Like others, I request that you define what “things” you’re talking about. I believe that all human beings should have freedom and that government should exist to protect that freedom, as outlined by the founding fathers of the USA and by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Government leaders should be chosen democratically, with anyone of any income level allowed to run. In all other organizations, participation is voluntary. If a leader is needed, the participants will find a way to choose that leader. I have no particular bias for or against wealthy leaders. Voluntary organizations have the advantage that if a leader leads badly, the participants have options to either remove the leader or simply stop participating. Hence a bad leader eventually either gets replaced, or else the organization eventually fades away. In government, on the other hand, bad leaders often stick around for a very long time.
I believe that freedom and democracy are desirable as ends in themselves, and that’s there no need to explain why I support them.
I can’t get any real meaning from this question. In my understanding, economic policy is not split such that some policies help the wealthy and others help the poor. Instead, there are some policies–high taxes and intrusive regulation–that hurt both the rich and the poor, and there are some policies–low taxes and a government that stays within its Constitutional limits–that help both the rich and the poor. When wealthy innovators such as Henry Ford innovate, they benefit both the rich and the poor and everyone in between. When new technologies appear and new methods of production drive prices down, that benefits the rich, the poor, and the middle class. When taxes and regulation stifle innovation, that hurts the rich, the poor, and the middle class.