some reason, rather than my liberal tradition. Because, I think, they see some romance in class struggle or something. But I think it's purely a weird aesthetic posture. AOC is perfectly liberal to me, for instance.
For Bernie and AOC on his shirt tale and Mamdani to Use the word Socialist as a descriptor of their political identity seemed just Plain Dumb and irreconcilable in my mind. Until now. With your comment on them seeing “some romance in class struggle”. It sets them up as potential SAVIORS of the working strugglers and stragglers. Intoxicating to be revered so.
Socialism is an idea older than Marx. One need not believe he presented the best version of it to be a socialist. Nor was he even consistent in what he presented; nor Trotsky's interpretation the same as Lenin's or Mao's. In any case, followers of Marx are communists. Communists are socialists; but many socialists are not communists at all.
Maybe look more seriously at the broader and comprehensive concept of distributive justice? Or are wealth and/or power the only ingredients that we need to look at?
Yeah but i wouldn't caricature the left based on fringe elements. It has a rich literature where redistribution is not from point of envy. It doesn't even register.
Also liberals borrowed from the left, a lot! Like a sh*t load of stuff. Like weekends, leaves, social safety etc etc. Liberalism is poor cousin of left when it comes to economics. They have next to nothing
Among serious people? No. But among the working-class polity ... I could name people, but those are people in my life, and they might consider that rude.
It is rude because it is a pejorative. It is rude because it is a mischaracterisation of those who are exploited and are angry about it, not because they are jealous, but because they see the inequity, and would like their fair share.
Well, I'm very serious when I make the charge, my good sir. I do think these people are envious. That their envy can be explained by way of their tortured lives, of course, still renders them sympathetic in my eyes. But I wish they looked upon the world with less cynicism than they do. I'm sorry if that sounds condescending. It's just what I think.
I agree with some of the commenters. I don’t think “leftists” are necessarily the envious ones. I think the people who call themselves “liberals” (and/or progressive), who also are people on the “left” , are seriously concerned about the wealth gap in our country and the accumulation of wealth into the top billionaire class as a threat to our democracy, not because they are envious. I’m sure there are exceptions to that but they are not the rule. And the exceptions quite possibly are people that Mike has had personal experiences with in the tech world.
I agree with the arguments overall in your essay, but I do not believe in the premise (that leftists are envious.) You speak of justice and I think justice is an authentic virtue of progressives and liberals. An example: liberals support prison reform- because “Jim Crow” of the 21st century results in many more blacks being imprisoned than whites; liberals support equalizing the funds used in school districts so that poor schools have equal funds to rich schools.
How is that “envious”?
Are Bernie Sanders and AOC “envious” as they espouse criticism of the Billionaire Class?
I have never once thought of them as envious.
Liberals want to tax the rich billionaires to bring more equity to the 99%.
We want our pot holes fixed.
We want universal healthcare.
We want affordable housing.
We want to reduce childhood poverty and homelessness.
We want equal access to college entrance.
We want high quality public education.
We want universal preschool (because research tells us early childhood education for all children is a negative correlation to poverty and imprisonment).
We want libraries and local parks to thrive.
We want public transportation.
We want low cost day care.
Why do we want all of these? Because we are envious of billionaires?
No, I don’t believe that for one minute.
Liberals want a civilized society that takes care of our own (we the people.)
Liberals want people to have a standard of living that promotes wellness, mental stability and “the pursuit of happiness.”
The “envious” ones are the MAGA kool aide drinkers who live in a cult bubble and believe that if people like trump and Elon can be rich, then so can they! These are also people who want to take away women’s right to vote, who promote toxic masculinity (the Pete Hegseth look) and are misogynistic in many ways. Even as they see their wages are not keeping up with their own standard of living and even as they grasp hold of the “un Christian” doctrine of Prosperity Gospel. This doctrine promotes a delusional belief that rich people are virtuous; thereby ignoring Jesus’ biblical messages claiming the chances of a rich man getting into heaven is as likely as a camel getting through the eye of a needle. MAGA “Christians” ignore the beatitudes of Jesus’ sermon on the mount (which is a closely aligned liberal and humanitarian stance) for seeking rich power structures that are in opposition to philosophical wisdom.
I would say that it is the Trumpists - the MAGA supporters - the fascists, who are driven by envy and resentment - which is sad, because by voting for more fascism, they are voting against their own interests. They have been convinced that the government is a "swamp" which can only be "drained" by a strongman - who has no interest in draining the swamp, only in redirecting it to his own and his allies' interests and bank accounts.
I grew up in a working-class family, and have no envy of billionaires. I share the goal of fairer redistribution of wealth - not because I envy the billionaires, but because they have built their wealth by exploiting the system and the labor that built their wealth, and continue to do so. I have an uncle who became rich in exactly this way, and his belief in exploiting the system the way he did seems to me to know no bounds. He and I have never seen eye-to-eye on anything.
I have a problem with labels. At 81, I’m a lifelong Republican but no longer vote that way. I’ve always considered myself practical. I think investments by our government in our country are a positive good. We are all better off if our various modes of transportation are safe and modern. We are better off as a whole if our environment is free of pollution. And likewise I believe that if the community of our entire population is healthy and well educated we are all better off.
I am the grandchild of immigrants on my father’s side. The child of a very successful entrepreneurial father and a mother with 18th century American roots who was nonetheless not wealthy. But I grew up in Palm Beach going to clubs that are ultra conservative and whose members voted for trump but didn’t want him as a member. I’ve known people who are wealthy and insecure. And thanks to my father’s gardener and his wife, I’ve had the good luck to learn that black people are the most truly Christian people I’ve known. They get it. Being generous and forgiving is a goal that is its own reward, not a posture to impress others or enable you to self congratulate. Believe it or not, if you are empathetic you not only feel sympathy for ill luck, you are blessed with the ability to feel joy for the good fortune of others. It doesn’t matter what material wealth you have, if you feel no one honestly loves and care about you, you are not happy. “He who dies with the most toys” is the most pathetic bumper sticker I’ve ever seen.
Capitalism is the best economic system, but it needs sensible regulations to restrain the very human tendency to greed. Blaming people for being greedy is dumb. It’s part of our human/animal nature. Being envious is also part of our very fallible human nature. There’s a reason why there is a commandment against coveting your neighbor’s wife or goods. It’s who we are. All imperfect in our own particular but common way. We sabotage our mental health by being immersed in competition. And we do some pretty foolish gymnastics in the process. If only we’d relax and stop being so egotistical and judgmental maybe we wouldn’t have to waste our time trying to figure out what box others belong in.
I've had the argument made to me (privately and some time ago, so I can't recall the full details) that billionaires pose so much of a threat to democratic life that anyone sufficiently rich should be stripped of their political rights.
Yes. They have cashed out their voting rights lol. Mean time they think the lower classes should be made to buy the right to vote, literally, with poll taxes, etc.
Hoarding is a mental illness. The compulsion to hoard, whether trash, clothes, etc - or resources such as money, land, wealth - when you clearly have enough TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHERS ... This type of hoarding illness must be addressed.
I have never cared that the rich have more, but when those who have so much, actively try kill those who have little, and try to take away what little they do have, then I have a problem.
This is precisely what is happening now. Elon destroying USAID, Trump wantonly firing Federal Workers, RFK trying to kill US citizens with quackery. ICE literally killing, at billionaire Trump's bequest.
You give him more credit than I do. I will admit, that I agree w/ him about junk food, but it doesn't appear that he is accomplishing much in that area, food dyes maybe. Prez Fuckwit is pushing glycophosphate. However, his stance on such things as vaccines and raw milk, will kill more people than he saves with good diet. Oh, and the food pyramid with meat on top. Unhealthy.
Nice article. Very focused — on a theme and on a personal experience related to that theme. A theme that has played out among many, I suspect: the rejection of pursuing a life focused primarily on the acquisition of money, power, and things. Nicely done.
Mike - a really clear and well-reasoned piece, wise about human nature and society. The one thing I will question is your interpretation of the philosopher king in Plato, which is not to say I advocate for it at all.
It's been a while since I studied the specific text, so (and I hope you won't mind too much) I asked ChatGPT to give me an account, and it does capture what I remember and meant by my comment. So here that is.
----------------------------------
My prompt was: How are the philosopher kings in Plato's Republic determined?
In Republic, Plato does not select philosopher-kings by birthright, wealth, or popular vote. They are identified through a long educational and moral testing process designed to discover who is naturally suited to grasp the Form of the Good and rule without corruption.
Here’s how it works.
1. Natural Endowment (Innate Disposition)
Plato begins with the idea that different souls have different dominant elements:
Appetite → producers
Spirit (thumos) → auxiliaries (soldiers)
Reason → guardians/rulers
Philosopher-kings must have:
Strong intelligence
Love of truth
Good memory
Courage
Moderation
Lack of greed
Resistance to pleasure and fear
He repeatedly emphasizes that rulers must be those who genuinely love wisdom, not honor or money.
Importantly, this is not strictly hereditary. The famous “noble lie” (myth of metals) allows that a gold-souled child might be born to bronze parents, and vice versa.
2. Early Education (Music & Gymnastics)
Socrates (Plato’s speaker) outlines an early curriculum:
Music (poetry, myth, character formation)
Gymnastics (discipline of body)
Strict moral censorship of stories
Emphasis on harmony between soul and body
This stage tests temperament and character. Those who fail moral stability drop out.
3. Mathematical Training (Ages ~20–30)
The best candidates move into ten years of:
Arithmetic
Geometry
Astronomy
Harmonics
These subjects train the mind to think abstractly and turn away from the senses toward intelligible reality.
Only those who excel intellectually continue.
4. Dialectic (Around Age 30+)
The top students enter five years of dialectic — rigorous philosophical argument.
This stage is dangerous. Plato worries that premature exposure to dialectic leads to:
Cynicism
Intellectual pride
Moral instability
Only the most stable and disciplined minds are allowed to proceed.
5. Practical Political Testing (15 Years)
After dialectic, candidates must:
Serve in military and civic roles
Prove they remain incorruptible
Demonstrate loyalty to the common good
They are tested in real-world responsibility.
6. Final Selection (~Age 50)
Those who:
Remain philosophically steady
Show moral incorruptibility
Grasp the Form of the Good
Care more for justice than power
…become philosopher-kings.
They rule not because they desire power, but because they understand the Good and accept ruling as a duty.
Key Principle: Reluctant Rule
Plato insists:
The best rulers are those who do not want to rule.
Philosopher-kings must:
Prefer contemplation
Rule only out of obligation
Rotate between governance and philosophy
Philosophical Logic Behind the System
Plato’s reasoning is:
Knowledge of the Good is required for just rule.
Only philosophers can grasp the Good.
Therefore, philosophers must rule.
This connects to the Allegory of the Cave — only those who have seen the sun (the Good) can guide the city.
Not Democracy, Not Aristocracy, Not Theocracy
Plato’s system is:
Not democratic (no voting)
Not hereditary aristocracy (birth alone doesn’t determine role)
Not theocratic (though metaphysical)
It is best described as epistemic meritocracy — rule by those with knowledge of ultimate truth.
I agree. Those who would now rule, are not philosophers. They are egotistical destroyers who care not a whit for philosophy or for anyone but themselves
Another thought provoking essay; it reminds me of the ethics/professionalism training I was a part of for many years in the legal profession. We would teach the lawyers that if they were not happy, it was hard to say that they were successful. We would then focus on how they could identify their values and take steps to live and work in accordance with their values (the kinds of things that Mike points out regularly, including service to others and the greater community).
While reading about the moral corruption of billionaires, I found myself contemplating the dark side of human behavior and the different degrees of sins a human being could commit. And within minutes, I remembered The Inferno from Dante’s Divine Comedy and was amazed to read how his description of the 8th and 9th Circles of Hell speaks so directly to our current political times.
One might guess that killing and violence (of all kinds) would be the worst sins. But in Dante’s imagination, VIOLENCE, the 7th Circle of Hell, is followed by the greater sins of FRAUD (8th Circle) and TREACHERY (9th Circle). And it is inside each of these two circles of hell that we can find what still speaks so directly to us today:
TYPES OF FRAUD (8th Circle of the Inferno):
1. Panderers and Seducers: Exploiting others for personal gain
2. Flatterers: Insincere praise
3. Simony: Selling Church favors
4. Diviners: Fortune tellers
5. Grafters: Corrupt politicians
6. Hypocrites: Deceivers in life
7. Thieves: Stealing from others
8. Deceivers: Giving false advice
9. Scandal-mongers: Promoting discord
10. Falsifiers: Forgers of documents and currency
TYPE OF TREACHERY (9th Circle of the Inferno):
1. Betrayal of Family
2. Betrayal of Country
3. Betrayal of Guests
4. Betrayal of Lords
The Divine Comedy was written after Dante, a prominent Italian poet and politician, was exiled from Florence (his home) in 1303 for opposing the pro-papal political party called the Black Guelphs. It was later named the “Divine Comedy” because, at the time, the term “comedy” referred to narratives that had a positive ending and were written in the lower, vernacular Italian (in contrast with stories written in Latin, the language of elevated tragedies).
« I left their world because I could not stay in it and remain who I am. That choice had costs. I have paid them without regret. » Thank you for your decision, Mike. Otherwise you wouldn’t be sharing your thoughts with us, thoughts I appreciate even those that don’t resonate in me. I too left a world (for self integrity) and suffer the consequences.
So you say Liberals believe in “an equal distribution of power” but not in “wealth redistribution.” For you, that is the essential difference between Liberals and Leftists (Socialists). If you are like most Liberals then, for you an "equal distribution of power" means everyone gets a vote on political but not economic questions, correct? But surely Leftists just want your “equal distribution of power” in not only the political sphere, but also in the sphere where the majority of our lives are spent—the economic. For a Leftist, this is true democracy, egalitarianism—a system where economic questions are not, for some reason, immune from democratic decision-making, because power is, at last, equally distributed among all people. If a majority of people would vote against their systematic impoverishment and subjugation, and the wholesale destruction of the planetary ecosystem, you would call this resentment and not democracy, not justice? In other words, the distribution of wealth might have something to do with the distribution of power. I would dare you to fairly and truly distribute the latter and accept the logical outcome without, well, resentment. Liberals (and Conservatives alike) like to tell the masses to “vote with their wallets” because they don’t want them to vote with actual votes. Because they know very well what would happen if they truly gave working people an equal say in their own labor and working conditions, or allowed a truly democratic society to determine for itself what it produces and to what ends. So of course the Left wants an equal distribution of power no less than the Liberal, for what distinction is there between wealth and power? As that dyed-in-the-wool Marxist Krusty the Klown once said, “What is respect without the moolah to back it up?” Leftists just want more distribution of the distribution of power than Liberals do. Liberals call themselves such, on the contrary, because they don’t believe in an “equal distribution of power” that is not somehow circumscribed or limited by a more powerful (and not coincidentally wealthier) minority in order to preserve a fundamentally anti-democratic status quo. Is that equality, is that power, is that democracy, is that freedom?
"In 1962 I was a Conservative. I believed privilege could only be justified by service, high taxes on very high incomes were necessary to prevent an entrepreneurial economy becoming a rentier economy, and Keynesian growth would finance public service improvements and a welfare state that steadily reduced inequality. I was suspicious of ideologically driven, large-scale change. These were the mainstream policies of the Macmillan government at the time. In 60 years I have moved from centre right to hard left without changing my opinions."
"I learned early that business is business and politics is politics. The proof is how few important businessmen have made good politicians. They may think that they are very smart about everything because they made millions of dollars by digging a hole in the ground and finding oil, but the talent and luck needed to become rich are not the same talent and luck needed to succeed on Parliament Hill." (Jean Chrétien, "The Politics of Business")
Yet, we know very little about pedophilia. Pedophilia does not necessarily involve sexual abuse of children. Some men are attracted to children and merely acknowledge their attraction without acting on it. Scientists and medical researchers have not reached a consensus about the causes of this condition. The traditional debate about causation follows the nature versus nurture discussion. Some researchers are investigating genetic factors, while others are exploring social causes, such as family issues or past sexual assault.
As a psychologist, I tend to seek a broader perspective, and I try to understand all sexual identities and how we develop our personal identity, including our sexual orientation. I believe it is a mistake to focus on just one orientation and ignore others, especially when considering the scientist who suggested that genetics determines all our behavior, implying that nothing else matters in shaping who we are. This idea is difficult for me to accept because people are vastly different, and genes are specifically directed. I haven't found any studies that document a social orientation supporting the development of a particular sexual orientation.
Two observations by well-known scientists are particularly important to me: one concerns the reading readiness period in child development, and the other is Carlo Rovelli’s discussion of time as a theoretical physicist. Children aged 4 to 7 can easily learn languages and social skills, often acquiring two languages during this period. After this window closes, learning a second language typically requires more detailed instruction. The development of social skills during this time exceeds our understanding, as a child transitions from a blank slate to possessing remarkable abilities. I see this period as the intersection of two sources of development: one inherited through genes, and the other shaped by society. Consider a mother who was pregnant and moved to a different location, such as South America or Iceland, realizing her child would be different from what it would have been if she stayed in the original place. I think about the overwhelming number of factors influencing this child. Carlo Rovelli points out that time is not constant; it can be expansive or compressed, and it can flow faster or slower. For instance, in space travel, time moves more slowly than it does on Earth. Einstein articulated this idea through his theories of relativity.
Why are these two facts important to understanding sexual identity? What if there's a period in a child's development when time feels expansive, allowing the child to absorb large amounts of social stimulation or information? What if, during this time, sexual orientation is formed? I mean all types of orientation: male-female, male-male, female-female, male-child, or male-boy. Why do we try to identify the cause of a pedophile as being different from other sexual orientations? Are we thinking that our genetic coding, and nothing else, solely determines all behaviors? Can we consider that during this period, all sexual orientations develop? Until adolescence, we shape our personality based on our environment, family, neighborhood, and immediate friends—those connected by where we live and who we are. I ask people to reflect on their closest friends during adolescence and consider how these relationships impacted their personality development. Often, these relationships are like yin-yang—complementary parts of a whole—and they help shape each person's identity.
The discussion of a person's sexual identity must respect the complicated process of formation of each of us in our world, and with our genetic composition.
I have not told you what to do with your feelings about billionaires. I've simply expressed my feelings. Surely, I'm entitled to my own feelings, as I grant you entitlement to your own.
I'm not sure the leftist that you describe in this piece actually exists. The idea that leftists are angry at the rich because they are jealous of the wealthy is a strawman put up by the wealthy as a way to dismiss their political rivals. We on the left are ALL liberals in this sense. The distinction between leftist and liberal is one between an imagined foe and a real one.
You don't know some of the people I know. I have some pretty intense class resentment in my life. I grew up working class. I would suggest this element on the left, particularly its more radical elements, is very much present in the polity.
Mike, I grew up upper middle class. While I've been down to my last dollar several times in adult life, I've never gone hungry. I've retired comfortably. I've had friends of great wealth, never resented. I've dined with a billionaire. And I'm a leftist. Also liberal, as you've defined it. But leftist, although certainly not as you've defined it. One need not be without wealth to believe wealth should be shared more fairly, social programs far stronger, and corporations required to work primarily for the public good, and only secondarily for stockholders, as a requirement of incorporation.
Yeah, I mean, I don't reject the fairness argument. I am in favor of redistributive policies to reduce suffering. To be clear. I just don't think that wealth itself has the kind of normative character that leftists and Marxists attribute to it. I am not saying it doesn't matter. One cannot view poverty up close, as I have—in the slums of Lagos, Ghanna and Malawi, personally—and deny that. But I agree with my leftist and Marxist friends who look upon my liberalism with distrust, that we should alleviate this suffering through taxation and redistribution. I just don't think that equal-distribution is the goal. I think living one's life trying to achieve a more equal distribution of "stuff" is a distraction from the real goal of an equal distribution of power. And I'm sorry if this offends my socialist friends, but I think they're quite confused on this very nuanced point.
So for you, stuff equality = leftist, power equality = liberal. By those definitions, maybe I'm neither. My socialist interest is more in distributing good education to all children in the nation, good healthcare to all in the nation, plus an entitlement to housing and basic nutrition for all.
Corruption of power and monopolistic concentrations are bad, should be strictly forbidden. But there are areas where the Venn circle of power overlaps with the circle of capability. Capability requires capital investment, often in the form of concentrations of "stuff." It also requires competent management with a degree of authority, even in employee-owed B corporations.
Both stuff and power will be unequal in most any workable approximation of Utopia. So, what should I call my stance?
I mean, there's this place where socialist democratic politics looks perfectly liberal to me. I personally think the socialists are the ones making the epistemic error here. They want to sit in the tradition of Marx for some reason, rather than my liberal tradition. Because, I think, they see some romance in class struggle or something. But I think it's purely a weird aesthetic posture. AOC is perfectly liberal to me, for instance.
For Bernie and AOC on his shirt tale and Mamdani to Use the word Socialist as a descriptor of their political identity seemed just Plain Dumb and irreconcilable in my mind. Until now. With your comment on them seeing “some romance in class struggle”. It sets them up as potential SAVIORS of the working strugglers and stragglers. Intoxicating to be revered so.
Socialism is an idea older than Marx. One need not believe he presented the best version of it to be a socialist. Nor was he even consistent in what he presented; nor Trotsky's interpretation the same as Lenin's or Mao's. In any case, followers of Marx are communists. Communists are socialists; but many socialists are not communists at all.
Maybe look more seriously at the broader and comprehensive concept of distributive justice? Or are wealth and/or power the only ingredients that we need to look at?
Yeah but i wouldn't caricature the left based on fringe elements. It has a rich literature where redistribution is not from point of envy. It doesn't even register.
Also liberals borrowed from the left, a lot! Like a sh*t load of stuff. Like weekends, leaves, social safety etc etc. Liberalism is poor cousin of left when it comes to economics. They have next to nothing
Who are the “more radical elements” on the left?
Can you name one person who embodies your definition of "leftist"? I can't.
Among serious people? No. But among the working-class polity ... I could name people, but those are people in my life, and they might consider that rude.
It is rude because it is a pejorative. It is rude because it is a mischaracterisation of those who are exploited and are angry about it, not because they are jealous, but because they see the inequity, and would like their fair share.
Well, I'm very serious when I make the charge, my good sir. I do think these people are envious. That their envy can be explained by way of their tortured lives, of course, still renders them sympathetic in my eyes. But I wish they looked upon the world with less cynicism than they do. I'm sorry if that sounds condescending. It's just what I think.
I agree with some of the commenters. I don’t think “leftists” are necessarily the envious ones. I think the people who call themselves “liberals” (and/or progressive), who also are people on the “left” , are seriously concerned about the wealth gap in our country and the accumulation of wealth into the top billionaire class as a threat to our democracy, not because they are envious. I’m sure there are exceptions to that but they are not the rule. And the exceptions quite possibly are people that Mike has had personal experiences with in the tech world.
I agree with the arguments overall in your essay, but I do not believe in the premise (that leftists are envious.) You speak of justice and I think justice is an authentic virtue of progressives and liberals. An example: liberals support prison reform- because “Jim Crow” of the 21st century results in many more blacks being imprisoned than whites; liberals support equalizing the funds used in school districts so that poor schools have equal funds to rich schools.
How is that “envious”?
Are Bernie Sanders and AOC “envious” as they espouse criticism of the Billionaire Class?
I have never once thought of them as envious.
Liberals want to tax the rich billionaires to bring more equity to the 99%.
We want our pot holes fixed.
We want universal healthcare.
We want affordable housing.
We want to reduce childhood poverty and homelessness.
We want equal access to college entrance.
We want high quality public education.
We want universal preschool (because research tells us early childhood education for all children is a negative correlation to poverty and imprisonment).
We want libraries and local parks to thrive.
We want public transportation.
We want low cost day care.
Why do we want all of these? Because we are envious of billionaires?
No, I don’t believe that for one minute.
Liberals want a civilized society that takes care of our own (we the people.)
Liberals want people to have a standard of living that promotes wellness, mental stability and “the pursuit of happiness.”
The “envious” ones are the MAGA kool aide drinkers who live in a cult bubble and believe that if people like trump and Elon can be rich, then so can they! These are also people who want to take away women’s right to vote, who promote toxic masculinity (the Pete Hegseth look) and are misogynistic in many ways. Even as they see their wages are not keeping up with their own standard of living and even as they grasp hold of the “un Christian” doctrine of Prosperity Gospel. This doctrine promotes a delusional belief that rich people are virtuous; thereby ignoring Jesus’ biblical messages claiming the chances of a rich man getting into heaven is as likely as a camel getting through the eye of a needle. MAGA “Christians” ignore the beatitudes of Jesus’ sermon on the mount (which is a closely aligned liberal and humanitarian stance) for seeking rich power structures that are in opposition to philosophical wisdom.
I would say that it is the Trumpists - the MAGA supporters - the fascists, who are driven by envy and resentment - which is sad, because by voting for more fascism, they are voting against their own interests. They have been convinced that the government is a "swamp" which can only be "drained" by a strongman - who has no interest in draining the swamp, only in redirecting it to his own and his allies' interests and bank accounts.
I grew up in a working-class family, and have no envy of billionaires. I share the goal of fairer redistribution of wealth - not because I envy the billionaires, but because they have built their wealth by exploiting the system and the labor that built their wealth, and continue to do so. I have an uncle who became rich in exactly this way, and his belief in exploiting the system the way he did seems to me to know no bounds. He and I have never seen eye-to-eye on anything.
I have a problem with labels. At 81, I’m a lifelong Republican but no longer vote that way. I’ve always considered myself practical. I think investments by our government in our country are a positive good. We are all better off if our various modes of transportation are safe and modern. We are better off as a whole if our environment is free of pollution. And likewise I believe that if the community of our entire population is healthy and well educated we are all better off.
I am the grandchild of immigrants on my father’s side. The child of a very successful entrepreneurial father and a mother with 18th century American roots who was nonetheless not wealthy. But I grew up in Palm Beach going to clubs that are ultra conservative and whose members voted for trump but didn’t want him as a member. I’ve known people who are wealthy and insecure. And thanks to my father’s gardener and his wife, I’ve had the good luck to learn that black people are the most truly Christian people I’ve known. They get it. Being generous and forgiving is a goal that is its own reward, not a posture to impress others or enable you to self congratulate. Believe it or not, if you are empathetic you not only feel sympathy for ill luck, you are blessed with the ability to feel joy for the good fortune of others. It doesn’t matter what material wealth you have, if you feel no one honestly loves and care about you, you are not happy. “He who dies with the most toys” is the most pathetic bumper sticker I’ve ever seen.
Capitalism is the best economic system, but it needs sensible regulations to restrain the very human tendency to greed. Blaming people for being greedy is dumb. It’s part of our human/animal nature. Being envious is also part of our very fallible human nature. There’s a reason why there is a commandment against coveting your neighbor’s wife or goods. It’s who we are. All imperfect in our own particular but common way. We sabotage our mental health by being immersed in competition. And we do some pretty foolish gymnastics in the process. If only we’d relax and stop being so egotistical and judgmental maybe we wouldn’t have to waste our time trying to figure out what box others belong in.
I've had the argument made to me (privately and some time ago, so I can't recall the full details) that billionaires pose so much of a threat to democratic life that anyone sufficiently rich should be stripped of their political rights.
Yes. They have cashed out their voting rights lol. Mean time they think the lower classes should be made to buy the right to vote, literally, with poll taxes, etc.
Hoarding is a mental illness. The compulsion to hoard, whether trash, clothes, etc - or resources such as money, land, wealth - when you clearly have enough TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHERS ... This type of hoarding illness must be addressed.
I have never cared that the rich have more, but when those who have so much, actively try kill those who have little, and try to take away what little they do have, then I have a problem.
This is precisely what is happening now. Elon destroying USAID, Trump wantonly firing Federal Workers, RFK trying to kill US citizens with quackery. ICE literally killing, at billionaire Trump's bequest.
I do think RFK is well intentioned though misguided and not standing up to corporate interests as he promised.
You give him more credit than I do. I will admit, that I agree w/ him about junk food, but it doesn't appear that he is accomplishing much in that area, food dyes maybe. Prez Fuckwit is pushing glycophosphate. However, his stance on such things as vaccines and raw milk, will kill more people than he saves with good diet. Oh, and the food pyramid with meat on top. Unhealthy.
Nice article. Very focused — on a theme and on a personal experience related to that theme. A theme that has played out among many, I suspect: the rejection of pursuing a life focused primarily on the acquisition of money, power, and things. Nicely done.
Mike - a really clear and well-reasoned piece, wise about human nature and society. The one thing I will question is your interpretation of the philosopher king in Plato, which is not to say I advocate for it at all.
Tell me more about your interpretation.
It's been a while since I studied the specific text, so (and I hope you won't mind too much) I asked ChatGPT to give me an account, and it does capture what I remember and meant by my comment. So here that is.
----------------------------------
My prompt was: How are the philosopher kings in Plato's Republic determined?
In Republic, Plato does not select philosopher-kings by birthright, wealth, or popular vote. They are identified through a long educational and moral testing process designed to discover who is naturally suited to grasp the Form of the Good and rule without corruption.
Here’s how it works.
1. Natural Endowment (Innate Disposition)
Plato begins with the idea that different souls have different dominant elements:
Appetite → producers
Spirit (thumos) → auxiliaries (soldiers)
Reason → guardians/rulers
Philosopher-kings must have:
Strong intelligence
Love of truth
Good memory
Courage
Moderation
Lack of greed
Resistance to pleasure and fear
He repeatedly emphasizes that rulers must be those who genuinely love wisdom, not honor or money.
Importantly, this is not strictly hereditary. The famous “noble lie” (myth of metals) allows that a gold-souled child might be born to bronze parents, and vice versa.
2. Early Education (Music & Gymnastics)
Socrates (Plato’s speaker) outlines an early curriculum:
Music (poetry, myth, character formation)
Gymnastics (discipline of body)
Strict moral censorship of stories
Emphasis on harmony between soul and body
This stage tests temperament and character. Those who fail moral stability drop out.
3. Mathematical Training (Ages ~20–30)
The best candidates move into ten years of:
Arithmetic
Geometry
Astronomy
Harmonics
These subjects train the mind to think abstractly and turn away from the senses toward intelligible reality.
Only those who excel intellectually continue.
4. Dialectic (Around Age 30+)
The top students enter five years of dialectic — rigorous philosophical argument.
This stage is dangerous. Plato worries that premature exposure to dialectic leads to:
Cynicism
Intellectual pride
Moral instability
Only the most stable and disciplined minds are allowed to proceed.
5. Practical Political Testing (15 Years)
After dialectic, candidates must:
Serve in military and civic roles
Prove they remain incorruptible
Demonstrate loyalty to the common good
They are tested in real-world responsibility.
6. Final Selection (~Age 50)
Those who:
Remain philosophically steady
Show moral incorruptibility
Grasp the Form of the Good
Care more for justice than power
…become philosopher-kings.
They rule not because they desire power, but because they understand the Good and accept ruling as a duty.
Key Principle: Reluctant Rule
Plato insists:
The best rulers are those who do not want to rule.
Philosopher-kings must:
Prefer contemplation
Rule only out of obligation
Rotate between governance and philosophy
Philosophical Logic Behind the System
Plato’s reasoning is:
Knowledge of the Good is required for just rule.
Only philosophers can grasp the Good.
Therefore, philosophers must rule.
This connects to the Allegory of the Cave — only those who have seen the sun (the Good) can guide the city.
Not Democracy, Not Aristocracy, Not Theocracy
Plato’s system is:
Not democratic (no voting)
Not hereditary aristocracy (birth alone doesn’t determine role)
Not theocratic (though metaphysical)
It is best described as epistemic meritocracy — rule by those with knowledge of ultimate truth.
I agree. Those who would now rule, are not philosophers. They are egotistical destroyers who care not a whit for philosophy or for anyone but themselves
Another thought provoking essay; it reminds me of the ethics/professionalism training I was a part of for many years in the legal profession. We would teach the lawyers that if they were not happy, it was hard to say that they were successful. We would then focus on how they could identify their values and take steps to live and work in accordance with their values (the kinds of things that Mike points out regularly, including service to others and the greater community).
While reading about the moral corruption of billionaires, I found myself contemplating the dark side of human behavior and the different degrees of sins a human being could commit. And within minutes, I remembered The Inferno from Dante’s Divine Comedy and was amazed to read how his description of the 8th and 9th Circles of Hell speaks so directly to our current political times.
One might guess that killing and violence (of all kinds) would be the worst sins. But in Dante’s imagination, VIOLENCE, the 7th Circle of Hell, is followed by the greater sins of FRAUD (8th Circle) and TREACHERY (9th Circle). And it is inside each of these two circles of hell that we can find what still speaks so directly to us today:
TYPES OF FRAUD (8th Circle of the Inferno):
1. Panderers and Seducers: Exploiting others for personal gain
2. Flatterers: Insincere praise
3. Simony: Selling Church favors
4. Diviners: Fortune tellers
5. Grafters: Corrupt politicians
6. Hypocrites: Deceivers in life
7. Thieves: Stealing from others
8. Deceivers: Giving false advice
9. Scandal-mongers: Promoting discord
10. Falsifiers: Forgers of documents and currency
TYPE OF TREACHERY (9th Circle of the Inferno):
1. Betrayal of Family
2. Betrayal of Country
3. Betrayal of Guests
4. Betrayal of Lords
The Divine Comedy was written after Dante, a prominent Italian poet and politician, was exiled from Florence (his home) in 1303 for opposing the pro-papal political party called the Black Guelphs. It was later named the “Divine Comedy” because, at the time, the term “comedy” referred to narratives that had a positive ending and were written in the lower, vernacular Italian (in contrast with stories written in Latin, the language of elevated tragedies).
« I left their world because I could not stay in it and remain who I am. That choice had costs. I have paid them without regret. » Thank you for your decision, Mike. Otherwise you wouldn’t be sharing your thoughts with us, thoughts I appreciate even those that don’t resonate in me. I too left a world (for self integrity) and suffer the consequences.
So you say Liberals believe in “an equal distribution of power” but not in “wealth redistribution.” For you, that is the essential difference between Liberals and Leftists (Socialists). If you are like most Liberals then, for you an "equal distribution of power" means everyone gets a vote on political but not economic questions, correct? But surely Leftists just want your “equal distribution of power” in not only the political sphere, but also in the sphere where the majority of our lives are spent—the economic. For a Leftist, this is true democracy, egalitarianism—a system where economic questions are not, for some reason, immune from democratic decision-making, because power is, at last, equally distributed among all people. If a majority of people would vote against their systematic impoverishment and subjugation, and the wholesale destruction of the planetary ecosystem, you would call this resentment and not democracy, not justice? In other words, the distribution of wealth might have something to do with the distribution of power. I would dare you to fairly and truly distribute the latter and accept the logical outcome without, well, resentment. Liberals (and Conservatives alike) like to tell the masses to “vote with their wallets” because they don’t want them to vote with actual votes. Because they know very well what would happen if they truly gave working people an equal say in their own labor and working conditions, or allowed a truly democratic society to determine for itself what it produces and to what ends. So of course the Left wants an equal distribution of power no less than the Liberal, for what distinction is there between wealth and power? As that dyed-in-the-wool Marxist Krusty the Klown once said, “What is respect without the moolah to back it up?” Leftists just want more distribution of the distribution of power than Liberals do. Liberals call themselves such, on the contrary, because they don’t believe in an “equal distribution of power” that is not somehow circumscribed or limited by a more powerful (and not coincidentally wealthier) minority in order to preserve a fundamentally anti-democratic status quo. Is that equality, is that power, is that democracy, is that freedom?
Once again these seem relevant:
"In 1962 I was a Conservative. I believed privilege could only be justified by service, high taxes on very high incomes were necessary to prevent an entrepreneurial economy becoming a rentier economy, and Keynesian growth would finance public service improvements and a welfare state that steadily reduced inequality. I was suspicious of ideologically driven, large-scale change. These were the mainstream policies of the Macmillan government at the time. In 60 years I have moved from centre right to hard left without changing my opinions."
"I learned early that business is business and politics is politics. The proof is how few important businessmen have made good politicians. They may think that they are very smart about everything because they made millions of dollars by digging a hole in the ground and finding oil, but the talent and luck needed to become rich are not the same talent and luck needed to succeed on Parliament Hill." (Jean Chrétien, "The Politics of Business")
In the news, we are talking about pedophilia.
Yet, we know very little about pedophilia. Pedophilia does not necessarily involve sexual abuse of children. Some men are attracted to children and merely acknowledge their attraction without acting on it. Scientists and medical researchers have not reached a consensus about the causes of this condition. The traditional debate about causation follows the nature versus nurture discussion. Some researchers are investigating genetic factors, while others are exploring social causes, such as family issues or past sexual assault.
As a psychologist, I tend to seek a broader perspective, and I try to understand all sexual identities and how we develop our personal identity, including our sexual orientation. I believe it is a mistake to focus on just one orientation and ignore others, especially when considering the scientist who suggested that genetics determines all our behavior, implying that nothing else matters in shaping who we are. This idea is difficult for me to accept because people are vastly different, and genes are specifically directed. I haven't found any studies that document a social orientation supporting the development of a particular sexual orientation.
Two observations by well-known scientists are particularly important to me: one concerns the reading readiness period in child development, and the other is Carlo Rovelli’s discussion of time as a theoretical physicist. Children aged 4 to 7 can easily learn languages and social skills, often acquiring two languages during this period. After this window closes, learning a second language typically requires more detailed instruction. The development of social skills during this time exceeds our understanding, as a child transitions from a blank slate to possessing remarkable abilities. I see this period as the intersection of two sources of development: one inherited through genes, and the other shaped by society. Consider a mother who was pregnant and moved to a different location, such as South America or Iceland, realizing her child would be different from what it would have been if she stayed in the original place. I think about the overwhelming number of factors influencing this child. Carlo Rovelli points out that time is not constant; it can be expansive or compressed, and it can flow faster or slower. For instance, in space travel, time moves more slowly than it does on Earth. Einstein articulated this idea through his theories of relativity.
Why are these two facts important to understanding sexual identity? What if there's a period in a child's development when time feels expansive, allowing the child to absorb large amounts of social stimulation or information? What if, during this time, sexual orientation is formed? I mean all types of orientation: male-female, male-male, female-female, male-child, or male-boy. Why do we try to identify the cause of a pedophile as being different from other sexual orientations? Are we thinking that our genetic coding, and nothing else, solely determines all behaviors? Can we consider that during this period, all sexual orientations develop? Until adolescence, we shape our personality based on our environment, family, neighborhood, and immediate friends—those connected by where we live and who we are. I ask people to reflect on their closest friends during adolescence and consider how these relationships impacted their personality development. Often, these relationships are like yin-yang—complementary parts of a whole—and they help shape each person's identity.
The discussion of a person's sexual identity must respect the complicated process of formation of each of us in our world, and with our genetic composition.
Geez, you've really been caught up in your own soup.
Bye!
I have not told you what to do with your feelings about billionaires. I've simply expressed my feelings. Surely, I'm entitled to my own feelings, as I grant you entitlement to your own.