When I say that a limit should be placed on the wealth that can be accumulated by a single person, I am always told that it would be impossible, unfair and even counterproductive, because the very rich serve society, among other things, to experiment with technological innovations that initially only they could allow, and therefore improve the lives of all of us. This would be the case of Elon Musk – still in the limelight for an editorial endorsement of the far-right party in Germany – certainly a great innovator, who invests his money in projects that could change the world one day. Until he decided that this power was insufficient and that he wanted to go a little further, ending up financing Trump’s re-election campaign, who then gave him a place in his administration.

From the point of view of an Italian, or at least an Italian born a few decades ago and educated with a certain vision of politics, it is absurd that a guy works for the government just because he is full of money; in the United States, however, it is normal, because elections are won with money and you have to return the favor to those who finance you. This is certainly not a problem that arises with Musk; Candidates’ financiers often do not aspire to a role within the administration, but simply to agreements and guarantees that will allow them to continue to grow their business. It is one of the many oddities of what continues to believe itself to be the largest democracy in the world.

Musk’s influence is pervasive and deep-rooted

This case, however, has other implications, because Musk’s influence on politics precedes his economic support for Donald Trump and even his purchase of the former Twitter social platform: even before he bought it, his was one of the most followed profiles ever . And it is not limited to the United States, given his tendency to also express himself on the policies of the governments of other countries and the widespread veneration felt towards him.

In short, money guarantees not only influence on governments, because you finance them or because you have companies with which the government must collaborate (as in the case of SpaceX); but also an influence on people, by virtue of that socioeconomic position, therefore the social prestige that money guarantees. There is really no other reason to be interested in what Musk says other than his fortune. If we think about it, why would anyone follow him on X? If I am interested in technology developments in your companies, I will follow specific news on this, or industry magazines. Why instead follow the person himself, who talks about his opinions, political and otherwise?

It is a similar discussion to what was done for Chiara Ferragni and which can be done for many others: we follow certain people only because they are famous, and they are famous because they are rich. Musk, obviously, is not just any rich person who simply inherited some money: he is indeed a brilliant person who has done many incredible things; but we are obviously not talking about him as a physics graduate or an inventor, but about him as a person who thinks he can buy the universe. And this, instead of annoying us, leads us to respect it.

It was impossible to prohibit him from expressing himself

When President Mattarella rebuked him, cordially inviting him to mind his own business given that Italy is a sovereign and democratic state, Musk mentioned freedom of expression, guaranteed by both the US and Italian Constitutions. The question is less obvious than it may seem. As long as he is a private citizen, he can certainly use social media to say what he thinks, as everyone does, and is therefore free to express his opinion on the actions of governments and the judiciary. Of course, when he is part of the Trump administration, things become a little different; but as long as he is an ordinary citizen, we certainly cannot prohibit him from commenting on the sentences, nor even prohibit people from following him – which in any case would be of no use. In short, we cannot stop him from influencing the public.

Yet, a private citizen who owns a social network and has his hands in the mix everywhere is not just anyone, who with the lightness given by his being no one writes anything that comes to mind: he is a private citizen who however has immense power , so much so that it can help a candidate win elections, arouse suspicion among citizens, and help spread certain ideas.

If money is the primary value, this is the result

This, however, is the result of the world we have built, where it is normal for a single person to be able to accumulate unlimited wealth, have control or almost control of technologies unattainable for anyone else, and it never occurs to anyone that this could give them undemocratic power. and uncontrollable, which has no counterweights. A world in which it is normal for this person to make phone calls with the Prime Minister, as if he were a head of state, and that the President of the Republic even has to bother to remind him to stay in his place.

It is a world in which it is normal for the rich person to influence the people, who moves the electoral body simply with the strength of his media power. In Italy, we have already seen this and we have been living with it for twenty years, but it still doesn’t seem like many have understood where the problem lies. Consequently, these figures of power not elected by anyone will continue to put their hands where they shouldn’t, while anyone who tries to suggest that this is a source of problems is dismissed with the easy accusation of social envy, the weapon of those who have no conscience .