Though capital may, on the one hand, be the result of unproductive activity–or of “theft,” as left-wingers might declare–on the other hand, it maybe the fruit of industry and foresight, of self-denial, or of some superiority of gifts. The attack upon capital is not necessarily an attack upon inequity. IN the times which we describe it is is likely to be born of love of ease, detestation of discipline, contempt for the past; for, after all, an accumulation of capital represents an extension of past effort into the present. But self-pampering, present-minded modern man looks neither before nor after; he marks inequalities of condition and, forbidden by his dogmas to admit inequalities of merit, moves to obliterate them. . . Sir Flinders Petrie has written: “When democracy has attained full power, the majority without capital necessarily eat up the capital of the minority, and civilization steadily decays.” Weaver, Richard M., Ideas Have Consequences, p. 115