42% of 4% own 46%. That is an inordinately high concentration of something. So based on this scenario, in a given set of 10,000 individuals spread evenly over 100 square miles, and with 10,000 shares to divide between the 10,000 individuals, 168 individuals living within the same 4 square mile plot of land own 4,600 shares, while every other 4 square mile plot of land averages only 225 shares each. That is an inordinately high concentration of something.
If these shares radiate some form of Goodness, the fact of the unbalanced concentration is very sad. If these shares are nonproductive, painfully destructive or otherwise stultifying, the fact of the unbalanced concentration is alarming. If those who hold these shares see them as positive and a majority of all others agree that they are positive, the fact of the unbalanced concentration becomes a fact of unbalanced power. If those who hold these shares see them as positive and a majority of all others believe them to be negative, the fact of the unbalanced concentration may become a terrifying fact of unbalanced power.
Yet this is the way of the world. In the above scenario, even living in the most bountiful 4 square mile plot of land, it is a powerful minority that owns (or controls) the specific resource; and in the remaining 96% of the land, one must poll 8,178 individuals just to find shares equaling those of the 168 individuals in the land of plenty, and then (to be credible) one must convince these widespread individuals to marshal resources. In our plot of land we may claim to believe in a democracy in which all citizens are equal, but in what kind of fair and just world does 8,178 = 168? And this “powerful minority predicament” often feels true-to-life regardless of one’s thoughts on the positive or negative characteristics and/or potential of a given bounty. The reality of the majority of individual circumstance is that it is frequently very sad, alarming, unjust, and/or potentially terrifying. Any other interpretation is delusional.
For me, this scenario provides an accurate visual of how a minority maintains power. If the resource, for example, is financial wealth, those who have are more likely to gain while those on the other side of the widening gap are more likely to remain. Regardless of how mightily the (financially) wealthy may profess their love of democracy and equality, I see no effort to level the playing field; the 168 remain powerful and the ranks of the 8,178 continue to swell, making it more and more difficult to marshal resources.
Though I believe financial wealth is the most obvious, and perhaps the most unjust, of potential minority power, there are a plenitude of other resources from which a small number of individuals are able to hold sway over greater numbers. Consider political office; or, (on a smaller scale), your boss at work; or a rule-making bureaucrat at the bank or insurance company; or your healthcare provider. Consider an actual resource such as oil; or water; or food; or, (again on a smaller scale), a specific food such as romaine lettuce; or a collectible such as Babe Ruth baseball cards. Consider a plentiful resource (that is controlled by a minority by choice), such as rugged, beat-up pickup trucks; or Subarus; or loud mufflers; or “Baby on Board” signs; or racist tattoos; or college degrees; or MAGA caps; or “World Peace” bumper stickers; or civilian firearms.
The United States comprises 4% of the world population. Americans own 46% of the 857 million civilian firearms in the world. Only 42% of the households in the United States report owning firearms. That is an inordinately high concentration.
Yet this is the way of the world.