The "progressivism sacrifices the interests of the few" trope

Justin Oliver writes, concerning my views on the principles guiding the progressive and right-wing agendas:

It may not have been intended, but the first principle of progressivism, as you have labeled it [ "That the interests of the many should not be sacrificed to sustaining and increasing the wealth and the power of the wealthy and powerful few"], seems to suggest that the few may/should be sacrificed to the interests of the many.

And as a small "l" libertarian, I like to think no proper government should be established to sacrifice people against their own will. [...]

Besides, I just don't believe most Americans are that malevolent.

I respond:

The principle states a positive injunction against doing something.  It does not follow (unless explicitly stated, which it wasn't) that everything besides this positive injunction is permitted.  So, for example, if I say that you cannot spit on the sidewalk, it does not follow that you can kick any passing dog.

In any case, on any reasonable conception of a baseline respecting people's interests, there is no danger that, should the progressive agenda be implemented, the already wealthy and powerful few would have their interests sacrificed to the interests of the many.  They would still be incredibly wealthy and powerful, have healthcare, a cushy retirement, plenty to pass on to their kids, one or more fancy roofs over their head, be able to do and buy anything that anyone who isn't pathologically greedy would want to do or buy, and so on.

The suggestion that the interests of the wealthy and powerful few would be in grievous danger of being sacrificed should restraints be placed on their rapaciousness is yet another instance of right-wing principle R-2---namely, that in order to get people to go along with right-wing principle R-1 (according to which the sustaining and increase of the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful few is to be sought, even at the expense of the interests of the many) it is necessary to disseminate unsound ideology and encourage provincial fear and loathing.

In particular, the libertarian trope that progressivism sacrifices the interests of the few to the interests of the many is unsound ideology, in that it fails to distinguish between interests and inappropriate greed.  If Benj wants more than anything to own and control absolutely everything such that everyone else owns and controls nothing, then not permitting this does not in any reasonable sense count as sacrificing Benj's interests.  More generally, refusing to permit someone to fulfill their unreasonable greed for wealth and power does not count as sacrificing their interests.

And (though I take it you were referring, tongue in cheek, to the supposed malevolence of the many) I do think that the wealthy and powerful few are (with exceptions, of course) pretty malevolent.  Anyone who doesn't think this isn't paying attention.  The average run-of-the-mill right-winger needn't be malevolent---as I say, as per R-2 they have been appropriately misled or brainwashed or distracted into supporting R-1 (though it is usually their ignorance or prejudice that makes them ripe subjects for such tactics).  But I do think that the wealthy and powerful few who pursue the sustenance and increase of their wealth and power knowing full well that doing so involves sacrificing the interests of the many are not only malevolent, but immoral, by any reasonable moral standard.