The cult of wealth, possessions, or money is definitely nothing new. Voltaire, Quevedo, and the concierge’s son already knew.

Well, although what I say from now on can be considered naive, it is not at all.
How is it that this cult is not abandoned when you have training, culture and knowledge ?.

Reason historically has alienated man from gods and superstitions, but not money, or rather his feverish idolatry.

Any reasonable person in the first world – especially in Europe – accepts laws that are designed to protect the whole social. Seat belt, do not smoke in hospitals, do not carry firearms, helmet on works and motorcycles, do not light bonfires in a forest, legalize property deeds, etc. It also accepts a police, civic rules of coexistence and a criminalization of crimes. That is, the discrimination in legal or illegal of certain behaviors by the pernicious consequences that these can carry to the rest of the citizenship.

Then perplexity rebels us with a simple question: Is there anything more pernicious for the whole of a society than the possibility of unlimited wealth? (I said NO LIMIT.)

Why do we understand it as logical that it is forbidden to drive a car at 250 km / h – since it is a danger to others – and we do not even consider how harmful it is that someone can have goods worth 300 million dollars O euros
It would be understood that a stupid and economically deprived individual would be seen in that pathological delirium, but it is more difficult to understand rationally that someone immensely rich, pretends to be even more immensely rich.

When a person already has money or other capital to live 250 times, what makes you keep wanting more. The legacy to their descendants? The power? No, this would be argued by a bad guy, a yuppie, a pop star, a football player, a mafioso …

A person of high intellectual formation would not find a reasonable argument for his blind devotion. It is simply something as inexplicable as a faith: it is a cult, a religion, a belief.

A dogma for “intelligent” has been created. A dogma for people who already stopped believing in the sun god and kissing amulets.

God has not died, as the illustrious said. God is nothing, but there he is behaving like the happy energy, in constant transformation. Stop being an old man with white beards or a squalid crucified to transform into something else: money.
By God he killed himself and died in distant times in robes. By God he kills himself and dies on Wall Street in Armani suits.

The cultured man wants money and wants it to be everything. The man read today knows that there are no paradises beyond the grave and does whatever it takes to get his particular nirvana here, in life. What happens is that when you have it, you look at it for a while and think: I’m going to redecorate it. Now I would like in fuchsia tones, with marble staircase and remote control. It’s never enough.

The democratic system has been dormant in the freezer for decades.
Once history overturned the false communist essays and killed romantic idealism, we should be pragmatic and make some changes in the moral and law we have given.

Demand a limit to wealth for the sake of the whole. Nothing seems more reasonable to me than that.

And it would be a measure of pragmatism in that, without arriving at a totally paternalistic state, it would perhaps favor a progressive greater distribution, which in turn would help to reduce expenditure in such little intelligent things as the security and rebound in the system Penitentiary with all that is derived, health, education, etc.

It would also provide an impetus to the lower social sector, expanding the possibilities of that “life-seeking” that now seems almost unattainable for a large part of the population. (And we also know all that is derived from it.)

It is possible to create a society in which a dentist or notary obtains X times more profits than a mason or an industrial worker; A society in which there are still classes and classes, but with a reasonable and reasoned limit.
Much violence emerges from the enormous and offensive distance between one point and the other. And as I said at the beginning, the pernicious excesses in any aspect of coexistence have been regulated according to the progress of societies and the development of their sciences. We would have to consider this end, the worst of all, once and for all. No one can be said to be an atheist, nor rational, nor intelligent, if he pays money in the twenty-first century. There are no excuses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *