Something caught my attention, and got stuck, in a blogposting about the professor in philosophy Harald Ofstad, six core components on Nazism he had identified were described. And the second one was (in my amateur translation):

"Identification with power and contempt for weakness”!!!

And I came to think on what Sunder Katwala wrote in “When is inequality unfair?” the other day:

“Just over a fifth of people take a 'traditional egalitarian' and primarily needs-based view of inequality, which is sceptical about the claims of the rich and supportive of the claims of the poor.

A similar proportion support a traditional free market pro-inequality argument that both the better-off and the poor have broadly got what they deserve. So redistribution is rejected as unfairly taking from the deserving (rich) to the undeserving (poor).”

Which means that those latter (not the former??) are supporting that demands are made on the poor – but not on the rich!!! Something I have been confronted with! And haven't understood. I was just taken aback with astonishment and became totally speechless.

Shouldn't we AT LEAST make the same demands on both, and/or ALL??? And Pippi Longstocking said something in the style:

“If you are very strong you have to be very kind.”

Anna Luise Kirkengen (among many) are talking about power imbalance and what sort of responsibility that comes for the one with more power.

And I also wonder where do such attitudes come from where you associate with the strong, powerful on behalf of the weak, powerless? However, I have my thoughts about this...

Also see this comment to Paul Krugman's posting "Kings of Pain."

Another commentator writes:

"This is part of a general pernicious belief that can be summarized as 'no pain, no gain' - that we are where we are because we are degenerate and we need to toughen up. The idea that we can work together to get gain with no pain, or even pleasure, does not compute for these people. Of course, these people are only suggesting sacrifice for others."