Wealth as Liability

Do wealth provides immunity from social hostility. It does not. Wealth attracts specific forms of hatred that operate openly in ways discrimination against other groups cannot. The wealthy are acceptable targets. Expressing contempt for them carries no social cost. In many contexts, it generates approval.

France exemplifies this clearly. The baseline assumption is that wealth equals theft. Someone who accumulates resources must have extracted them from others. The zero-sum framework is absolute. If you gained, someone else lost. Your gain is their loss. Therefore your wealth is their poverty. This logic operates regardless of how wealth was generated. Creation is invisible. Extraction is assumed.

I learned early to conceal indicators of resources. Modest car when I could afford better. Unremarkable clothes despite preferring quality. Rented apartments in middle-tier neighborhoods when I owned property elsewhere. Every display decision calculated against potential hostility. Visibility invited problems that money could not solve. Better to appear less wealthy than you are than to spend resources defending against resentment.

This creates interesting distinctions in how different types of wealth are perceived. Inherited wealth receives more tolerance than earned wealth. Someone born into money did not actively steal. They simply received what was already stolen generations prior. The crime is distant enough to be forgiven. But someone actively earning wealth commits theft in real time. They are extracting value from the poor continuously. Their work is robbery disguised as productivity.

I observed this difference living in various countries. Catholic France accepts inherited wealth while despising earned wealth. Protestant Netherlands operates inversely. Inherited wealth without work is shameful because it represents consumption without contribution. Earned wealth through effort is noble because it demonstrates that God rewards industry. The theological framework shapes which type of wealth generates hatred.

Neither framework questions whether wealth actually constitutes theft. Both accept that accumulated resources require justification. I provided different justifications in different countries. In France, I emphasized inheritance and family history. In Netherlands, I emphasized work volume and business creation. Both were lies shaped to reduce friction. The truth that I built wealth through arbitrage and relocation, fit neither narrative cleanly.

This means the wealthy cannot complain about discrimination without seeming ridiculous. They have money. Money is supposed to solve problems. If you have money and still have problems, you must be managing your resources poorly. I stopped mentioning difficulties related to wealth visibility around the time someone told me my problems were "luxury problems" and therefore not real problems. Their dismissal was socially acceptable. My complaint was not.

The wealthy also cannot organize politically the way other groups can. Creating an advocacy organization for wealthy interests would be absurd. Any attempt to claim victimhood while possessing wealth triggers immediate mockery. I never joined or formed groups based on economic status because doing so would advertise what I spent years concealing. The isolation is structural, not accidental.

Legal frameworks technically prohibit discrimination based on wealth. French law allows prosecution for discriminatory treatment. Three years imprisonment, forty-five thousand euro fine. I never pursued legal remedy for wealth-based discrimination despite experiencing it repeatedly. The people expressing hatred typically have no assets. Winning a judgment against an insolvent defendant recovers nothing. The prosecution itself would require revealing wealth I preferred to keep hidden.

Another barrier: judges are ideologically opposed to wealth. I watched wealthy parties lose cases where law clearly favored them. The judge simply found creative interpretations that shifted outcomes. Wealth creates presumption of guilt. A wealthy person claiming victimization faces skepticism regardless of evidence. I stopped expecting legal protection after the third time I watched this pattern repeat in different jurisdictions.

This creates a trap. The wealthy face open discrimination but cannot effectively protest. Complaining makes them seem entitled. Organizing makes them seem conspiratorial. Legal action fails because the system is staffed by people ideologically opposed to wealth. The only defense is silence and concealment. I chose both. Stopped discussing income. Stopped displaying assets. Stopped expecting sympathy for problems related to having resources others lacked.

The hatred itself has rational basis from the perspective of those expressing it. Most people are poor. Wealth is concentrated among the one percent. The poor majority sees the wealthy minority consuming disproportionate resources while they struggle. I understand this intellectually while experiencing its effects personally. Understanding why people hate you does not make being hated more comfortable. It just clarifies that the hatred will not stop.

This creates perverse preference: people enjoy watching wealthy individuals lose everything. A rich person's financial collapse generates satisfaction across economic classes. I experience this too, residual programming from growing up in France. I catch myself feeling pleased when someone wealthier than me suffers financial loss. Then I remember I am also someone wealthier than most, and others feel the same about my potential collapse. The schadenfreude is universal and I am both perpetrator and target.

The wealthy are a minority, which makes discrimination against them structurally different from discrimination against the poor. Discriminating against the poor means discriminating against the majority. Discriminating against the wealthy targets an actual minority, a small group that lacks political power despite economic resources. I am part of this minority in France. I am hated for having what most lack. The hatred is acceptable. My objection to it is not.

The contradiction: economic resources do not translate directly into political power when the majority hates you. I can hire lawyers, fund campaigns, purchase access. But if the cultural framework defines wealth as theft, these resources cannot buy legitimacy. Money bought me geographic mobility. It did not buy acceptance in places I moved. The hostility followed because the resources that enabled movement also marked me as target.

Some will argue the wealthy deserve discrimination because they have advantages that offset social hostility. This misunderstands how discrimination operates. Having money does not eliminate the effects of being hated. I have money. I also structure my life around avoiding situations where having money makes me vulnerable. These are not contradictory. They are responses to the same reality: wealth attracts hostility that wealth cannot fully defend against.

I avoid certain neighborhoods. I avoid certain restaurants. I avoid certain conversations. Not because I cannot afford access but because access would require revealing resources that invitation hostility I prefer to avoid. The avoidance is constant. The calculation is automatic. Which situations require concealing wealth? Which require displaying just enough to be taken seriously but not enough to be resented? The calibration never ends.

The wealthy in France hide their wealth shamefully. I do this. Drive car worth less than I could afford. Wear clothes that signal competence without excess. Live in neighborhood that does not advertise affluence. Every choice balances functionality against visibility. Too much display invites problems. Too little display limits access. The optimal point sits somewhere between invisible and obvious, and finding it requires constant adjustment.

Some countries handle this differently. Dubai likely has minimal wealth-hatred because everyone is oriented toward business. United States historically celebrated self-made wealth, though this is eroding. I relocated to countries where wealth generates less hostility. This worked partially. The hostility decreased but did not disappear. Cultural frameworks differ but the underlying pattern remains: having more than most makes you a target for those who have less.

The wealthy cannot form support groups. They cannot march for their rights. They cannot demand recognition or protection. I cannot join such groups even if they existed because joining would confirm what I spend energy concealing. The isolation is built into the structure. You can have resources or you can have solidarity with people who share your economic position. You cannot have both without advertising what makes you vulnerable.

This means wealth operates as social liability in specific contexts. It provides material comfort while attracting sustained hostility. I accepted this trade consciously. Resources in exchange for being hated. Material security in exchange for social isolation. Geographic freedom in exchange for permanent outsider status everywhere I relocate. The trade seemed acceptable when I made it. The costs compound over time in ways I did not anticipate.

There is no solution to this. I will not organize with other wealthy people. The poor will not stop resenting me. Judges will continue ruling against me regardless of law. The cultural framework that defines wealth as theft cannot be dismantled through individual action. I can only navigate by minimizing visibility and accepting that I will be hated for having what others lack.

If you are wealthy and facing discrimination, there is no helpline to call. No advocacy organization will defend you. No legal strategy will succeed reliably. I learned this through experience. Your options are concealment or departure. Hide your wealth or leave environments where wealth triggers hostility. I do both. Conceal locally. Relocate when concealment becomes too costly. Neither strategy eliminates the problem. Both just manage symptoms.

The discrimination persists. I adjust behavior to minimize exposure. The hatred continues. I relocate to places where it operates less intensely. The assumptions remain unchallenged. I stopped trying to challenge them. The energy required to argue that wealth is not theft exceeds any benefit from winning the argument. Better to accept how you are perceived and structure accordingly.

The wealthy hide or leave. I did both. The poor express hostility they consider justified. I understand their logic while experiencing its effects. The system permits discrimination against the wealthy because society believes the wealthy deserve whatever hostility they receive. I operate within this system because I have no mechanism to change it.

Wealth buys many things. It does not buy the right to complain about being hated for having it. I have resources. I also have sustained experience of being target for having resources. These coexist. The resources provide comfort. The targeting provides constraint. I manage both. Neither disappears.