Wealthy individuals have historically held consolidated power until they're overthrown. Then, those who overthrow them often consolidate power themselves, perpetuating the cycle. The heroes -> the villains. Figures like Robert Mugabe, Aung San Suu Kyi, Omar Kadefi, and others exemplify this pattern.
In America, the wealthy wield significant influence; corporate interests are protected by both political parties. Oligarchs have a hand in shaping legislation—do they act in their own best interest, or ours?
The scene from *LOTR* resonates here: "Don't tempt me, Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."
Like Friedman, Tolkien rejects the idea of a benevolent dictator or an altruistic, all-powerful overseer controlling society. The safest outcome, it seems, would be to limit how much power individuals can accumulate—an approach that resembles a blend of anarchism and socialist libertarianism.
End of thread.