I'm speaking out loud because you provoked a thought.
> It insulates those who have it from the consequences of suboptimal choices and beliefs.
I don't know that it's fair to associate wealth as the prime mover for poor decision making. Enablment sure, cause no.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I find similar sounding arguments based around this premise:
I could be equating different arguments here, but I don't think I agree with a well shared premise of suffering as a fundamental feature of existing, and often suggested to be required to achieve fulfillment. I don't agree with the idea of endless suffering. Using that premise a start to suggest that I want to end suffering, and use wealth is a means to that. I've heard many religious arguments equally affirm and oppose the "endless suffering" really as a point of view. How does one define suffering?
I want to build wealth to insulate me from the poor decisions that others make that will affect me without my permission or vote. I want the ability to make decisions because I have the opportunity to do better, not because some unfortunate situation made me choose the "lesser of two evils". Of which there is no such thing, evil has no quantity. Not to say these situations will never occur, but wealth as an opportunity to reduce it as much as possible. I'd like to think most people who grew up poor want a life where their decisions aren't made for them because they can't afford the alternative. I think many of us watched are parents die young and work their health away as a sacrifice so the children don't have to make that same sacrifice for next generation.
Simply stated, I'd like as much opportunity as I can to be in control of my decisions or opportunities because I worked built wealth, not because I didn't have a choice. I'd want the same thing to grow for my next generations as well, but I do understand that there are consequences that could be related your argument, I would describe as waste. No one likes a daddies money son for example, who's father insulated them from the tragedies that the majority of humanity must endure. Which is the exact point of view I'm trying to highlight.
Because the majority of humanity does not have the wealth to reduce the suffering of health, education, early death, healthy children, mostly safe environment, community and so on, does that mean it's a permanent fixture? Don't we call this progress now?
I wonder if were creating bridges between some meta and reality that don't exist, or need to exist in these arguments.