Great article again, Brad. To me a simplistic explanation to your question about unchecked economics is a combination of two key factors: 1) many of our leaders in power see individual gain, and the promise of it, is more important than equilibrium (and keeps them in office), and 2) the lack of knowledge in society that we are unbalanced or that more balance is advantageous to equality.
Thanks for 'liking' and commenting, Kevin. I think you're right about those two things. I recently read "The Hamilton Scheme: An Epic Tale of Money and Power in the American Founding" by William Hogeland where he talks about the word 'democracy' as being a dirty word by the powerful elite land and business owners (i.e. most of the founding and fathers and authors of the constitution...notably Robert Morris).
While the elite and working class shared a common interest in separating from England in the interest of freedom and equality, farmers and the working class also saw and opportunity for freedom and equality from the growing ruling class in the colonies. The word 'democracy' was interpreted as 'mob rule' by the ruling class but as a great 'levelling' by the working class.
So much of what is relevant today, from populism to elitism; democracy versus oligarchy; working class versus managerial class; party radicals versus party leadership; wealth concentration and income inequality to the topic of my essay -- regulation versus free-enterprise, was all present at our nation's founding.
But it was the voice and action of people like Thomas Paine (or Roger Williams a century before) that stood on the side of a common and shared human morality...and they indeed made a difference in shaping elements of our country's moral philosophy. It's worth noting, Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' and Paine's 'Common Sense' were both published in 1776!
Great article again, Brad. To me a simplistic explanation to your question about unchecked economics is a combination of two key factors: 1) many of our leaders in power see individual gain, and the promise of it, is more important than equilibrium (and keeps them in office), and 2) the lack of knowledge in society that we are unbalanced or that more balance is advantageous to equality.
Thanks for 'liking' and commenting, Kevin. I think you're right about those two things. I recently read "The Hamilton Scheme: An Epic Tale of Money and Power in the American Founding" by William Hogeland where he talks about the word 'democracy' as being a dirty word by the powerful elite land and business owners (i.e. most of the founding and fathers and authors of the constitution...notably Robert Morris).
While the elite and working class shared a common interest in separating from England in the interest of freedom and equality, farmers and the working class also saw and opportunity for freedom and equality from the growing ruling class in the colonies. The word 'democracy' was interpreted as 'mob rule' by the ruling class but as a great 'levelling' by the working class.
So much of what is relevant today, from populism to elitism; democracy versus oligarchy; working class versus managerial class; party radicals versus party leadership; wealth concentration and income inequality to the topic of my essay -- regulation versus free-enterprise, was all present at our nation's founding.
But it was the voice and action of people like Thomas Paine (or Roger Williams a century before) that stood on the side of a common and shared human morality...and they indeed made a difference in shaping elements of our country's moral philosophy. It's worth noting, Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' and Paine's 'Common Sense' were both published in 1776!
Interesting, Brad.
These themes endure. I hope we have a moral governor to keep the balance going forward. Thanks for expanding minds with your knowledge.