William Graham, in his article

William Graham, in his article

William Graham, in his article, explains his vision of nature and liberty in a just society. He establishes that a few people are our competitors for meager supply of wealth such that we have to struggle to satisfy our needs. The struggle for existence is aimed against the competitive nature. Nature is natural, and it submits to one who most energetically assails to it. Holding all factors constant, wealth should rest to the most hardworking person because nature grants reward to the fittest. Graham believes that if there is functional liberty in existence, men should get rewards from nature according to their works. Possessions and enjoying need to come from a person’s being and doing. He suggests that the existence of the gap between the rich and the poor is a result of man’s attempt to amend nature. Any attempt to manipulate the environment leads to inequalities. It favors the survival of most unfit, and it is also bad for liberty. Lack of liberty and survival of the most unfit carries the society downwards while equality, freedom, and survival for the fittest take the society forward.

He conducts a comparison of the meaning of liberty across ages. Graham establishes that civil liberty under the law means the guarantees of law that a man shall not be interfered with while trying to access welfare. Liberty is a civil and political status, and the institutions trusted with the mandate must guarantee peace for the laborer and security for capitalists. Liberty has nothing against the struggle for existence. If we embrace civil liberty, we will turn the competition against each other to industrial competition. This way, men will struggle for wealth by energy, skills, industry, temperance, and other industrial virtues. The change of order does not affect inequalities in any way. Liberty allows nature to still grant us rewards according to our doing. With liberty, nature rewards men according to their training, and not the weight of their fist. Graham believes that this is the grand solution to wealth distribution. However, the differences in capital endowment create the difference between individuals. To demonstrate this, he describes the impossibility of a man with no tool having the same food as a man with means.

In the same way, a man who has no weapon may not defend himself against hostile men as a man with a weapon may do. If it were possible to be equal even without tools, weapons, skills, or empowerment, then there would be no need to work anymore. The reason why we consistently work, holding all other factors constant, is that the man with capital is superior. We work tirelessly and deny ourselves to get capital. We need to reassure the young generation that being rich is not wicked, and that hard work pays. Therefore, we should not undermine the power of capital because it amounts to undermining civilization. Capital is a prerequisite of every social gain, political, educational, or other.

Andrew Carnegie, on the other hand, explores the proper role of wealth in American society. He firmly believes that the significant problem with the current world is the administration of wealth. Proper wealth administration will help both the rich and the poor live harmoniously. He also denotes that the conditions of human life have changed significantly. In the former ages, there were little differences in dressing, dwelling, food, and environment. Today, the difference between a millionaire’s cottage and the laborer is like day and night. These changes have been brought about by civilization. He, however, supports the move on the grounds that it is highly beneficial. It is essential for the progress of the race. Without wealth, there can be no Maecenas. The good old times could not be functional without wealth.

Society pays a high price for the law of competition. Also, we pay a high price for cheap luxuries and comforts. The advantage of the law of competition is that we owe our incredible material development. This creates improved conditions in life. The law may sometimes be hard for some individuals, but it is what we have to live with because it is here with us, and we cannot evade it. However, the law is best for the race because it rewards hard work and ensures survival for the fittest. Therefore, we must accept and welcome the law as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves. The law of competition is not only beneficial to our development and industrial or commercial benefit but also essential for the progress of the race.

Andrew concludes that the primary duty of a man with wealth is to become a good agent of wealth and trustee of the poor. He needs to bring to their service his superior wisdom, ability, and experience and attempt to do better for the poor than they would do for themselves. The laws of accumulation of wealth and distribution must be left free. Even as individualism continues, the wealthy need to be a trustee for the poor. The wealthy people must administer the wealth for the community in a better way than it would have done itself. The best minds will reach a point where there will be no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful men for the general good of the community.

The third article describes the struggles of Eugene Debs, a native of Terre Haute in Indiana, as one of America’s most prominent socialists. He represents significant instances through his hard life that led him to become a socialist. During his time, there were few men or initiatives that fought the battle of the working class. The little efforts that were available were not reasonable enough to impress a common laborer. Conditions of employment could not be well regulated because workers were not united; hence they had no bargaining power. However, the wealthy and stakeholders of corporations were united. The laborers needed to act as one and join efforts to solve the problems that faced them. Just like many other workers, Eugene had little knowledge about the workings of the capitalist system. Workers were weak and reduced to slaves. In his opinion, workers are subjected to harsh living styles with limited access to wealth. Any workingman, however dull, must resist the sidelining. I the roar of conflict, he successfully baptized in socialism. He then championed the rights of workers. He narrates some successful small battles won without loss of a man as well as some concessions made by corporations.

All these articles provide critical and valid information about economic gaps between the very few rich and the masses of the very poor. William Graham believes that, in a sound system, civil liberty works with nature to reward man with his doings, and that it does not affect inequalities. The differences in capital possession are responsible for the discrepancy amongst people. Andrew believes that if we have to settle the problem, then we must focus on wealth administration. He supports the law of competition and advocates for the idea that the wealthy should be great agents and trustees of the poor. Eugene focuses on the unity of laborers and the need to be united for them to win the fight against capitalists.

I firmly believe the history of income inequality is caused by the differences in occupational earnings and standards of living. It is not easy to reduce the gap between the few very rich and the many poor individuals in the world today. However, I support the idea that proper civil liberty can reduce disparities and allow nature to reward individuals neutrally. The development of economics comes with a technological and industrial revolution. I believe this factor has also led to an increase in the gap between the poor and the rich. The gap has some positive sides, such as a call for competition law and hard work. However, I find the difference more negative than positive. For instance, the gap causes a shortage of cultural development. It also has negative impacts on social security. Besides the suggestions suggested by the articles discussed above, I also believe that improving capital channels for the poor can be beneficial. This step will create more employment and enhance education for the poor. Tax policies have adverse effects on the broader poor community. People need to be encouraged and facilitated to start businesses. Governments must, however, promote the development of SMEs in various industries such as agriculture and processing. Proper policies for education, medicine, and finance are also critical in reducing inequalities across people and regions. Therefore, we need an all-inclusive approach to reduce the gap between the few very rich and the many poor individuals in the world. The solution must be multidimensional because the causes can be traced back to centuries back. Nevertheless, every individual must work hard, participate in the competition race, and get the best of their efforts as nature desires.