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.
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.
stated intent goes nowhere to the harm done.
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.
He was definitely that.
> but is it economically smart to declare independence from the most powerful empire of the day?
Yes, if that empire was unfairly taxing you, taking your wealth and impeding your growth/development. But you already knew this.
> Indeed, many of the "elites" at the time sided with the British!
Yes. Some of the elites felt that sticking with britain made the most sense to them. Others did not.
> 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.
Nothing more than "more wealth and power".