Corporate Dominion Americas Deviation from Founding Principles

0:00

/919.76

1×

The USA was given the "Moral Algorithm" for success in fact it is written into the DNA of every founding document yet people forget...

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.” - John Adams

The Boston Tea Party was carried out by a bunch or self employed and small business people due to the back room deal the King gave to the largest international corporation of that time i.e. the East India Trading company

When the American colonies declared independence from England in 1776, they were freeing themselves from the control of English corporations that held monopolies and extracted wealth from the colonies.

The Founding Fathers had a cautious view of corporate power and initially limited corporations primarily to a business role, with restrictions on their influence in politics or charitable activities.

Early corporations in America included cities, schools, and charitable organizations, with economic enterprises chartered as corporations appearing more in the 1790s.

The Founding Fathers worried that corporations could:

Become too powerful: They feared corporations would gain too much economic and political control, like the East India Company had in the colonies.

Corrupt the government: They were concerned that wealthy corporations could influence elections and laws for their own benefit.

Undermine democracy: They believed this power could threaten the government's ability to act on behalf of the people.

Therefore, early corporations in the US were closely controlled by the government and focused on serving the public, not just making profits.

Today there are some that worship corporate power and that is the root cause of the collapse of the USA

Unraveling America's Challenges: Corporate Dominance, Founding Principles, and the Path to Current Unrest

Introduction: The Conversation's Origin and Progression

This article synthesizes a detailed dialogue that began with an analysis of a provocative comment on social media: "The Boston Tea Party wasn’t just about taxes, it was a protest by small business owners against the King’s monopoly deal with the East India Company, the world’s largest corporation. The Founders saw corporate power as a threat to democracy. Early U.S. laws kept corporations tightly controlled, limited in scope, and focused on public service, not private profit. Today there are some that worship corporate power and that is the root cause of the collapse of the USA."

The discussion evolved into a rigorous examination of whether "worship of corporate power" is indeed the root cause of contemporary U.S. issues, including income inequality, austerity measures, erosion of civil liberties (e.g., via the Patriot Act), and emerging threats like Project 2025. Through iterative questioning, we explored historical contexts, current economic and social data as of July 18, 2025, and applied the "5 Whys" methodology to dissect causes. The conversation scrutinized "other factors" like technological disruption, global pressures, and cultural shifts, ultimately confirming a singular root cause: the erosion of government as a servant of the common good, supplanted by corporate and elite dominance.

This root cause ties directly to a deviation from the nation's founding moral framework, which we define here as John Adams' "Moral Algorithm"—a principled formula for governance that prioritized collective welfare over private interests. By presenting all data, methods, and results comprehensively, this article eliminates the need for further reading, offering logical conclusions grounded in evidence.

Historical Context: The Founding Fathers' Wariness of Corporate Power and John Adams' "Moral Algorithm"

To understand the current U.S. state, we must revisit the nation's origins. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was not merely a tax revolt but a direct action by self-employed merchants and small business owners against the British Crown's favoritism toward the East India Company—the era's largest multinational corporation. This entity held a monopoly on tea imports, undercutting local economies through the Tea Act, which symbolized broader colonial exploitation by unaccountable corporate power. When the colonies declared independence in 1776, they explicitly sought freedom from English corporations that monopolized resources and extracted wealth, viewing such entities as extensions of tyrannical control.

The Founding Fathers, including figures like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, harbored deep suspicions of corporate power. They feared corporations could:

• Amass excessive influence: Echoing the East India Company's dominance, they worried about economic and political monopolies stifling competition and innovation.
• Corrupt governance: Wealthy corporations might sway elections, legislation, and public policy for private gain, undermining republican ideals.
• Threaten democracy: Concentrated power could prevent government from acting in the people's interest, leading to inequality and instability.

Consequently, early U.S. corporations (emerging in the 1790s) were chartered for public purposes—such as infrastructure, education, or charity—with strict government oversight. Charters were revocable, scopes limited, and profits secondary to societal benefit. This framework aimed to prevent the corporate overreach that plagued colonial life.

Central to this vision was John Adams' 1776 statement in Thoughts on Government: “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.” We define this as Adams' Moral Algorithm—a foundational ethical formula for democratic success. It operated like an algorithm in its systematic logic:

• Input: Societal needs (protection, safety, prosperity, happiness).
• Process: Government as an adaptable servant, prioritizing collective over individual or class interests.
• Output: Equitable outcomes, with mechanisms for reform to ensure ongoing alignment.

This Moral Algorithm was a formula for success because it fostered resilience and unity. By mandating government adaptability to public needs, it prevented stagnation and elite capture, promoting broad-based prosperity (e.g., early economic growth without extreme inequality). It aligned with Enlightenment ideals, ensuring democracy's longevity through checks on power imbalances. However, deviating from it—through policies favoring corporate elites—has caused the current state: systemic inequality, eroded trust, and division. As corporate influence grew (via milestones like the Powell Memo in 1971 and Citizens United in 2010), government shifted from public servant to elite enabler, amplifying unrest by neglecting the "common good." This betrayal explains why issues like austerity and surveillance persist, as they serve narrow interests over collective happiness.

Methods Used: The 5 Whys Methodology

The core analytical tool was the "5 Whys" methodology, a root cause analysis technique originating from Toyota's lean manufacturing principles. It involves iteratively asking "Why?" five times to peel back symptoms and uncover underlying causes. Each level builds on the previous, revealing interconnected dynamics. We applied it to the overall U.S. state, then to "other factors" (technological disruption, global pressures, cultural shifts) to test independence from the root cause.

This method was chosen for its structured transparency: it forces logical progression, avoids oversimplification, and highlights feedback loops. Data was drawn from real-time economic indicators (e.g., GDP, unemployment), social metrics (e.g., institutional trust), and historical/policy analyses, updated as of July 18, 2025.americanprogress.org+7 more No assumptions were made; each "Why" was evidence-based, with conclusions explaining causal chains.

Data Examined: The Current State of the USA as of July 18, 2025

The conversation focused on economic unrest (slowdown, inequality, austerity) and social division (polarization, distrust, activism). Key data points, confirmed via updated sources:

• Economic Indicators: Real GDP contracted by 0.3% annualized in Q1 2025 (first negative since Q1 2022), with full-year growth projected at 1% (Deloitte) or 1.5-1.6% (earlier forecasts revised down). Unemployment is at 4.1% in Q2, expected to stabilize at 4.0% by year-end, but job growth slowed to ~25,000/month in H2. Inflation is easing in H2 but risks pickup from tariffs/trade tensions; trade deficits hit $71.5 billion in May.deloitte.com+4 more Recession probability: 35%, potentially by Q4.
• Income Inequality: Top 1% holds ~30% of wealth; real wages for bottom 50% stagnant since 1970s. Austerity cuts disproportionately affect lower-income groups, with Project 2025 proposals risking $7,741 drop in GDP per capita over 5 years and 8.7 million job losses.americanprogress.org+3 more
• Social Division: Institutional trust at historic lows (government ~20%, per Gallup/Pew; overall ~16-30%). Polarization amplified by far-right movements, misinformation, and unrest (e.g., protests over inequality). Voter turnout historically 50-60%; activism rises amid "grievance era" (Edelman). Global risks include state conflicts, cyber threats, and immigration fears.weforum.org
• Policy Threats: Patriot Act (2001) eroded privacy; Project 2025 could dismantle agencies, centralize power, increase poverty, and favor wealthy tax cuts, worsening divisions.americanprogress.org+2 more

These create a feedback loop: Economic pressures fuel grievances, eroding trust and amplifying extremism.

Analyses: Applying the 5 Whys to Key Issues

We conducted multiple 5 Whys analyses. Below are tables for each, with logical explanations.

Overall U.S. State: Economic and Social Unrest/Division

Logical Conclusion: This chain reveals how surface issues (e.g., tariffs causing GDP contraction) stem from deeper policy biases favoring elites, directly violating Adams' Moral Algorithm by ignoring adaptability for public prosperity. Without reform, cycles of unrest persist, as government fails to "alter" for happiness.

Technological Advances (AI and Automation Displacing Jobs)

Logical Conclusion: While AI breakthroughs are scientific, their job-displacing deployment is profit-driven, enabled by deregulated environments. This links to the root cause, as government—per the Moral Algorithm—should mitigate harms for "protection and happiness," but corporate capture prevents such safeguards, exacerbating inequality akin to colonial monopolies.

Technological Disruption from Scientific Breakthroughs

Logical Conclusion: Origins may be collaborative, but commercialization prioritizes profit, unchecked by government. This deviation from the Moral Algorithm—where reform should address public harms—allows elites to exploit innovations, mirroring Founders' fears of corporate corruption.

International Events Amplifying U.S. Divisions (Economic Shocks and Security Fears)

Logical Conclusion: External events exist independently, but U.S. responses (e.g., tariffs worsening inflation) are shaped by elite interests, not public safety. The Moral Algorithm demands adaptability for "safety and prosperity," but capture leads to policies that heighten divisions, echoing colonial exploitation.

Global Pressures (Interstate Dynamics, Natural Phenomena, Foreign Actors)

Logical Conclusion: Origins are exogenous, but reactions amplify unrest via elite-biased policies. Without the Moral Algorithm's emphasis on reform for happiness, government fails to buffer global shocks equitably, perpetuating inequality.

Cultural Changes (Declining Trust in Institutions and Rising Activism)

Logical Conclusion: Low turnout (50-60%) and activism reflect grievances against power imbalances. The Moral Algorithm would mandate reform to restore trust, but corporate supplanting fosters division, as government ignores "happiness" for profit.

Results Confirmed and Logical Conclusions

Across all analyses, the root cause consistently emerges as the erosion of government as a servant of the common good, supplanted by corporate and elite dominance. No alternative root (e.g., pure technology or globalization) stands alone; they interconnect through this lens. Logically, this betrayal—starting with neoliberal shifts in the 1970s—creates a vicious cycle: Corporate influence skews policies (e.g., deregulation leading to AI job losses, protectionism worsening trade deficits), eroding trust (~20%) and fueling unrest. Project 2025 exemplifies this, potentially slashing GDP per capita and increasing poverty to benefit elites.americanprogress.orgcbpp.org

The Moral Algorithm's importance lies in its preventive logic: By enforcing government for the "common good," it ensured success through equity and adaptability, averting the Founders' feared corporate tyranny. Not following it has caused the current state by allowing elite capture, leading to inequality (30% wealth concentration), austerity burdens, and division (e.g., 35% recession risk). Realignment—via reforms like campaign limits—could restore balance, but continued deviation risks further "collapse," as the original comment warned. This comprehensive view confirms the root cause without ambiguity.