I live in India and I am pretty poor, I hope to be middle-class/upper-middle class someday, but I have noticed something sinister from some people who are extremely privileged, they can be still be bought with money.
Lack of money makes you desperate, and paranoid, and comparison drives you crazy, hard to be morally perfect as a poor man, but I see actors who have made insane amounts of money on the backs of their Indian fans like Shahrukh Khan, Canada Kumar, Ajay Devgan, Hrithik Roshan and many more who are well-respected in the industry and who still can sell their own fans financial ruin (gambling) or death (Tobacco) in ads. I thought the point of being rich was that you could be more moral, what is the use of getting rich if you use your influence and fame to do more harm than good?
Also, all the actors mentioned above have made numerous movies about patriotism, many in their private conversations like to brag how much they "love their country... blah... blah... blah", but yet they feel ok selling Tobacco to their fans who made them what they are.
I have a cousin who worships Shahrukh Khan and who took up Pan(Tobacco) because he was naive and because he probably thought it was "cool" since his favorite actor (on whom he has modeled all aspects of his life was selling tobacco), thankfully we were able to get him off that a few years ago, but he spent money like water and he gained worse health for it. He got off easy, many suffered financial ruin or even death. So, when is it fucking enough!? When will these people have enough money?
edit: It's just not India, it happens everywhere (just watch CoffeeZilla to see more prime examples of this) Also, I am not saying I am perfect, if someone gave me an insane amount of money to sell Pan, I will, judge me if you will. But, I like to think if I had "enough" money, I would be immune to the attractions of blood money, I like to think I can try to be as moral as I can be then, but these people almost make me think that there is never "enough" money.
I just want to add that a substantial social safety net doesn’t have to be a loss of freedom. You can keep it broad and level and market activity can happen above it while still processing information.
As a libertarians, I often argue with other libertarians about this. To me, being a libertarian is about making liberty the highest value to be sought by governmental design. A reduction of risk for everyone across the board increases liberty. It leaves people free to engage with others as they see fit and to seek profit wherever they will.
That calm thing you’re talking about is huge. One of the prerequisites of anything that can be called freedom is the ability to think clearly, and science has shown that the more stress and uncertainty a person is under chronically, they less clearly they can think. Freedom means being able to do what you choose, and people can’t really choose if they’re sleep deprived, full of adrenalin and cortisol. Like, the psychological literature calls that “ego depletion”, and with good reason. A person whose willpower budget is always drained, and therefore can’t control themselves, is not a free person.
Never underestimate the ability of a few good policies to increase individual liberty. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité