“And so this is freedom.” Peering up at the tall buildings dotting the
skyline around New York City ’s enchanting Madison Square Park Manhattan landmark,
just up the road from Wall Street.
“Yep!” comes the succinct
reply. Of note is not so much what the
answer states but how it is stated. The
smile is broad and confident. The chest
and shoulders are thrust outward with great pride, like a peacock in full
bloom. The speaker is a recent college
graduate who got a job on Wall Street, working with money. His father has made a career at one of the big multi-national
banks, one that has grown too big to fail.
“Was it your dream to work on
Wall Street? Is this what you always
wanted to do?” The questions are
familiar.
“Yeah, but I intend to work here
only a few years. Then, I’ll have the
money to do what I want --- get married, have kids, raise a family, buy things,
travel … .” In talking about his dreams,
in essence the American Dream, the conversation remains lively, continues for
some time. The questioner permits this
indulgence, as the door has been opened.
The questions continue to probe: “Where did you go to college?”
“Union
College , in upstate New York .”
Founded in 1795, Union College
It is time for an off speed pitch: “Hey, do you know that Franklin
Roosevelt’s father went to that school?”
He replies: “No --- that would be
news to me. I thought I was aware of all
the famous people who went to our school.”
The questioner's curiosity turns to what else this
recent grad might be unaware of. He is
free, that much is true. But does he contemplate
the reality of his freedom, within this concept we call liberty? Does he know that the pursuit of happiness has in fact pre-dated the phenomenon of Wall Street where he works? Does he realize that Wall Street is, and remains,
man’s artificial creation?
What if there were no Wall
Street? What would he be doing
then? He has gone to Wall Street, because
he is incentivized to go. Does he envision
himself as a pawn, or rather --- like a sheep --- chasing money? Hamilton has set it up this way, of course. An
astute student of the most useful “science of human nature,” Alexander Hamilton
has incentivized greed, that vice so prevalent on the dark side of human
nature. The result conceives the
physical greatness of the state, as in material possessions, some say at the
expense of a benign creator. The rest
(including the pursuit of happiness) would fall neatly into place behind it, so
the theory goes. No wonder Jefferson has objected so strenuously.
Individuals should enjoy as much
opportunity and freedom from interference as is necessary to the efficient
performance of their work. The making of
fortunes has been of the utmost benefit to the whole economic engine,
contributing greatly to economic efficiency and productivity. They have been overpaid, but it has been
earned. Individuals must continue to be
encouraged to earn distinction by abundant opportunity and with cordial
appreciation.
But individualism is threatened when forced into a common mold,
as when the ultimate measure of value is the same, and is nothing but its
results in cash. This subtle point does not diminish its importance. The pressing need is to discredit a democracy
of indiscriminate individualism and promote one of selected individuals obliged
constantly to justify their selection, as, for example, by adhering to a
broader standard, which includes the disinterested, ethical obligation that distinguishes the unselfish citizen from the
mere hoarder of gold.
In truth, individuality cannot be dissociated from the pursuit of a
disinterested object.
To the extent that the rule has
tended to create a powerful yet limited class whose object is to hold and
increase the power it has gained, should it be perpetuated? Should individuals be permitted to outlast
their own utility? Or must individual
distinction continue to be earned?
Hostility is not dependent upon the existence of advantageous
discriminations for a time, but upon their persistence for too long a
time. Put another way, can economic power
at least be detached in some measure from its individual creator?
Take the inheritor of a fortune,
who has an opportunity thrust upon him, an economic privilege which he has not
earned and for which he may be wholly incompetent. Individual ability is rarely inherited with
the money. But by virtue of that power
he is primed to exploit his fellow citizens, whose own opportunities are
thereby diminished. His position bestows
upon him a further opportunity to increase his fortune without making any individual
contribution to the social character of the nation.
The money which is a source of
distinction to its maker becomes a source of individual demoralization to its
inheritor. His life is organized for the
purpose of spending a larger income than any private individual can really
need. In time it can hardly fail to
corrupt him. As a consequence, the
social bond upon which the political bond depends is loosened. The result is class envy on one side, and
class arrogance or contempt on the other, unity coming at a cost of a mixture
of patronage, servility and debt.
