A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." – George Bernard Shaw

In the ancient world, governance was often a balancing act between justice and power, between the will of the ruler and the needs of the people. The great philosophers of old, such as Plato and Aristotle, pondered deeply the nature of government and the relationship between the governed and their rulers. In this timeless context, George Bernard Shaw's words cut to the heart of a fundamental truth about power and politics: that governments, when faced with the challenge of maintaining authority, may find a clever way to secure the loyalty of the people by redistributing wealth, even if it means taking from one to give to another. Shaw’s quote speaks to the political maneuvering that has existed since the dawn of civilization—using the resources of one group to secure the support of another, thus creating a cycle of dependence that ultimately undermines true justice.

In ancient Rome, the plebeians and patricians represented the two main classes of society, often in direct conflict. The patricians, with their wealth and power, controlled most of the resources, while the plebeians—the working class—often found themselves struggling to survive. The great rulers of Rome, recognizing the potential for discontent, often used a tactic not unlike Shaw’s description. They would redistribute wealth, giving food, land, or rights to the plebeians in exchange for support and loyalty. The infamous bread and circuses—the promise of free grain and entertainment—were designed to appease the masses, ensuring their compliance and deflecting their focus from the deeper inequities in Roman society. The manipulation of resources to secure power is an age-old strategy, one that Shaw rightly observes as a tool for gaining favor with those whose support is needed to maintain control.

Consider the ancient kingdom of Egypt, where the great pharaohs often secured the loyalty of the people by using the resources of the land—grain, labor, and wealth—to maintain a form of stability and order. Pharaoh Ramses II, one of Egypt’s most celebrated rulers, built monumental temples and distributed resources to his people, ensuring their loyalty. The masses, given access to land, protection, and the sustenance they needed to survive, were willing to support their rulers in return for their needs being met. Shaw’s words ring true here: the pharaoh, by using the wealth of the kingdom to placate the common people, ensured the loyalty of those who depended on him, even if the broader structure of the system remained unjust.

This same dynamic plays out throughout history. Take, for example, the rise of feudalism in medieval Europe, where lords and kings would often take from the landless serfs, only to redistribute the wealth in the form of protection or land to those who could serve them. The serfs, in turn, became dependent on their lords, securing their loyalty through the distribution of resources. Shaw’s observation about the cyclical nature of redistribution in a hierarchical society echoes through time—where the powerful take from one group, give to another, and in doing so, secure their power through dependence.

Shaw’s observation also speaks to the inherent danger of such systems. While governments may indeed find temporary stability through these tactics, they risk creating a cycle of dependency that ultimately stifles true independence and freedom. Paul, in this equation, becomes dependent on the handouts of government, and his support is bought with promises of continued sustenance. But in the end, this creates a society where people are no longer empowered to shape their own destinies. They are kept in a perpetual state of reliance, never truly able to break free from the chains of their dependence.

The lesson from Shaw’s insight is one of awareness—of recognizing the long-term consequences of systems that create dependency in exchange for loyalty. Such systems may bring short-term stability, but they also weaken the spirit of self-sufficiency and personal empowerment. In the modern world, we must ask ourselves whether we are building systems that enable people to thrive on their own, or whether we are merely reinforcing the chains of dependency. True progress lies not in keeping people reliant on handouts, but in creating structures that encourage independence, self-reliance, and shared responsibility.

As we move forward in life and leadership, we should be mindful of the delicate balance between providing for the needs of others and empowering them to stand on their own. Let us not fall into the trap of creating systems of dependency, but instead, let us build a world where people have the tools, resources, and opportunities to shape their own futures. By fostering independence and self-determination, we create a more just and sustainable society—one where the needs of the people are met not through the manipulation of power, but through the equitable and honest distribution of resources. The true strength of any government lies not in securing loyalty through handouts, but in creating a society where all can thrive and stand on their own.