05-23-2018, 05:14 PM
(05-23-2018, 05:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's interesting, but I'm probably a better spectator. I mean in my head we can talk about income inequality from the days of slavery, but virtually everybody has a hand held computer that would embarrass any computer found on an Apollo spacecraft. I understand that's quality of life vs income inequality, but still...things can't be that bad.
Well, when we dig into why the author is discussing this, we can see why it is bad. Societies throughout history have fallen because of economic instability and inequality. This is why governments have been formed taking that into account in their structure. Even by taking it into account, what Sitaraman refers to as class warfare constitutions, we have seen strife between the plebs and the patricians end governments.
Our constitution is what he refers to as a middle-class constitution, relying on the relative equality of our nation to keep the stability in place for our government to exist. If the economic equality does not exist as the founders anticipated it, then the constitution is on shaky grounds.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
