Is there someone who could be convinced by this article, but who doesn't already agree with it?

I'm discouraged that public discourse about ideas has become so partisan that it ends up being partisan to express an opinion that touches on the most important things that are happening.

Sadly, economics is not yet a science, but still mostly a hodgepodge of philosophy, superstition, and politics, where the fragile beginnings of scientific inquiry and real science are regularly run over by louder, dumber voices shrieking about "free markets" (an oxymoron) and "supply side" (a bald rationalization for providing welfare to the wealthy). Millions of people know Adam Smith only by his "invisible hand" analogy, which appears only once in the entire book and in a completely different context from that which it is usually quoted---he was talking about the tendency of business to buy local because of familiarity, not making some broad claim about the self-regulation of markets.

This was number one, I wish it still was. The founders railed against precisely the kind of aristocratic, authoritarian corruption this administration represents.

Their is nothing new to people warping the founders thoughts and word to whatever they want. Its a common tactic of conservative politicians to paint rosey understanding of the USAs founding that are nothing more the utopian. Its not surprising considering the founders are the perfect target. They are both deeply philosophical and contradiction laddened but also distant, from people who don't reflect on the current American culture. I'd argue though we have a broad disinterest in the principles of the founding at this moment. People are upset the current administration is engaged in nothing more than grift to the maximal amount.

I applaud people continuing to point out corruption. The only thing surprising about the article is that is hasn't been flagged yet

undefined

"Freedom" is defined by who holds the microphone, but don't ignore who set up the stage.

The liberty he believes in is the one the one-way ratcheting mechanism of individual liberty, for the most powerful individuals that is.

And he'd be right in a liberal democracy because part of liberalism is a belief in an abstract equality among men where a billionaire is supposedly equal in rights to a minimum wage worker.

"When and where is this true?" you may ask. In theory is the answer.

But an analysis of the lived social conditions of the majority of the people in this country would require further categorization of its elements into class and the relationship to the means of production.

Again freedom for what class of people do you think he's talking about: the owners of our worlds infrastructue or the majority of us?