I've noticed that in the last five years or so there's been a trend to automatically dismiss any criticism or argument with "you're just jealous" rather than addressing it's merits. Any wealthy person is automatically immune from any sort of criticism - because if you criticize them it's only because you're jealous.

It's an ad hominem attack, nonsensical, tired, and, as someone who has experienced a lot of wealth envy in the past, always strike me as so incredibly insincere.

> Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly.

This idea that criticism of wealth must be just down to envy is really quite a tired stereotype.

It makes even less sense when there's a hereditary class of people whose wealth and power is constitutionally guaranteed and, as we've discovered, who use corrupt means to maintain this by intervening in the lawmaking process to neutralise threats to their income.

It's not envy to realise that there must be a better system than this.

There is a difference between abolition of privileges reserved to a caste and striping of wealth people regardless of whether or not anyone is granted the possibility to obtain the same wealth by legal means.

If you think the House of Commons was actually common men like you or I you'd be sorely mistaken, it was Knights and landed people (and i don't think very much has changed there). Make no bones about the UK parlimentary body, it is not of the "people" if that's what you are into.

Oh, no. I just wanted to share some nuance on what can stand behind a "measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property."

And it’s not like "civilization" was something one might really believe to stand on fairness, reciprocity and mutual care. That kind of things can survive in civilizations, and probably civilizations can’t survive themselves without leaving some room for these feelings.