The most pressing issue facing the state of Connecticut is to get the unemployed working again by fostering an environment of job creation, not government dependency. Unemployment remains high, alongside the state’s inability to promote any net job growth for the past 22 years. The reversal of this trend depends upon whether Connecticut voters are willing to bring bi-partisanship and new ways of thinking to the federal and state delegations in Washington and Hartford this November.

There are several reasons why unemployment continues to remain high, and job creation abysmally low in Connecticut: (1) elected officials on all levels are controlled by a strict one-party domination, there is no tolerance for any new blood or fresh ideas, and; (2) the state government has continued to over tax, recklessly spend, and invest poorly public resources.

An example of the outdated thinking of Connecticut’s public officials is the recently implemented Unemployment Insurance Surcharge policy. The state’s federal delegates helped secure a $900 million loan for Connecticut to cover its unemployment insurance program. This policy is a strategy to help Americans transition from one job to the next, not to encourage a new form of lifestyle. Considering therefore this surcharge alongside Connecticut’s poor spending habits, the state’s government has been frantically searching for money to cover the loan’s interest, not including the borrowed amount. The solution state officials have pursued to finance the loan’s interest is a $25 fee on business owners, per employee they have on their payroll. Here is the policy in a nutshell: the state’s lawmakers took borrowed federal money for a state which had no money on hand, gave that money to those who produced no labor, and then financed it by a policy of taxing a person based upon the number of people they employ. It is evident who is pulling their fair share in this equation: the hardworking laborer and business owner.

The state’s one-party domination has created a closed political environment, one which produces backwards solutions resulting in nothing more than fraudulent welfare spending and higher taxes upon the honest working man. If Connecticut is to see its unemployed numbers go down, its job growth turn around, and its government regain a sound footing, the state will should commit to the following: (i) elect a bi-partisan leadership to check the abusive power of a one-party rule, (ii) establish a less complicated and burdensome business tax code, and, (iii) seek to reverse government policies that allow for reckless spending and fraud. The United States was not made the country it is by being a nation of bureaucrats, nor one comprised of deserving cases, but by a nation of patriotic citizens who invest in their labor, and take their own part in life.

The notion that the United States Constitution was instituted by the Founding Fathers as a means to thwart democratic government and participation throws the entire American political tradition and understanding on its head. This premise is exactly what Sheldon Wolin asserts and is discussed by James P. Young in chapter sixteen, Problems with Liberalism, in his book, Reconsidering American Liberalism. Throughout the book Young uses Louis Hartz’s thesis describing Lockean Liberalism and the subsequent Consensus Theory, [a theory that claims regardless of apparent differences, a majority of people agree on certain liberal political tendencies], as the dominant force in American politics. Young evolves the understanding and complexity of liberalism [and its relationship with republicanism] and it’s many forms throughout American history until chapter sixteen, where he introduces alternative and conflicting theories surrounding liberalism. The first sentence Young writes after introducing Sheldon Wolin states, “…[his] position in contemporary American thought is virtually unique, so much so that he is difficult to classify ideologically…”[i] Therefore this paper will seek to lay out the unique ideological framework of Sheldon Wolin’s critique of the American political system and understanding of liberalism, his form of democratic populism, discuss its implications, and provide and anaylyze Young’s response to it. Lastly, the final section of this document will consist of this writer’s brief personal reflection of the material presented by both Young and Wolin regarding liberalism and democratic populism.

Sheldon Wolin’s Critique

There is one quality of Sheldon Wolin’s theory that is different from the several other liberal frameworks presented throughout Young’s book – it is difficult to classify ideologically, yet it is direct and straight to the point. For example, in the conclusion of the book, Young writes (in regards to addressing distinctions between republicanism and liberalism of the Founding Fathers), “…those earlier men were revolutionaries and constitution writers. Many were acute thinkers – we would be lucky to have their equals today in places of power – but they were truly political theorists, whose efforts were not designed to satisfy scholars in graduate seminars.”[ii] While a lifetime seems to be insufficient to thoroughly study and analyze the Founding Fathers and their thoughts and theories, Sheldon Wolin relays his fundamental premise with more direct clarity asserting his, “…deepest concern is with democracy; his radicalism appears in his contention that there is no single institution in America today that is democratic in character.”[iii] While there may be qualms with the arguments he lays out in defense of his premise, the fundamental assertion is quite clear – democracy in America is non-existent. What Wolin means as democracy is not derived from the modern definitions of the word, but holds truer to the literal meaning of democracy – demos-, ‘the people’ [or common populace] and –kratia, which is a form of social organization, originating from the Greek word kratos meaning ‘strength.’[iv] In this case, “strength, or strong organization of the common people.”

The source that creates this lack of democracy, and the various institutions and places within society where democracy is thwarted, are clearly identified by Wolin when he writes,

“Every one of the country’s primary institutions – the business cooperation, the government bureaucracy, the trade union, the research and education industries, the mass propaganda and entertainment media, and the health and welfare system – is antidemocratic in spirit, design, and operation. Each is hierarchical in structure, authority oriented, opposed in principle to equal participation, unaccountable to the citizenry, elitist and managerial, and disposed to concentrate increasing power in the hands of the few and to reduce political life to administration.”[v]

Wolin’s rejection of the idea that the United States of America espouses democratic practices and institutions of all kinds is accompanied by other rejections, for example, of social contract theory and the notion that the United States Constitution therefore didn’t not establish American democratic practices and traditions. In brief, Wolin rejects contract theory on the grounds that it is built on two mythical assumptions: (a) that the contracting individuals are equal because they have no history and (b) that the contract represents a fresh start, “as in a footrace.” As Wolin describes, “the contract depends upon a collective amnesia,” and thus dismisses the idea of contract theory altogether as implausible. In addition to his rejection to contract theory, Wolin claims the Madisonian solution to the problem of authority is a version of the theory of pluralism, and was not a noble attempt to restrict the power of the state – so much as it was an effort to save the state from democratization.[vi]  As Young writes, “Wolin reminds us that the pluralist theory, which sees society as nothing but a congeries of groups, subverts the very idea of “the people” as a body political, an idea that further undercuts the legitimacy of a democratic political system.”[vii]

To discuss this critique of liberalism further, Wolin argues that this pluralism in society “pits the need for group participation and representation against the need for technically sound solutions that can be administered by hierarchical, rigid bureaucracies.”[viii] Therefore, Young puts Wolin’s opposition to the Constitution and its liberal foundation into context by claiming the state to be the “Anti-Federalist nightmare come to pass.” He describes how the Constitution and the consecration of the Federalist Papers as the interpretation of the document resulted in a theoretical coup, and thus the implementation of a nationalist culture and political system that replaced or thwarted any attempt to establish an organic, and highly decentralized form of government. The Constitution established the workable foundation for the development of a large state to work in tandem with the economy, thus the Founding Fathers abandoned democracy in regards to its fundamental understanding. Therefore, individual rights were important to the Anti-Federalists “primarily to protect the localities from the potential for abuse by the new state that was looming up.”[ix]

The arguments put forward by Wolin indicate that the contemporary form of government is nothing more than a megastate, a governmental entity that maintains a large geopolitical and administrative influence, which has established a society and system where elections are shames; money buys political power; Americans are becoming increasingly demoralized and depoliticized; interest groups are out of control; the party system is, at times, insignificant; and a system where constitutional democracy is democracy without the demos– as an actor. Further, the  In addition, Wolin is highly sceptical of a society of elites who utilize rational and scientific methods to advance and organize government and society. In Wolin’s own words, he writes that American government has reached a “level of political deliberation somewhere between idiocy and prolonged adolescence.”[x] A substantial contribution to this current lack of demoracy and dire state of affairs as witnessed and outlined by Wolin is founded alongside the idea that the problems arising from modernity have created a democratic crisis. Young explains that Wolin sees, “…any attempt to use the state as an aid to solving the problems of modernity has only succeeding in making it part of the problem.” This is emphasized throughout Wolin’s critique citing the Great Society programs and the “War on Poverty,” and concluding that minorities are not better off, and that poverty decisively ‘won the war on itself’.[xi] Therefore what does Sheldon Wolin propose to replace the current system with? Will Wolin’s proposals be the solution to the current perceived problems of society and create what Wolin sees as true democratic government? Lastly, what are the implications and realizations of Wolin’s vision for a democratic form of government where it is the populace [demos-] that actually controls the means of societal administration?

Great Visions Permit Proportional Implications

The Vision –

James Young states that “the new politics [of Wolin] that is required will be revolutionary, though definitely nonviolent. The model for revolutionary politics is, surprisingly, in the theory of John Locke. For Locke, revolution was justified after ‘a long train of abuses.’ And he [Locke] was remarkably open to a democratic revolution that would generate new forms of power.”[xii] The major emphasis of Wolin’s revolutionary vision to replace the current governmental and administrative system is on ‘localities.’ In other words, the revitalization of local sources of power, “from the family to the workplace, to the towns and cities, to name only a few possibilities.”[xiii] Sheldon Wolin, who collaborated extensively on this democratic populist theory of local revitalization at Berkeley University in California, tended to focus “on small-scale political units, citizen participation, close popular control of government, and the priority of politics over economics.”[xiv] Wolin is demonstrated to have bitterly quoted Bertolt Brecht, a 20th century German poet and playwright,

“Wouldn’t it

be simpler in that case if the government

Dissolved the people and

Elected another?”

This quote and its proposition is clearly the kind of system and rational elitism that Wolin fears the most, and despises the greatest. His task is to lay out a framework that concentrates political and administrative power into localities whether they be with the family, a community, town, or city, instead of all administrative units and duties being the primary function of a centralized and distant megastate. Young states on page 299 that Wolin acknowledges these types of political systems having once existed before the Civil War as United States citizens migrated westward. The settlers utilized systems that met the immediate and pressing needs of their community. This activity, however, began to diminish after the American Civil War, as the state and its economic “base grew larger and more bureaucratized, creating, in spite of shame struggles, an ever tighter union between state and economy.” Therefore, because of this realization and due to the lack of a truly democratic form of government, Wolin argues the United States has ceased to rely on religious, moral, or ethical terms to understand and evaluate the legitimacy and performance of the American political system.

The Implications –

The attempt to realize this ‘democratic crisis’ and implement Wolin’s new system of government and local administration would, in turn, establish a periodic crisis in American collective identity, which he ironically asserts is so characteristic of our current system.[xv] When it came to the understanding of the current megastate being inadequate to solve the problems of modernity, one assumes that Wolin’s local approach would be an alternative and satisfying one to alleviate this realization. Young writes, however, that Wolin admits ‘localism’ has inherent limits, and is “politically incomplete.” Young writes, “there are problems in society that are general rather than parochial. At times it is necessary to seek out the evanescent homogeneity of a broader political [kratos]. What this seems to imply is, willy-nilly, an appeal to inherently antidemocratic forces of the state. Thus Wolin reaches the grim conclusion that democracy is ‘doomed to succeed only temporarily’; he is sure that no one really believes that ‘the people’ actually rule in any of the industrialized democracies of the world today.”[xvi]

Young’s Response and Critique of Wolin’s “Local” Approach

James Young partially concedes to some aspects of Wolin’s arguments that the current system under the megastate suffers from elections that are sometimes shames; sees money buy political power, which makes Americans increasingly demoralized and depoliticized; permits interest groups to be out of control; as well as continue a party system that is, at times, insignificant, however Young does not let Wolin off scot-free. In regards to Wolin’s beliefs on social contract theory, Young writes, “I have no wish to deny that the Constitution was designed with a certain antidemocratic intent, which is subject to serious criticism. But aside from the fact that Wolin’s is an exceptionally strict standard, his position overlooks the fact that the demos- may do things that violate the necessary requirements of democracy by any conceivable criterion.”[xvii] Young also is not entirely convinced with Wolin’s assertion that the current megastate is incapable of adequately addressing and solving the problems arisen from modernity. Young writes, “indeed it is not clear that the state, as seems so commonly believed, automatically bungles whatever it attempts.”[xviii] Young responds to these charges of the current state and the perceived problems of modernity, citing how the war on poverty was greatly affected by the simultaneous war in Vietnam [in regards to cost and total resource allocation]; and  asking who would really wish to have the government abandon the numerous effective safety regulations regarding prescription drug manufacturing and marketing, among other important industries and trade items.[xix] Also, Young adequately lays out that Wolin and some of those who have critiqued the proposal, such as George Kateb, claim that Wolin has a “tendency to criticize rights when they have led to bad results. Thus he appears ready to suppress antidemocratic speech by the Ku Klux Klan and, by extension, may be expected to endorse anti-hate speech laws.”[xx] This is a serious contradiction in regards to demanding more actual democracy, while simultaneously proposing antidemocratic proposals to situations that may be difficult to digest or manage.

Young acknowledges that despite the radical proposals put forward by Wolin, this democratic revolutionary thinker understands that the megastate is not going to disappear. Young writes on page 302, “Wolin’s disaffection from contemporary politics is so great that his conclusions read like a cry of despair, a lament for the loss of something of unutterable beauty.” Young concedes that Wolin is correct in asserting that the costs associated “with the large state are huge. The security it provides is frequently minimal at best; it offers little to anyone imbued with the ideal of truly democratic participation.”[xxi] The author concludes his response by identifying what he perceives to be Wolin’s dilemma in American politics, writing that movements for democratization result in the growth of government, and then the cycle is endlessly repeated. He includes an aphorism by Henry Kariel, an American political scientist and author, “Just as small-scale, humanly comprehensible groupings are essential, so are large scale, humanly incomprehensible ones.”

Personal Reflections and Responses

There are a three items the writer of this paper wishes to briefly reflect upon regarding the democratic populist proposal, and Young’s subsequent responses to the various aspects of Wolin’s general critique and vision.  First, Wolin’s argument that the Madisonian solution to authority, destroys the essence of “the people,” and therefore thwarts a true American democracy is misleading. The liberal understanding that minorities or factional groups within the common populace will emerge is typically the result of families, communities, towns or cities gathering together to administer their local activities. For example, Koch Industries is an American faction as a result of a locality, i.e. the family, seeking to administer its own business and political interests. Therefore, what is to say that Wolin’s notion of allowing families, towns, or cities directly administer their political activities such as education, healthcare, etc will not factionalize the common populace as he argues the Madisonian solution does? This would then most likely result in a decentralized and by that logic [regionalized] system of direct administration. Therefore the second item focuses on the question – would localized [or regionalized] administrations be able to adequately and responsibly create a comprehensible and harmonious functioning society that embodies and produces a national aim or security? After all, the Italy of the 15th and 16th centuries should be a valuable historical lesson to the consequences of a collective and similar group of cultures seeking to maintain strict local administrative and political control of distinctly drawn regions.

Third, I found the manner in which Young classified Wolin as a Conservative and Radical perhaps misleading in some areas.  For example on page 295, Young writes, “His approach is simultaneously conservative and radical – conservative in his concern to preserve the past and honor the complexity of politics and the human condition and in his distrust of contemporary social science, not to mention the entire modern technological project. It is radical in the classic sense of going to the root while at the same time rejecting ideological frameworks that merely reflect the politics and ideas of the contemporary status quo.” While the radical assertion seems to be spot on in regards to Wolin’s fundamental approach, there seems to be nothing remotely close to conservative about the democratic populist approach. For example, if we are to understand the underlying philosophies of Young’s Lockean and Laissez-Faire liberalism, then many of the conservatives in the American political tradition tend to be fundamentally liberal. Young writes on page 236, “much conservative thought is also clearly not traditional in anything like the European sense,” therefore to claim Wolin’s proposal as conservative simply because he has “concern to preserve the past” proves little in that regards.

In conclusion, however, the proposal, theories, and arguments presented by Wolin certainly are unique and deserve a place within Young’s book, Reconsidering American Liberalism. The United States Constitution and the individual men who founded it will always be under careful scrutiny by posterity, but as Young points out, Wolin applies a distinctly harsh standard upon the nature of the Constitution and upon the theories and assumption the Founding Fathers, such as theories Madison utilized while helping to craft it. While finding a solution that makes American society more democratic in regards to the actual understanding of the word seems plausible and ideal, it is not only difficult, but would create a whole new series of problems that currently do not exist under the state. Therefore while Wolin should be recognized for his truly novel and courageous attempts at reconciling America’s past, Constitution, and political and economic system in relation to democracy, there are still many inconsistencies and questions to be addressed from his proposal that are left unanswered.

[i] Young, James P. Reconsidering American Liberalism: The Troubled Odyssey of the Liberal Idea. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996. Print. Page 295

[ii] Ibid. Page 328

[iii] Ibid. Page 296

[iv] “Democracy.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <;.

[v] Young, James P. Reconsidering American Liberalism: The Troubled Odyssey of the Liberal Idea. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996. Print. Page 296

[vi] Ibid. Page 297

[vii] Ibid. Page 297-8

[viii] Ibid. Page 298

[ix] Ibid. Page 298

[x] Ibid. Page 299

[xi] Ibid. Page 301

[xii] Ibid. Page 302

[xiii] Ibid. Page 302

[xiv] Ibid. Page 299

[xv] Ibid. Page 301

[xvi] Ibid. Page 302

[xvii] Ibid. Page 303

[xviii] Ibid. Page 304

[xix] Ibid. Page 304

[xx] Ibid. Page 304

[xxi] Ibid. Page 305

The briefest post, but also the most responsible and concise one to date:

In 1775, the Shot Heard ‘Round the World was fired when General Gage was marching on the armory at Concord to confiscate all weapons from the militia in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

What is interesting about Genearl Gage’s move, is not that it was a British General confiscating American weapons, but that it was a British General confiscating weapons of British subjects. Even after the rise and domination of the citizen in politics, the example holds true to this present day.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The National Socialist German Workers Party and the Kingdom of Italy/Italian Social Republic in the early 20th century sought to limit gun ownership, little by little, until owning a gun became illegal. What were their programs for governance and society?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Given the result of both examples and how they were to eventually meet on the battle field of posterity decades and decades later, only begs the question, which is the right course of action? What would you rather see? A citizenry that is armed and knowledgeable of their past, or an ignorant, and fickle mass of people to be disregarded once more?

Let it be acknowledged that there are serious issues that need to be resolved within government and society. The status quo, no matter the political persuasion one adheres to, needs reform. Observing the Occupy protests firsthand has forced the question upon their activity, when is enough, really enough? The ever-shifting, constantly morphing ideals, ideas, and ideologies of these protesters demonstrates their discontent with the current status quo. What it also makes visible, is their inherent disregard and lack of overall understanding of the forces in the society to which they subscribe.

The proud and thunderous proclamations of the protesters, “This is what democracy looks like!” are washed away when those very same voices say that “it’s not so much about the demands, but using a real democratic process,” whatever that actually means. The Tea Party grew out of similar discord with the status quo of government activity, yet the Occupy participants, who are just as frustrated and angry, seem to be less organized, live where they protest, and rely on outside and non-participating supporters to assist them with basic hygiene. Further, the Tea Party has an organized and cohesive set of goals that consist of demanding policies of responsible, low taxation and limiting the power and size of government. The Tea Party is organized to the extent that they have succeeded in electing representatives to high office. The Occupy movement preaches the virtue of “the mood de jour” and the tenets of how wealthy citizens are inherently evil. Sound messy? It is.

Therefore, let our civilization reflect that fundamental discontent with the status quo is visible on many levels, however the reaction to it has varied drastically. Some elements seek to organize, establish goals, achieve their goals, and even become represented within our cherished democratic institutions. Others find it more conducive to camp out, ask for food, request help with their dirty laundry, and refuse to shower for weeks on end. Whether you agree with one phenomenon or the other, one thing is certain: if you want something, you must work for it. If you need something, you must find it. The culture of dependency is not what makes a more efficient and well-functioning society; it is what enables a crisis to continue. It is easy to tell people to just go out and get a job, but it is even easier to demand that everything must be handed to them, simply because one exists. If great things are to come from this rising generation, it will not be found within the unchecked fears of their hearts, but from the discipline, focus, and strength of their souls.

Overview –

This report will cover a wide range of material to establish a clear construct as to how Connecticut’s taxation policies are to be understood as violent by identifying specific behavioral rationalizations. Concerning the state’s constant taxation debate however, whether listening to organizations such as Connecticut Voices for Children, Better Choices for Connecticut, or the Yankee Institute for Public Policy Analysis, there is a major inquisitive theme addressed by all relevant organizations alike – “who is paying their fair share?” The former organizations tend to say that the wealthier citizens are not paying their fair share, while the later group indicates that this is clearly not the case. The focal point regarding the nature of the Connecticut taxation debate will be around the theme, “who is paying their faire share,” given the frequency it is used within public debates from within and outside the state’s government. It becomes visible then how special interest groups within and outside the government participate in understanding and thus potentially shaping what the state’s taxation policy is to be every two years [CT passes a biennial, or two-year budget][i]. The basic structure of the overall debate can roughly be formulated as follows:


(taxation) x –> (should be) y while the other side insists, y –> z


Therefore, insisting that violence can be understood in a more evolved manner, whether if it is public rhetoric used within a policy debate or by actual means of wealth extraction through budgetary measures [taxation and spending], allows us to question this traditionally understood phenomenon as ultimately a turbulent, intense and at times furious action[ii] – hence violent.

The word violence often tends to conjure up images of destruction, war, and other vividly horrific notions, however in this particular instance is it possible for the word to take on another form of understanding? Is it possible to assert that the taxation policy of the state of Connecticut is violent? This analysis will demonstrate how the Connecticut taxation policy’s overall structure is inherently violent by understanding the behavioral motivations behind it. This will not be the typical inspection into Connecticut tax policy seeking to analyze institutional structure and procedure or independent economic trends, but rather insist on a dissection of the very foundational items of the phenomenon through both a philosophical and concrete lens. In other words, this analysis will evolve the current popular notions as to what violence is, where the violence comes from, and how it is to be applied to the state’s taxation policy’s effect on the health of the economic productivity. How is it then that a taxation policy can create violence?

Utilizing the theme of the state’s taxation debate, “who is paying their fair share,” enables this report to dissect the basic philosophical concepts present within the rationalization of those individuals who ultimately formulate and implement the taxation policy of the state. Keeping to the established taxation debate theme, in addition to the general formula/structure of the debate itself, the first section of this analysis will focus on scrutinizing the basic components of “pay” and “fair.” From this dissection will emerge the fundamental philosophical rationalization of government officials in how they interpret, influence, and then shape taxation policy. This paper does not seek to critique government institutions and procedures as the major causation of violent tax policy, but rather identify and focuses upon the fundamental source which formulates policy, individual people. If “fair” was to be simplified, “equality” emerges as the fundamental concept in the taxation debate. Looking at “pay” then allows the concept of equality to be put into specific context regarding the individual thought on one side of the debate and the other. Given the economic nature and implications of taxation policy in general, the subsequent simplification and overall understanding of the taxation theme can be asserted to a psychological or behavioral normative – Envy.

The second section of this report will outline how the distinct rationalizations of government individuals on the notion of equality, within the context of “pay” or “material possession,” is determined by their behavioral disposition relating to Envy. In Latin, the word for envy is invidere, which broken down means “to see.”[iii] The most basic understanding as to the origins of the meaning of envy is an individual ‘taking notice’ or ‘seeing’ another individual or group with some “thing” that might invoke a mild discomfort or potentially a fitful fury; thus invoking a response of some sort. For this analysis envy will be generally described as, “that passion which views with malignant dislike the superiority of those who are really entitled to all the superiority they possess.”[iv] From this understanding of envy, it will become evident how government officials, as well as groups within the taxation debate rationalize the formulation of the taxation debate; and thus, how their specific taxation policy conclusions affects the health of the state’s economy. Selected case studies of the state’s tax policies’ effects of various economic activities within the state of Connecticut will accompany the two major sections of this report throughout. These case studies will be analyzed utilizing the established tax debate theme alongside the construct of violence caused by envious behavioral characteristics. Therefore this paper will argue that Connecticut’s state taxation policies are violent in respect to its relationship with the structure, functioning, and economic developmental capacities of the state’s economy; and said violence, in particular to its derivation, are a direct consequent of the persons’ [those whom have participated and shaped said taxation policies] innate behavioural characteristics of envy.


Section One:

Paying Your Fair Share – What Does It Mean?

Who is paying their fair share? This has been the question of taxation policy not just within the state of Connecticut, but nationally as well. Given the frequency in which this theme is expressed from both sides, regardless of interpretation at this juncture, indicates that it is certainly a central theme to Connecticut taxation policy in general. Therefore, it will be used as the starting point to understanding the basic rationalization of various government individuals, who seek to interpret, influence, and formulate the state’s tax policy. The first focal point will be “fair” and how this is to be simplified into an understanding of “equality.” This simplification will then be placed in the context of the theme by analyzing and simplifying “pay” as essentially nothing more than identifying a group or person regarding their “material possession.” The analysis of this section will produce two understood forms of equality that effect the rationalization of individuals who influence and formulate taxation policy, in regards to the established tax debate theme. The first notion will identify “natural equality,” or the understanding of equality based upon a moral disposition guaranteed by nature itself. The second notion will outline what is to be called “economic-equity materialism,” [EEM] which is the abuse of Law in order to guarantee equality of results by the Law, and its sole aim is to adhere all individuals to a pre-established level of material possession, or “justice.”

It is a cornerstone of the democratic principles of the United States that, “all men are created equal.” Since the creation of the nation, equality has been a subject of great debate and sought understanding. Traditionally however, the notion of equality has been understood as, “like in quality, nature, or status.” This essence of equality is based more upon the disposition of natural understanding, or deriving from a system that is governed by nature and therefore is universal to all peoples. In other words, within the confines of a lex naturale focus, this essence of equality refers to the understanding and rationalization of human nature within the context of a binding moral conduct or behavior, which is determined by nature itself.[v] In order to place this definition into a more immediate context, Sections 1, 6, 10, 18, 19, and 20 of Article I of the Connecticut Constitution will be addressed.

Essentially the same [in content] as the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments of the United States Constitution, the sections of Article I of the Connecticut Constitution outlined previously, all together embody the just and proper notion of the traditionally natural essence of equality. After the American Civil War had ended and with the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation, the United States insisted on ridding the horror of slavery and bringing to right the just and natural essence of equality. In 1868 and 1870 respectively the 14th and 15th amendments were ratified which enabled all men to vote, and blacks to be considered as full American citizens.[vi] Additionally, the 19th amendment finally had freed women from the shackles of political restriction. The sections 1, 6, 10, 18, 19, and 20 eventually embodied natural equality after 1984, when the Connecticut General Assembly amended Section 20.[vii] The several sections outlined the following:


In section 1,

“All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.”[viii]

Section 6 and 10 briefly state:

“In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court.”

“All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.”[ix]

Sections 18 and 19 read:

“No hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this state.”

“The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.”[x]

And lastly, Section 20 states:

“No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin.”[xi]

With the completion of the amendment to section 20 of Article I of the Connecticut Constitution, in conjunction to the aforementioned sections, the overall conceptualization of natural equality was politically complete. No longer was any form of ascriptive identity a justifiable item to use in seeking to restrict a person’s natural rights. The fact that each of these amendments addresses that race, color, and gender, among others, are no longer suitable ascriptive qualities to hinder the inherently inalienable rights of a person, establishes that by birth all people regardless of their identity are equal before the laws of the state. Furthermore and to conclude, the sections 6, 10, 19, and 20 ensured that all people are given due process under the Law. Therefore, equality has traditionally been understood, and rightfully so, to be that all people regardless of their ascriptive qualities, are viewed as the same before the laws of the land, enacted to preserve the Common Good[xii]; and that each is ensured due process in relation to those laws. Thus everyone is the same before the Law, and awarded the same protection under the Law.[xiii] By this logic, the only thing a person therefore has in life are their rights, their integrity [word], and their merits before the Law, hence all equal according to their actions within the context of the Common Good.

Assessing the current rationalization of equality in regards to the theme of the Connecticut tax debate, another interpretation of equality has emerged that is not at all compatible with the traditional and natural understanding of equality previously outlined. Those who are argue for more tax increases tend to argue that the wealthier citizens of the state are not “paying their fair share.”[xiv] For example, in a recent report issued on July 2011, the Connecticut Voices for Children stated that the wealthiest 1% of Connecticut residents “will still pay only half as much of their income in state and local taxes as the poor and middle class.”[xv] Therefore if we take the word “pay” from this sentence and simplify its fundamental meaning, “material possession,” and/or “wealth,” then we can attempt to understand how these government officials and non-governmental organizations rationalize the taxation process. The notion of “fair” [equality] is ultimately being connected to “material possession,” or simply, the amount of wealth a person obtains. Therefore this essence of equality is not based upon any natural disposition of a person, [i.e. the inalienable natural rights of a person by birth], but a distorted perception that disregards the context of lex naturale, and instead seeks to implement an entirely new notion altogether. What will be called “economic-equity materialism” [EEM] is essentially a form of philosophy that disregards natural equality, a person’s integrity, and merits before the Law, and instead seeks to manipulate the Law in order to have equality of results guaranteed by Law, regardless of the person’s integrity, or more importantly, merit.

— — — — — —

Case Study No.1: Connecticut’s Budget Debate & Total Taxation Figures:

There are several organizations and government representatives in the state that are at the forefront of the tax debate. This past April, when lawmakers were negotiating the state’s budget deficit of $3.5 billion[xvi], more than 65 state representatives argued for tax increases on the wealthier and middle class tax brackets.[xvii] During the same period a group of lawmakers wrote in a letter, “We strongly believe that the upper income brackets in the governor’s proposal did not go far enough.”[xviii] Furthermore, as was mentioned previously, non-governmental organizations and coalitions such as Better Choices for Connecticut, and one of its member associations, Connecticut Voices for Children, among many others concluded that this proposal was reasonable. The Connecticut Voices for Children report released in July 2011, also stated that the “wealthy still pay the smallest share of income in state and local taxes.” What followed was an intense and turbulent public debate as to whether this argument was valid.  Therefore, this case study will first very briefly offer a glimpse of tax revenue typical for the state of Connecticut since 1991 [the year the personal income tax was conceived][xix].  After assessing the traditional revenue statistics for the state the figures of both the Connecticut Voices for Children who argue for tax increases, and the Yankee Institute of Public Policy Analysis, which argues for no or limited tax increases will be contrasted.

Connecticut Tax Structure:

In the state of Connecticut there are five major state tax components that contribute a substantial portion of the state’s annual revenue generation:


(i)             The personal income tax (PIT);

(ii)           The corporate income tax (CIT);

(iii)          The general sales and use tax (GSUT);

(iv)          Several selected sales or excise taxes, and;

(v)           The inheritance and estate taxes (IET).[xx]


While these are the five substantial tax components, there are more than three hundred and forty-seven different taxes and fees that the state government relies upon for its overall annual revenue generation. The five tax components listed above are described as substantial to the general revenue collection of the state, however out of the total amount of state taxes and fees there are only fifteen separate taxes that amount [on average] to more than ninety percent of the overall revenue generation to satisfy the state’s total expenditures in the budget. The following are the top fifteen sources of revenue generation for the state of Connecticut as of fiscal year (FY) 2009:

  1. Person Income Tax (PIT) – $6,385,856,437
  2. General Sales & Use Tax (GSUT) – $3,194,863,688
  3. ARRA-Increased Medicaid FMAP – $2,579,965,883
  4. Medical Assistance-Title XIX – $2,579,965,883
  5. Corporation Tax (CIT) – $566,017,816
  6. Gasoline Tax – $369,068,334
  7. Cigarette Tax – $312,403,962
  8. Dependent Children – $290,246,485
  9. Lottery Ticket Payment – $283,000,000
  10. Inheritance & Estate Tax (IET) – $238,336,664
  11. Mohegan Sun Gaming Payments – $200,651,342
  12. Mashantucket Gaming Payments – $177,153,621
  13. Motor Vehicle Licenses – $175,476,461
  14. Electric & Power Company Tax – $153,897,278
  15. Administration-Social Services – $144,099,512

Total: $17,475,526,905[xxi]

The expenditures of the state budget for FY2009 totaled $18,410,000,000[xxii]. Taking the total revenue generation of the top fifteen taxes and subtracting that from the total expenditures of the state budget, leaves roughly some $930 million extra needed to be borrowed, taxed, or the use of various stabilizer mechanisms to be utilize in order to balance the budget [a state constitutional requirement]. In other words, the top fifteen sources of tax revenue satisfy roughly ninety-five percent of the total budget expenditures. Furthermore, according to the Yankee Institute for Public Policy Analysis, “the state could eliminate the two hundred smallest taxes and fees [out of the three hundred and forty-seven] for just $22 million in revenue” on an average $19-20 billion state budget.[xxiii]

Remembering the tax debate theme of “who is paying there fair share,” the Connecticut Voices for Children indicated that the state’s low- and middle- income families will pay between 9.6% and 11.4% of their total incomes in state and local taxes, while the wealthier brackets will pay only 5.5% of their total income.[xxiv] The key component of their argument is evident with their choice of wording, “pay” or contribute x portion of their “total income.” Therefore it is simply because the citizens within the higher tax brackets have more wealth to potentially pay out in taxes, indicates that it is “just” and feasible for them to do so given the total and steadily growing amount of annual government expenditures. These types of organizations, which primarily rely on donations and charity[xxv], are quick to call for higher tax increases on those who labored for their total property. The following graph compares four items: population growth since 1972, median income growth since 1975, and real gross state produce growth and real expenditure growth since 1972;








 Chart provided by the Yankee Institute for Public Policy Anaylsis

The red line, which represents expenditure growth since 1972, is vastly disproportionate to the overall population and median income growth of about the same initial time period.[xxvi] Therefore, why is Connecticut Voices for Children and other related groups not questioning whether state government spending is also in order to be reformed, versus simply the taxable wealth needed to pay for the bloated and every increasing rate of state expenditures?

The “80/20” Rule and Income Tax Breakdown – Is it Fair?

What is the actual break down for those who pay taxes in the state of Connecticut? For this question, and in regards to this paper’s established tax debate theme, the state income tax breakdown will be analyzed. The state income tax is Connecticut’s single biggest source of revenue, which contributes more than 50 percent of all General Fund revenue collected directly by the state (excluding federal grants). The Yankee Institute for Public Policy Analysis claims that there is the “80/20” rule to the state’s income tax breakdown.[xxvii] In other words the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers – those filing at under $100,000 – accounted for 20 percent of income tax revenues, while the top 20 percent of income earners paid 80 percent of income tax receipts.[xxviii] Further, the institute also claims that the top 6 percent of taxpayers – those earning $250,000 and more – paid over half of all income tax receipts; and finally the top 1.3 of taxpayers in the state paid a total of 35 percent of all income tax receipts. Put another way: the wealthiest 1.3 percent [23,067 filers] earning more than $1 million a year, paid $2.1 billion alone in income taxes [FY 2007], that is an average of $93,865 per person. [xxix]

To conclude we will take both positions and decide as to whether or not it follows the established formula of the tax debate and decide whether its effects upon the citizens and economy is violent, and if it is inherently “fair.” The Connecticut Voices for Children claim:


[personal income taxation] x (should be) –> [a higher percentage for the wealthier] y

While Yankee Institute for Public Policy Analysis argues:

[a higher percentage for the wealthier] y (should be) –> [not as disproportionate as it currently is, and therefore not increased] z


Utilizing the established definition of violent – an intense, turbulent, and furious actions of sorts – clearly is visible within the tax debate formula. Both sides not only disagree but their two views are incompatible entirely. Connecticut Voices for Children in their report attempts to neutralize counter arguments for their tax increase proposals claiming “taxes are simply not a significant factor in decisions about where to move compared to much more important factors like home prices, employment opportunities, and community networks.”[xxx] The Yankee Institute of Public Policy Analysis conducted a survey in 2009 and found that 45% of Connecticut citizens have “considered moving out of state due to high taxes.”[xxxi] Therefore again we have an intensely violent debate that creates political division and causes uncertainty within the state’s economy. Those who have been identified in this case study for proposing tax increases on the wealthy, ignore the concept of natural equality, and discriminate and distort legal measure in order to force a standard of material possession for all citizens, regardless of merit. It appears by the positions taken on each side there is no means of compatibility or compromise. Taking notice to the statistical evidence given in this case study, the question must be asked how and why do groups like Better Choices for Connecticut and its affiliate Connecticut Voices for Children pursue such clearly misleading and violent proposals?

— — — — — —

The Connecticut Voices for Children, Better Choices for Connecticut, and other related groups, including their government representatives have distorted the actual revenue capacity of the state. Essentially what happens by pursuing a philosophy of “economic-equity materialism” is that individuals will argue, or government officials will formulate, a taxation policy [through the budgetary process] that establishes a minimal standard of living and/or an amount of wealth a person must obtain by necessity. In Connecticut’s particular case, any person who is classified as “poor” is typically the beneficiary of various taxation policies and bloated government budgets. To be classified as living in poverty depends on the individual or couples combined income and number of their total dependents. The average family size in Connecticut is 2.52, and so if it is rounded to an average size of three, then the poverty level is any person making $18,310 annually.[xxxii] Taking into consideration Connecticut’s total population of 3,588,218 in relation to the state’s total poverty level of 8.7[xxxiii] percent indicates there are roughly 306,091 people classified as poor.[xxxiv]

Achieving the established standard of “wealth possession” is translated as an end goal, or ultimately “justice,” for the individual in poverty. The state will help those less fortunate receive that necessary materialistic justice. Therefore it seeks to establish equality of material possession for all citizens by taxing those who visibly “have more,” [i.e. wealthier citizens], and awarding it through government expenditures [through budgetary means] to those below the established standard of justice. Essentially EEM pursues a three-step strategy: (1) extraction [of wealth from those who are above the standard of economic ‘justice’]; (2) spending [the wealth on individuals who are perceived below the established standard in order for them to achieve ‘justice,’] and; (3) repetition of steps (1) and (2) indefinitely. Step (3) is the most vital part of the process because without the extracted wealth to spend on the less fortunate, those below the standard of justice would be unable to potentially reach that standard of living and all the amenities that go with it [i.e. health insurance, better house, food stamps, etc].

This three-step process begs many questions to be answered. Is this type of system sustainable as it is? What if the wealthier citizens either run out of material [i.e. wealth] to contribute, or decide to leave for a more healthier and suitable climate to the results of their labor? According to an American Legislative Exchange Council study published in 2009, 1,100 people a day move from the nine highest income tax states to the nine states without an income tax. This is clearly a damaging prospect to follow, destroys the natural essence of equality, and seeks to distort and manipulate the Law for a materialistic end that has no foundation on personal merit in relation to wealth received from this type of process. Visible in the previous case study, the legal distortion of budgetary measures allows for a disproportionate extraction of wealth, to fund a bloated government budget, that potentially threatens wealthier citizens to migrate, resulting in an overall greater loss of government revenue that otherwise would have remained for annual collection. Therefore what is the rationalization of individuals involved in the EEM system within the taxation policy debates and formulation process? Given the nature in which the individuals who pursue an EEM policy process, villains are made out of the wealthier citizens using rhetorical devices within the public debates on the state’s taxation policy, [i.e. the wealthy are selfish, greedy, etc.], and therefore, given the established definition of envy, such action can be reasonably deduced to the behavioural quality of envy.


Section Two:

The Dichotomy of Envy – The Destroyer and the Creator

As mentioned previously in this report’s overview, envy will be described as “that passion which views with malignant dislike the superiority of those who are really entitled to all the superiority they possess.” This notion of envy was written by the late 18th century economist and philosopher Adam Smith in his book, “Wealth of Nations,” and given the focus of wealth, money, and related items, his definition is quite relevant to the subject matter at hand.[xxxv] As the title of this section indicates, envy is a dichotomy, in that, depending on the internal disposition and rationalization of the individual, envy can be channeled either benignly or maliciously. In other words, one rationalization of envy in relation to the individual’s perception of their external environment may cause them to enable either a stagnant or productive atmosphere. There are two major pieces to the “envy puzzle”, the first is what motivates the initial actions of an individual, and another determines how that action is to be defined. To further the point, the first piece involves the understanding that all human activity, which derives from human consciousness [cogito ergo sum], has two foundational pillars: pleasure and pain. Regardless of one’s ascriptive qualities, all human activity translates to the wont of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The second piece is centered on talent. Therefore this section will seek to demonstrate how the concept of our biological disposition in conjunction with the inner capabilities determine which path individuals will pursue within the confines of envy.

1. Pleasure versus Pain:

Many political and philosophical commentators of have alluded to the “state of nature” as being the primary motivating principle behind all human activity. The “state of nature”[xxxvi] being that biological disposition that compels every person to maximize their pleasure and to minimize their pain.[xxxvii] Since pleasure is desired [by the necessity to maximize it] then it is reasonable to conclude that it is “good;” and because pain is undesired [by the necessity to negate it] then it is “bad.” No honest or internally conscious person will claim that their sincere desire is to maximize their pain. For example, people go to work either because their profession brings them great personal satisfaction, or it rewards them with an income, which increases their pleasure by acquiring items with that wealth, or in some instances both. It is extremely difficult to recruit a person to a cause that is openly hateful and destructive unless it is either camouflaged under a moral pretence in the public sphere, and/or followed by individuals who are either not conscious of their internal disposition regarding their state of nature motivation in relation to the “cause” or phenomenon they support.

2. The State of Nature and Talent in Relation to Envy:

A person’s consciousness of their internal disposition is the motivating factor as to why one person experiences benign or malicious envy. Furthermore, it is not their consciousness of the state of nature motivation, but rather their internal awareness of their inherent talents that will assist them in being more successful within the state of nature construct. Therefore what is benign and malicious envy in relation to understanding how consciousness of inner talents is what determines an individual to pursue one type of envy over the other?

In his book, “On Violence,” Slavoj Zizek indicates there are two types of envy, amour-de-soi and amour-propre.[xxxviii] These two conceptualizations of envy correlate directly into the theoretical framework of Erik Erikson’s description of human development and subsequent rationalization regarding envious behavior. Erik Erikson eloquently states that the experience of benign envy enables a motivation of the individual, with the goal of improving their position; whereas those who experience malicious envy commit to the opposite, aimed at damaging the position of the superior other.[xxxix] Amour-de-soi and amour-propre, or in layman’s terms, “that love of self which is natural” and the “perverted preferring of oneself to others in which a person focuses not on achieving a goal, but on destroying the obstacle to it,” is the contrast that Zizek outlines regarding what Erik Erikson describes similarly as benign and malicious envy.[xl] Zizek cites Saint Augustinian’s work and provides an example of how this may manifest itself directly within general human behavior,

“Let’s return to the … scene of a sibling envying his brother who is suckling at the mother’s breast. The subject does not envy the Other’s possession of the prized object as such, but rather the way the Other is able to enjoy this object, which is why it is not enough for him simply to steal and thus gain possession of the object. His true aim is to destroy the Other’s ability/capacity to enjoy the object.”

The fact that “the Other is able to enjoy the object” has created a view in the first brother’s mind that his pleasure is being negated by his brother’s action, therefore he must rid of his brother to gain access to his coveted desire.[xli] This is assuming that the coveted desire of the brother is obtainable in the first place. Away from this example and to put it bluntly, is the coveted desire just that or is it actually obtainable for the individual based upon their ability to acquire various “things”?

This is the potential dilemma, and the reason as to why two types of envious individuals exist. Slavoj, on page 76 of his book, offers what “Nietzsche and Freud share: the idea that justice as equality is founded on envy” –

“on the envy of the Other who has what we do not have, and who enjoys it. The demand for justice is thus ultimately the demand that the excessive enjoyment of the Other should be curtailed so that everyone’s access to jouissance is equal.”

The philosophy of the person experiencing malicious envy [amour-propre] seeks to rid of an obstacle in order to gain “access” to a coveted desire. The person who experiences malicious envy hates the other who is enjoying some pleasure, because they believe the Other’s act of enjoyment is causing them pain, and to diminish their pain they destroy the Other experiencing the pleasure.[xlii] Instead of finding an internal process or talent to acquire that same pleasure, they seek to destroy the obstacle instead.[xliii] A person who resorts to benign envy is able to not only be internally aware of what is causing them pain [the visible enjoyment of another], but are also aware of their innate talents to assist them in acquiring that same pleasure and thus enjoyment of that pleasure.[xliv] For example, using the story from Genesis regarding the brothers Cain and Abel may give insight into the phenomenon of envy.

Cain failed to grasp his envy when looking upon his brother Abel’s preference to God. Cain thought of his brother Abel as the source of his pain, when in reality it was the fact that God did not show him equal favor for his sacrifice. He believed that by killing his brother, out of envy for his situation and the favors stowed upon it [his perceived obstacle to pleasure], he would be ridding the source of his pain. The story finishes, after Cain has killed Abel out of envy, “therefore you shall be banned from the soil that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. If you till the soil, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a restless wanderer on the earth.”[xlv] Cain immediately responded realizing the gravity of his actions, “my punishment is too great to bear.”[xlvi] When Cain committed to killing his brother in order to destroy the perceived source to his pain, he ended up securing for himself more hardship and pain.

Therefore what is the relevant quality of envious individuals who attempt to remove obstacles instead of acquire pleasures? It is talent. By definition, talent means both, “general intelligence or mental power; ability,” and, most strikingly, “the natural endowments of a person.”[xlvii] If one person has talent as previously defined, then a person might feel the natural inclinations of envy respective to more successful others, but ultimately will acquire that which is to their profit or pleasure on their own. Here is the root cause that creates the distinction between malicious envy and benign envy. An individual who constantly is seeking to rid the Other of their enjoyment is suffering from their vivid vision of coveted desires, and thus construct mental justifications to remove those who enjoy acquired pleasures. Since the individual acts upon the fundamental notion to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain, if their knowledge or sight of the Other with a pleasure or success is causing them pain, they potentially believe it proper to rid of the individual rather than acquire the pleasure. The individual commits to this course of action in order to create a malicious and false sense of equality to their own talentless efforts to acquire pleasure or success on their own merits. A person, who experiences benign envy, may look at another successful individual and be jealous, but then seek through his or her own talent to acquire the same success as the Other.

It is the person that is endlessly suffering from malicious envy that finds no other reasonable course of action than to destroy and take away the other’s acquired talents because the envious person never had the means to do the same themselves. It is from the brother’s consciousness in the Augustinian example, that he is not “capable and well endowed” to commit to and enjoy the suckling of the mother’s breast, which forces him to rid of the brother rather than to become capable of the acquiring the pleasure. Malicious envy, stems from a philosophy not only of hatred for the Other and their talents, but also the hatred of their talentless self. To conclude however, does this report mean to indicate that there are “talentless” and “useless” people in the Connecticut state government and general population? No, however any person that is not conscious of their talent acted as though they never had any talents in the first place, therefore the person resorts to a set of actions based on malicious envy. It is not that talentless people exist, however if certain internal dispositions prohibit these talents from being recognized, they are never used, and so it is as if they never have existed.

3. Dichotomy of Envy on the Public Stage:

Paying homage to the expression that perhaps everyone is an infant that eventually learns how to behave in public, these two distinct forms of envy are thus translated into the public sphere in different ways. The public sphere in this instance involves state government officials who formulate and implement taxation policies, as well as the various economic interests groups as outlined earlier in this section. Given the democratic principles Connecticut state government is founded on, these economic and other interest groups elect government representatives that will potentially serve their interests. Traditionally this type of grouping has been generally observed through the lens of political party affiliation, however the creation of these two “envy camps” [benign and malicious envy] in the state government and economy is the result of independent behavioral traits and not political ideology. It is the political party ideology that is often manipulated and thus ultimately used respectively by groups or individual people within the public sphere as potential means to an end regarding taxation debates based upon their envious disposition.[1]

In order to clearly define when a tax policy from the Connecticut state government is having a violent effect upon the general economy, there needs to be indicators or levels of measurement to accurately identify the quality of the action. Therefore the manner in which the envious camps, and thus their visibly violent attributes are translated within the public sphere is either by identifying specific rhetorical devices within taxation policy debate; or, when taxation policy enables a visibly anti-business climate, stagnation of human capital and subsequent job growth, preservation of underemployment and under-utilization of resources[xlviii], as well as the migration of wealthier citizens from the state’s economy. Some of the rhetorical devices that will be addressed are “who is paying their fair share” [how this established taxation policy theme is structured will depend on which side of the tax debate is using it], etc. There are more rhetorical devices that will be addressed and explained further within each specific case study and therefore the “types” of rhetorical devices appropriate for use is not subject to a permanent and predetermined series of specific words or phrases.

The manner in which this report is able to deduce that items such as an anti-business climate and stagnating job demand are the result of violence, and by that token, envious violence, is by understanding the fundamental quality and thus potential consequence of the two distinct envy camps. In other words, malicious envy and benign envy can be broken down simply by the following reductions:

Malicious Envy:


Pleasure Identified –> Not Conscious of Talents –> Malicious Envy

Malicious Envy –> Hatred –> Covet –> Destruction –> Stagnation

Benign Envy:

Pleasure Identified –> Conscious of Talents –> Benign Envy

Benign Envy –> Impartial Recognition –> Acquisition –> Development –> Creation

Given our explanation as to what human consciousness is [pleasure v pain], then it is understandable how the logical reduction of pleasure is desired because it is sought to be maximized, therefore it is good, or pain is undesired because it is sought to be minimized therefore it is bad; directly correlate to each camps’ final reduction of either “creation” or “stagnation.” To put it another way, “good” correlates directly with “creation,” while “bad” correlates directly with “stagnation.” Lastly, because the people who experience malicious envy tend to rid of a painful obstacle rather than acquire a pleasurable item, their very nature tends to be more destructive. In other words, instead of acquiring a pleasure, which results in developing their previously lacking situation and establishing growth in their possessions, the person with malicious envy seeks to destroy the Other experiencing pleasure, thus [if successful in destroying the Others’ jouissance] establishes a reduction in overall pleasure being enjoyed. Therefore, taxation policies that shun away wealth and business opportunities, as well as maintain stagnate job growth, can be interpreted as being the perpetrators of envious violence because of the previously outlined nature in which malicious envy operates.

— — — — — —


Case Study No.2: Stagnate Job Growth & Non-Existent Job Training 

Relating to business development and subsequent job growth in any economy is the expression, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. This is clearly the opposite case in the state of Connecticut, which has had no net job growth in 22 years. Adding together the retired 13.9% (464,414 citizens) of CT’s population, and the 23.0% under the age of 18 (809,206 citizens), there remain a total of 2,244,668 of the total population left. Subtracting the state’s official number of eligible citizens for the CT workforce from the 2,244,668 leaves a remainder of 351,268 citizens.[xlix] This is also excluding the total population of those, by law, eligible for work between the ages of 16 and 18 altogether, but given the abysmal teen youth employment rates on a national level (less than 50%) their exclusion only potentially lessons the total number of those who simply “do not work”. Therefore, disregarding the portion of the established population of 351,268 who may be potentially impaired or disabled, what are they doing? The answer could be several things, but one thing that is certain is that they could be doing more for themselves if only the state began to spend tax money in a more beneficial and productive manner that creates jobs and increases incomes, rather than shuns jobs and decreases overall citizen income.

Connecticut spends $5,000,000,000 per year on social services, and yet poverty, unemployment and underemployment persist, particularly within immigrant and urban minority populations.[l] To make matters worse, the Connecticut population is aging and young college graduates are moving elsewhere to start families, careers, and businesses. Immigrants and minorities experience the highest unemployment levels.[li] Growing populations are concentrated in the poorest cities where economic development, employment opportunities and other quality of life factors are grim.[lii] In fact, if the total number of those in poverty established previously, 306,091, was subtracted from the total number of those who “do no work,” discovered in the previous paragraph, 351,286, then we can see that a majority of those excluded from the state’s calculation of the workforce are simply suffering from the “culture of dependency.”[liii] Or in other words, a life characterized by receiving state benefits[liv] and therefore simply never work. Are these people who are living in poverty born to live this way or is their life, which is characterized as receiving meager state benefits subduing their full potential? Let the following chart illuminate the disparity between the incomes of those in the poorest cities in Connecticut to those of the more affluent towns and cities:




In fact many advocacy groups such as Connecticut Voices for Children as well as relevant state government agencies [Social Services, etc] express their public commitment to eradicating poverty within various times frames [the most recent being to reduce poverty in half by 2014]. The data on poverty within Connecticut offers a different story completely. In 1970, the total poverty rate of the state was 7.2 percent out of a population roughly of three million, resulting in a total of 216,000 people living in poverty. Today’s rate of 9.2 percent, which out of a population of three and half million results in a total of 253, 316 total persons living in poverty. Taking the present total and subtracting the total of 1970 from it, indicates that poverty has actual increased by 37, 316 people instead of decreased.[lv] That is the equivalent of the entire population of the town of Norwich, or Shelton.[lvi] Therefore are these social services resulting in billions of public money expenditures by the state, reducing poverty and increasing the standard of living of people as some entities and officials claim they are?

Is there a relationship between those who are not “eligible to work” compared to those who are living in poverty? If so, are the current measures of “challenging the culture of dependency” and eradicating poverty thus effective and is the under-employment of many sectors of the state’s economy a result of a lack of adequate job training programs for the poor? According to the Yankee Institute of Public Policy Analysis the problem is the result of not awarding the less fortunate an opportunity to learn an essential new trade and potentially rise above their life characterized by meager wages and state benefits. A November 2007 report from the Yankee Institute claims,

“Through demand-driven job training programs, Connecticut’s neediest citizens and taxpayers may receive maximum values from each dollar spent on social services.”[lvii]

The health of a state’s workforce is crucial in determining the quality of life of the state’s residents. According to the Economic Resource Center, young workers are not replacing the state’s aging population, and without a change of direction, Connecticut will become even less competitive in the future. Therefore, by investing in job training programs, instead of promoting evidently failed state dependency programs is worthwhile because when one person becomes financially independent through employment, “family, community, and state feel the benefits.”[lviii] By helping the less advantaged and poor citizens gain employment, or a higher paying form of employment through job training programs is a positive for the taxpayer but also for the jobless individual in poverty who acquires a consciousness of their talents and therefore are able to gain more by their own labor. Instead of promoting their level of poverty for political and potentially monetary purposes, the state should invest in job training which will help reverse the state’s 22 year history of no net job growth as well as help individuals realize their talents, as well as increase their standard of living by their own merits and not by a forced philosophical rationalization of “material equality.”[lix]

— — — — — —

Conclusion: A Violent End With a Hopeful Future.

The state of Connecticut at times enacts taxation policies that are detrimental to the growth and health of the state’s economy. It is from an envious rationalization of individuals within and outside the state’s government that seek to support various proposals which in turn violently target the wealthier citizens of the state. This report was not meant to demonstrate that there is a permanent placement of poor and rich, malicious and benign, but rather that through critical observation, internal consciousness to one’s externally consequential actions and determination may foster a potential for greater growth and efficiency, not just for the state’s governance but also the economy’s productivity. If a person’s talents are recognized as the source to what enables a person to be a positive and productive member of a society, then there will be fewer individuals who, whether consciously or unconsciously, destroy and force stagnation on an otherwise potentially prosperous state. It is time to reassess what violence means and realize that it is not simply an action within war or some other horrific crime, but can also describe the nature of everyday events, in this instance taxation policy in the state of Connecticut.

Having an action that is intense, turbulent, and furious be classified as violent describes the nature of the phenomenon rather than forcing the word to be understood by a more subjective and gore-filled term. Stagnate job growth in the state correlates directly to the nature of operation of individuals who experience malicious envy and thus promote stagnation, while the growth in the economy correlates directly to that of benign envy. Individuals who experience benign envy and subsequently promote an environment of development and creation, are encourage to considered as villains who “don’t pay their fair share,” in order for the opposition to camouflage their potentially talentless selves. Just as the envy camps will never be able to reconcile with each other, as is evident in the formula of the state’s taxation debate [xà y against y à x], so may too be the state’s taxation policy forever violent. These characteristics of each envy camp in relation to the nature of the tax debate create an anti-business climate, force people to remain in poverty, and waste taxpayers money.  As the great achievements of the human species in technological innovation progresses, the question to ask is whether or not the rationality and subsequent maturity of the human species will advance and evolve as well. If we are too have a more effective, decent and hardworking government, the state must learn to support ideas and individuals that are effective, decent and hardworking.

[1] For example, many of the government officials who potentially support interest groups such as Connecticut Voices for Children often times adhere to the Democratic Party, however regarding the group’s proposal for tax increases is not always headed by members of that political party. This is evident with State Representative Kimberly Fawcett – D – Fairfield, who opposes tax increases on the wealthy to solve budget crises, simply because they have more wealth.

[i] “Office of Fiscal Analysis.” Connecticut General Assembly. Web. 25 Nov. 2011. <;.

[ii] “Violence – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.” Dictionary and Thesaurus – Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. [Definition 3] <;.

[iii] “Envy – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.” Dictionary and Thesaurus – Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <;.

[iv] Smith, Adam, and Edwin Cannan. The Wealth of Nations. New York, NY: Bantam Classic, 2003. Print.

[v] Finnis, John. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980. Print.

[vi] Hennessey, Jonathan, and Aaron McConnell. The United States Constitution: a Graphic Adaptation. New York: Hill and Wang, 2008. Print.

[vii] “The Connecticut Constitution.” Connecticut State Library Home Page. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <;.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Finnis, John. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980. Print.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Connecticut Voices for Children, “After 2011 Tax Reforms, Connecticut’s Wealthy Still Pay Smallest Share of Income in State and Local Taxes.” July 2011. <;

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] “Connecticut Governor-Elect Dan Malloy Prepares Budget For $3.5 Billion Deficit « CBS New York.” CBS New York – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of NY. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <;.

[xvii] Lockhart, Brian. “House Democrats’ Letter Urges Tax Increase for Wealthy – Connecticut Post.” – Connecticut Post. Web. 3 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] “Connecticut’s Tax System Staff Briefing.” Connecticut General Assembly. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] “Nickels and Dimes 2010: Connecticut’s Taxes.” Yankee Institute for Public Policy. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] Connecticut Voices for Children, “After 2011 Tax Reforms, Connecticut’s Wealthy Still Pay Smallest Share of Income in State and Local Taxes.” July 2011. <;

[xxv] “Funders.” Connecticut Voices for Children. Web. 17 Dec. 2011. <;.

[xxvi] “Growth of State Gov’t Graph.” Yankee Institute for Public Policy. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xxvii] “A Look at Who Pays Connecticut’s Income Tax.” Yankee Institute for Public Policy. Web. 5 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Ibid.

[xxx] Connecticut Voices for Children, “After 2011 Tax Reforms, Connecticut’s Wealthy Still Pay Smallest Share of Income in State and Local Taxes.” July 2011. <;

[xxxi] “Last One Out Turn Off the Light.” Yankee Institute for Public Policy. Web. 6 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xxxii] “2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines.” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS. Web. 25 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xxxiii] “POVERTY INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT WAS LARGEST IN NATION, CENSUS DATA SHOW – Jonathan Kantrowitz – Connecticut News.” Connecticut News – Connecticut News. Web. 3 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xxxiv] “Connecticut QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.” State and County QuickFacts. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. <;.

[xxxv] Smith, Adam, and Edwin Cannan. The Wealth of Nations. New York, NY: Bantam Classic, 2003. Print.

[xxxvi] Hobbes, Thomas, and C. B. Macpherson. Leviathan. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin, 1985. Print.

[xxxvii] Bentham, Jeremy. The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1988. Print.

[xxxviii] Žižek, Slavoj. Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador, 2008. Print.

[xxxix] Erikson, Erik H. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton, 1993. Print.

[xl] Žižek, Slavoj. Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador, 2008. Print.

[xli] Ibid.

[xlii] Ibid.

[xliii] Ibid.

[xliv] Ibid.

[xlv] The New American Bible. Nashville: Catholic Bible, 1987. Print.

[xlvi] Ibid.

[xlvii] “Talent – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.” Dictionary and Thesaurus – Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xlviii] “CONNECTICUT JOB GROWTH RANKINGS (1990-2005).” Connecticut General Assembly. Web. 5 Nov. 2011. <;.

[xlix] “Connecticut QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.” State and County QuickFacts. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. <;.

[l] Kindred, Natalie. “Help Wanted: Serving Connecticut’s Neediest Citizens through Job Training.” Yankee Institute for Public Policy. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <’s-neediest-citizens-through-job-training-2/&gt;.

[li] Ibid.

[lii] Ibid.

[liii] “POVERTY INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT WAS LARGEST IN NATION, CENSUS DATA SHOW – Jonathan Kantrowitz – Connecticut News.” Connecticut News – Connecticut News. Web. 3 Nov. 2011. <;.

[liv] Stephen, Leslie, and Leslie Stephen. The English Utilitarians. Honolulu, HI: University of the Pacific, 2004. Print.

[lv] Ibid.

[lvi] “DECD: Research.” Portal. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <;.

[lvii] Kindred, Natalie. “Help Wanted: Serving Connecticut’s Neediest Citizens through Job Training.” Yankee Institute for Public Policy. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <’s-neediest-citizens-through-job-training-2/&gt;.

[lviii] Ibid.

[lix] Ibid.

 Is there any parallel between the Occupy movement and the Tea Party? Is it a drum circle of students who should be doing something more productive with their time? Both are relevant questions to ask when attempting to make any sense at all of the current “Occupy – insert name of city being occupied here” movement. For a week, haggard individuals from all over the region have camped out on the Rose Kennedy Greenway protesting corporate greed and economic inequality.


The proud thunderous proclamations of the protesters “wanting to show people what a real democracy looks like” are washed away when those very same voices say, “its not so much about the demands, but using a real democratic process,” whatever that actually means. The Teaparty grew out of similar discord with the status quo of government activity, yet the Occupy participants seem to be less organized, live where they protest, rely on outside and non participating supporters to assist them in basic hygiene, but are arguably just as frustrated and angry. Further, the Teaparty has an organized and cohesive response to demanding policies of responsible (low) taxation, as well as limit the power and size of government (the group is organized to the extent that they elected representatives to high office). The Occupy Movement preaches tax increases and the tenets of how corporations and rich people are inherently evil. Sounds messy, it is.

Therefore are these protesters drum-beating hipster students or are they something more? A good place to start would be at Northeastern University with the recent 12PM “walk-out” last week. Roughly 100 students from the university met on the Centennial Lawn to voice their grievances. One of the participants was quoted saying, “I am a typical Northeastern student,” as the press statement released from the walkout had numerous grammatical and spelling errors. One of the many mysteries revealed as to why they could be worried about their economic future.

From someone who currently is and will be employed after grdaution allow me to address some of my fellow peers comments and concerns. To Victoria Porell, no, students don’t have lobbyists, but when you work for a company, most likely that company will. If your economic interests are tied to the company you work for, and that company is competitive, chances are you will be represented just fine. In response to Alyssa the “I am a typical Northeastern student,” (no you are not), and your ‘How am I supposed to afford to live off of that?’ You went to college to get an education, acquire a talent or skill, and then seek an employer that would be able to afford investing in your ability to make the company succeed; how are you suppose to afford living off that mentality?

Lastly, to the future and fellow Political Scientist, Jon Pheonix’s, “College was supposed to be the be all, end all. The place where no matter how crazy your background, you go into college, you come out and you’re supposed to be guaranteed entry into the middle class.” The be all and end all is you, not college and certainly not how “crazy” your background in college was for the past four years, whatever you might have been doing. Ultimately, if the United States of America is to have another century of a strong and prosperous future, for all of its citizens, its youth must abandon resorting to its fears rather than its strengths in a time of calling and of crisis.

Making my way to the Boston Harbor Hotel, I found myself suddenly surrounded by the new fashionable style of protesting called “Occupy –insert name of place being occupied here-“. In this instance “Occupy Boston” happened to be huddled into a small public park across the street from South Station and the Federal Reserve building. As I made my way past the encampment of disillusioned youth, I heard announcements about utilizing the “meditation tents” from the “spiritual committee” and what appeared to be a well groomed, corporately-dressed supporter boldly claiming, “we are not so much focused on the demands, but using a real democratic process,” whatever that actually means, or how it is to be accomplished is still to be determined.

Looking around I had to ask myself what was the main objective of this ad-hoc gathering that seemed to have invaded a taxpayer funded public park (which is now completely in shambles, muddied, and the grass almost non-existent as a result of the 50 or so tents amassed within the narrow space). I could not discern any real, or articulated objective to which their protestations had been formed upon. As I continued, pass the bags of garbage that had piled up along the sidewalk, there were cardboard signs that read, “stop the budget cuts,” and, “fight the rich not their wars.” I could not help but wonder why these people, mostly students from hardworking and even some well to do families, have decided to protest soldiers who volunteered to serve and protect our nation in new era of global reality that was shown to us on September 11th 2001. It is most certainly the optimal time for us as Americans to rally together and grow as a nation, but instead these mostly troubled students in the very prime and flower of youth are resorting to their fears rather than their strengths.

The most alarming quality of these protests was the incoherence and lack of organization by these various citizens, many of whom were not even from Boston. There was no cohesive communal funding, the pizza deliveryman was becoming frustrated as the protestors figured out who was to pay for the forty pizzas and with what money; and the chaos continued.  Once past the area of the protestors, continuing on my trek to the hotel with the cannabis odor subsiding, thoughts rushed through my head as to what this means for us as a nation. Is wealth being used to undermine the democratic process, as one of the aggrieved shouted into the microphone? Are all the problems we face today the result of a specific type of corporatist philosophy?  One sign vividly stood out in my mind long after I witnessed the protest, which read, “The American Dream is in Debt,” but is it really?

These young protestors should take heed to five relative realities of life in respect to their grievances as they sit in these muddied quarters. First, in China the government would never have awarded the permit to protest, nor would their people have time to assemble, as they are busy working two, three, sometimes even four jobs to provide security and comfort for their family and contribute to economic productivity.  Second, in order to help the cause of wanting to pay more taxes, find a job first so the government will have a reason to take money from you. Third, when and if you do find a job, realize you will actually have to use some sort of talent or skill so the employer can adequately rationalize why they should pay you money; or in other words, jobs are the result of people being invested in for their capabilities and talents. Fourth, being gender-neutral is not all that it is hyped up to be, or even beneficial for a meaningful and productive society. I do not see how it is insulting for a man to be “classified” as the ‘provider for others’, and the women as ‘nurturers and caregivers’. Of course there is a serious subconscious psychological component I must be missing as to why an individual would feel inferior to someone who provides or to someone who loves well, but again it is probably another corporatist conspiracy (I must have lost that plot). Last but not least, my fifth piece of advice to these protestors is to lose the sense of entitlement, and all the destructive qualities that accompany it. Great achievements are the result of calculated hard work, and not from an incessant complaint to an alleged offender. Do you honestly want to embody the methods of spoiled and disillusioned children? Who can respect that?