> It's the moral imperative of every country to optimize for its citizens' economic prospects.

"Moral imperative"? No country was ever created out of a moral imperative. None. Also, no country was ever created to optimize for its citizens' economic prospects. Every country was created by the elites for the benefits of the elites.

▲

echelon 3 days ago | parent [-]

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The intent is there.

It's an incredibly complex distributed system with millions of actors and interactions, entrenched powers, regulatory capture, Citizens United, etc. It has to be defended and garbage collected.

▲

cladopa 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't want to fight against decades of State propaganda and indoctrination, but do you realise that by "men" they were not referring to black slaves or Mexicans in Texas or California or native Americans(the best Indian in the dead Indian).

▲

justatdotin 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

well, from my perspective in an occupied Territory, it has to defied and sent home.

stated intent goes nowhere to the harm done.

▲

coliveira 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You mean, the fiction is there. They did use a lot of nice words, but the reality is a bunch of slave owners creating a society controlled by oligarchs.

▲

hearsathought 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The intent is there.

The declaration of independence was written by one of the wealthiest slave owners in the country. "Moral imperative" was certainly not behind the american revolution. The economic interests of the elites were. There are no saints in politics. Just interests - mostly of the elites.

▲

godsinhisheaven 3 days ago | parent [-]

This is an extremely reductive take. Thomas Jefferson was a hero and a scholar! Think about the times he lived in, everyone lived under some sort of aristocratic monarchy, that was the norm. Certainly there were some economic interests at play in tge Revolution, but is it economically smart to declare independence from the most powerful empire of the day? Indeed, many of the "elites" at the time sided with the British! There had to be something more than just "class interests" at play to convince these wealthy elites to renounce their fealty to their government, giving up all legal claims to their property and indeed their very lives, should the revolutionaries have lost.

	▲	rixed 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Both the most vulgar and selfish interest, and the most principled passions, seems to play a role in history at different times. The most important contributing factor, though, is selfish interest of large groups of people, because the sun of it's many little influences do not cancel out, unlike the actions of principled actors. In exceptional times, good intends are allowed to take the front seat just as long as necessary, by the many behind the scene who will silently weight toward the prompt reestablishment of "business as usual".