J. R. Lucas, "Against Equality," in Justice and Equality, ed. Hugo Bedau (Prentice-Hall, 1971), pp. 148-149:
Since men value power and prestige as much as the possession of wealth—indeed, these three 'goods' cannot be completely separated—it is foolish to seek to establish an equality of wealth on egalitarian grounds. It is foolish first because it will not result in what egalitarians really want. It is foolish also because if we do not let men compete for money, they will compete all the more for power; and whereas the possession of wealth by another man does not hurt me, unless I am made vulnerable by envy, the possession of power by another is inherently dangerous; and furthermore if we are to maintain a strict equality of wealth we need a much greater apparatus of state to secure it and therefore a much greater inequality of power. Better have bloated plutocrats than omnipotent bureaucrats.
This is a penetrating passage from a penetrating essay. Lucas is in effect pointing out a paradox at the heart of the egalitarian position. If the egalitarian wants to equalize wealth, perhaps via a scheme of income redistribution, then he will need to make use of state power to do it: the wealthy will not voluntarily disembarrass themselves of their wealth. But state power is of necessity concentrated in the hands of a few, those who run the government, whose power is vastly greater than, and hence unequal to, the power of the governed.
The paradox, then, is that the enforcing of equality of wealth requires inequality of power. But, as Lucas points out, the powerful are much more dangerous to us than the wealthy. Your being wealthy takes away nothing from me, and indeed stimulates the economy from which I profit, whereas your being powerful poses a potential threat to my liberty.
But I hear an objection coming: "Wealth is convertible into power since the wealthy can buy their way to political influence, whether legally or illegally." True, but the seriousness of this problem is a function of how intrusive and overreaching the government is. A government stripped down to essential functions offers fewer opportunities for the power-hungry. Note also that the wealthy may feel it necessary to buy influence just to protect themselves from regulatory zeal.
Quite simply false. A government can fail by doing too little; by failing to do what it ought.
Interesting observations. In the academic world the ambitious are undoubtedly in quest of status since money and power are out of reach. I wouldn't say status is the same thing as power, though status may lead to power and to money. Dr Henry Kissinger might be an example. He started out as a Harvard professor but then became Secretary of State under Nixon, which fact gave him power, and that probably translated into a certain amount of money (speeches, book deals, etc.)
I suppose we could say that money, power, and status are 'fungible assets' in that they can be converted into one another. But the conversion is not easily achieved.
Kissinger once remarked that faculty disputes are so bitter precisely because faculty members have no real power.
Does the lust for status among academicians explain their rudeness? I should think that is part of the explanation. It is also true that most academicians are on the Left, and leftists are not famous for their civility. Other factors come into play as well.
I myself have contempt for the status-hunters. Thus I would not bestow the noble name 'philospher' on a status-obsessed careerist like Brian Leiter. A philosopher is someone like Spinoza who turned down the offer of a prestigious post at the U. of Heidelberg in oeder to continue with his quiet life of writing and lense-grinding.
The case of Heidegger is also interesting. Not content with having written one of the most influential and important books of the 20th century, he wanted to be rector too. I'm not sure of the details, but wasn't it by rather unpleasant means?
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.