On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:13 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote:
> Re: Berg's comment below ..... > > > "But doesn't self-interest eventually evolve into special interests who try > to influence the decision-maker with money?" > > I reply: > > That seems to be the case nowadays but the USA Founding Fathers had the > notion > of Virtue, which to them meant that a moral sense of the good (good for the > country and good for all) would always trump excessive self interest. > Their > arguments were centered on scale. They believed that local situations in > society and commerce would exaggerate self interest at the expense, > sometimes, > of the larger society and thus a Federal government with a larger national > viewpoint would offset those local interests. Thus the 'narrow interest' > states were balanced against the central government. The early leaders > tended > to be rich, independent men who presumably couldn't be 'bought' by private > interests but of course they tended to represent 'property' interests > anyway, > but not as blatantly as today. Nobody talks about Virtue anymore in the > same > sense that the founding fathers imagined it. Now it's the term extremists > use > when they want to evoke a sickly sentimentalism that masks egregious > restrictions on freedom, oddly. > > Concerning virtue, the following recent article says: - The language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous).<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-st ink.html%20-%20The%20language%20of%20meritocracy%20(how%20to%20succeed)%20has %20eclipsed%20the%20language%20of%20morality%20(how%20to%20be%20virtuous).> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html<ht tp://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html%20-% 20The%20language%20of%20meritocracy%20(how%20to%20succeed)%20has%20eclipsed%2 0the%20language%20of%20morality%20(how%20to%20be%20virtuous).>
