Scott examines why the rich appear to influence politics despite theoretical barriers, proposing that moral philosophies may emerge to solve wealthy coordination problems. Longer summary

This post explores the paradox of how the rich seem to influence politics despite the free-rider problem that should theoretically prevent such coordination. Scott starts by explaining why it's not in an individual rich person's self-interest to donate to political causes, even if the outcome would benefit them. He then proposes two possible explanations: either the rich influence politics through 'soft power', or they participate due to sincere moral beliefs that happen to align with their financial interests. The latter explanation leads to a fascinating hypothesis about how moral philosophies might 'spring up' to solve coordination problems among the wealthy. Scott concludes by noting the implications of this idea, including its potential application to other conspiracy theories and why the poor don't seem to coordinate as effectively. Shorter summary