Educationalism versus Marketocracy

 Brazilian judges receive exorbitant salaries, in addition to enjoying other undue privileges, such as the famous "perks," and the privilege of being able to perform their profession very poorly without being exemplarily punished. The most recent examples in this year of 2026, of "leftist judges" using extremely subjective criteria to deliver their verdict: from the "LGBT and autistic judge" who ordered the arrest of a couple for 50 days for homeschooling their two daughters with exclusively erudite and religious culture, to the "feminist judge" who only condemned the stepfather who killed his girlfriend's, or wife's son,she, negligent and complicit, acquitting her because of "structural patriarchy"... Two great absurdities paid for with public money and which, until now, as I finish this text, have not received any adequate punishment. Believe me, it seems that many of those who claim to be "in favor of social justice" are not the ones who most criticize these privileges of the "elite" in the public service, and I believe there are two reasons to explain this great inconsistency. First, many of these self-proclaimed social justice warriors seek or aspire to be part of this same "elite." Therefore, it is a matter of simple and selfish self-interest, also in the sense of being able to exert power over the lives of others, as in the case of judges and lawyers. The second reason is that they believe, based on an educationalist belief, that "whoever studies more" deserves to receive a high salary, which is an absolutely meritorious matter... I only partially agree that those who "dedicate themselves" to "studying more" deserve to receive more, but not that they deserve to earn very high salaries that, moreover, come from taxpayer money. Before that, there is the merit of the professional quality provided, often falling short of what it should be in its ideal expression...

Right turn and marketocracy

So, if the left tends to remain silent about the privileges of the "elite" in public service (occasionally defending them), the right is not at all shy about defending the privileges of the economic "elite" or the "private service" (let's say), always defending the preservation or even expansion of their unfair economic advantages over the rest of the population, such as the right to the indiscriminate accumulation of money, without state intervention directing a portion of that money towards taxation, and the shameless exploitation of their employees' labor, with the belief or excuse that the generation of a country's wealth should always begin and be centralized at the top of the hierarchy: a kind of marketocracy, in which it is not the people but the mercantile "elite" and the business class who deserve to be served and favored first, also, it should be said, by The government itself, always leaving the working class in second place. In short, it over-naturalizes the incongruities of a system based on the fiction of financial mathematics, such as the absurd social inequalities of wealth and income (since money, in itself, is a symbol treated by convention as a naturalistically true reference of quantity)...