LAST DITCH OF DEMOCRACY - Majority Rights

Harriet Martineau and President Madison a general feeling that the
majority should rule.
That idea was DEFINED, it wasn’t just plopped down like a poached
egg, to break in its flop. The idea of majority rule implied that the
majority should have the facts at its disposal. Just as Liberty in the
program of the Droits de l’Homme was defined as right to do anything
that don’t HARM someone else.
Pardon me, if I seem to make a complicated statement. I am really
working round to Mr. Welles, yes again. Sumner’s speech BEGAN with
an IDEA, with an appeal to some sort of reality. NOT Germany’s
military force, but Germany’s commercial or economic energy was
therein proclaimed the cause of Anglo-Judaic nervousness. Economic
aggression.
The joker showed toward the end when Sumner wanted to leave the
capacity for economic aggression in the exclusive control of ONE side,
and of a hidden and irresponsible congerie of commercial and usurious
interests. I know that’s not what Sumner called it. He wrapped it up in a
free-trade palaver. His essay was promptly debunked by every European
economic observer. It was automatically debunked, or almost, and so
quickly that it hardly got to the radio posts. I am almost the only radio
commentator who gave the speech DETAILED attention. And I go on
doing it because of the opening paragraphs. A lot of hooey WAS swept
away. Sumner, despite the American time lag, got rid of a lot of pretense.
And a LOT more, oh a LOT more, went west from Virginia Hot Springs.
If a man appeals against economic aggression, he appeals TO economic
justice, or at any rate he takes ground from which appeal to economic
justice can, one would say from which appeal to economic justice
MUST, be eventually made. What is economic justice? Is it based on
property? Do the communists answer that in the negative? Is economic
justice material justice?