Whales, much like Billionaires, tend to get a really bad rap, simply because they have a lot more than others...

I hear people complaining all the time about how "unfair" it is that a whale could have so much influence content on the platform, and how "it's just not right that so few people have that much, while most barely scrape by". This mentality reeks of entitlement, and I don't agree that civilization would be better if everyone had the same amount of everything.

That might sound like I'm seeing the issue in black and white, or that I'm defending the behaviors, "advantages", or choices of some "rich" and "powerful" people, but I'm not talking about individuals, or how one comes into their wealth. In a general sense, I truly believe capitalism is the most effective societal structure for the consistent progression of new ideas, and the reason any of us are here today, sharing our opinions for money.

---

I believe Whales are necessary for the growth of this platform,

and Billionaires are necessary for the way our society grows or progresses, and the parts of it that most of us enjoy. Many things, like starting a business, or building new houses, requires more money than most people have. For these things to come into existence would require more money that one would "need", by many's standards.

Those with "extra" money have the ability to offer support to, and create opportunity for, those "less fortunate". They can also create copious amounts of innovation through free market competition. Whether they do so or not is completely up to them. No one wants to be told how they should spend the money they've earned. The rich and the poor almost certainly have that in common, so why does this double standard seem to exist that says rich people should be more responsible for the well being of others? Whales are no different, but they are often held to a higher standard because they have the ability to make change on a larger scale, and again, whether they choose to do so is completely up to them.

Many people became whales, or were even given such status, in the first months of Steemit, through things like pre-mining and the fact that STEEM was worth so little at the time, each post earned hundreds or even thousands of SteemPower. I've been here for just over a year, and don't pretend to know all the details about actions, "advantages", and choices made by those early users. The whales that came about in those early days are integral to the growth of the users who came after them, and to the platform as a whole. What they choose to do with the influence and money they earned early on, is again, completely up to them.

Just like the billionaires of the world, who use their money (the "influential factor" of capitalism) to create jobs, opportunities, and dare I say inspiration, to those who aren't aspire to create change on the same scale, the whales of this Steemit can change lives, even if it's only their own.

---

If you're in the crypto-sphere, and here on Steemit, I'd argue that you enjoy and support Capitalism, at least a little.

What do you think the driving force being the value of individual cryptocurrencies is? Odds are if you're holding on to your SteemPower, you likely want it to increase in value, am I right? You like the idea that you own that cryptocurrency, am I right?

Capitalism is one of the only systems which protects and encourages the private ownership of property, which is very important to individual freedom, an ideal I'd think everyone would be into... All too often, though, I hear people disregard the freedoms of some, so that others can be elevated in some way or another.

Too often, I see the irony of someone complaining about capitalism on the internet, from a computer with all the newest widgets and hardware, or the latest piece of wearable tech to make their social lives easier, and give them better and faster access to that instant connectivity that we've all grown so accustomed to. "It's just not fair.", or "people deserve this or that". I don't care for entitlement. The world, and the people in it, owe us nothing.

---

Unfortunately, not everyone can be rich and powerful...

The rich, the middle-class, and even the poor, play their own integral role in the way societies have advanced throughout history. Those with more create systems by which those with less can earn via exchange of service, ie; you go to work, and your "rich boss" pays you for the time you're there. This is because that business owner couldn't possibly do everything required to run a smooth operation, and chooses to trade part of the money earned with the business to those who help manage it's many parts. This is easy for them to do, because there are plenty of people who want money, and are willing to exchange their time and energy for it.

If everyone were rich, businesses would crumble across the board. Who's going to go work a job for someone else when they've got all the money they'll ever need? If you owned a business, where would you find employees? You might find collaborators, with their own money, ideals, and agendas, but good luck finding enough people that will help you create anything in your vision without being able to offer them something they want. Getting anything done in a reasonable time frame would require an awful lot of generosity, but if that existed, there wouldn't be so many people demanding overpowered and over-reaching governments to make sure everyone is treated "fairly"... Fair doesn't always mean equality, and equality isn't always fair. Consider taxation for example...

Why are those who earn more, expected to be more charitable with their money, simply because they have the ability to be?

Why do we feel like those with more should be held responsible for those who have less? As long as the wealthy person did so without cheating and stealing from others, why should they be required to pay a larger percentage of each dollar they earn than those who earn less?

Imagine two people start the same type of business.

Business owner A (BA) works 50 hours per week, spends the rest of his time with his family, provides the very best prices in town to his customers, even offering discounts, and just wants to provide a simple service, and make a living. BA earns a comfortable $75,000 per year.
Business owner B (BB) work 90 hours per week, doesn't have a family or friends, uses the principles of supply and demand to calculate the optimum profit level, and intends to franchise his business, opening new locations across the country. Let's say BB earns around $250,000 per year.

Under the current United States tax code, BA, because he is filing as married and head of household, is taxed at a 25% rate on a federal level. BB, however, filing single, with a much larger income, is taxed at a 33% federal rate.

Should we be punishing or discouraging BB's ambition, and desire to grow his idea? Should he be required to contribute 8 more cents of every dollar he earned to the well being of others? Why? Because he has more to give? Those very same ambitions and desires could lead to a greater benefit to the population at large, so why are we slowing the developments that BB would create? Is that money not going to be spread around the country through wages paid to those who would help him in his venture? I believe these are all reasonable questions, but very few are willing to offer a yes or no answer to them, and bring up semantics that don't apply in broad terms.

What's so wrong with a flat tax, where we tax everyone at the same percentage, and adjust that percentage according to the national budget?

---

The problem isn't capitalism itself...

There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism, or having "more than one needs". Quite the contrary in my opinion. Capitalism has provided the comfortable way of life that many of us have grown used to, and even take for granted every day.

Humans are prone to greed, and putting themselves above others. It's survival of the fittest in it's natural, modern form. We used to find the best ways to survive in real jungles of trees and bramble, but now we fight for survival in a jungle of concrete, of open markets, and of widespread access to the things we cherish most.

The problem is thinking that someone else should be required to give to others. Charity isn't charity if you're made to give it. As long as people are given the freedom to make their own choices with their own money, or influence, I truly believe most will use it to empower others, even if their intentions aren't completely benevolent or altruistic. With freedom comes the potential of corruption, and not everyone is going to play "fairly" in a game that vicariously rewards players for striving to get ahead. Is it "right", though, to force those who have played fairly, but have still amassed wealth, to use that wealth, their property, the way someone else would want them to, even if they disagree?

---

Thanks for reading! I'd love to hear what you think. Let me know in the comments, and let's use this capitalistic system we're all blogging on, to earn a couple extra cents for our two cents! If you enjoyed this post, you know how to show me you care ;)

Got a minute? Check out my endeavor to open the world's first 'Blockchain-centric' makerspace!