Could Production Rights Counter the Urge to Destroy?

One of the unsettling features of this recent election cycle, has been the oft stated desire to completely demolish the opposition. There's more at stake than belonging to the "wrong" team, since extremists on both sides tend towards a zero tolerance ideological approach. Even though some relief might be had from these cultural battles in the days ahead, how much "normalcy" is still feasible? Is the tribal urge to destroy only temporarily hidden from sight? 

By way of example,  a police chief in Arkansas resigned from his job, after promoting violence against Democrats on social media. Yet this is only a specific extreme example, in a broader backdrop of growing animosity towards "neoliberalism" in general. Indeed, reactions against various capitalist institutions took place decades earlier among the political left, and have since spread to others on the right. Consequently, the urge to destroy could remain an unsettling reality which continues to disrupt the benefits of globalization and an interconnected world. Even though - here in the U.S. - the presidential outcome provides a chance to catch our collective breath, this reprieve may nonetheless be short lived.

What can be done if populism continues to pose problems for wealth creation and economic stability? I can only hope that better defined production rights would ultimately counter the urge to destroy. After all, most individuals are naturally less inclined to tear down institutions and environments which have also been shaped by their own personal and financial commitments. Yet when we hear calls for greater responsibility on the part of all citizens, it's easy to forget, how domestic protectionist impulses limit the ways in which citizens are able to be personally responsible in any group context.

Hence one major challenge is ensuring that more citizens can fully participate in a modern economy. Too many now lack the economic freedom to fully contribute to their economic circumstance, meaning their personal realities often pay the price. When people have few opportunities to define the nature of their own environments, destruction all too often becomes the preferred response. It's time to build stronger supply side production options - options which can create more equality of opportunity and hope for a more inclusive future.

No one can reasonably expect politicians and policy makers to do the heavy lifting in this regard. Plus: Both Democrats and Republicans - despite their polarized differences - have been vested in forms of domestic protectionism which remain destructive for lower income levels. Is it any wonder this protectionism finally spilled out into the international arena?

Average citizens - especially those without college degrees -  are the ones who hold the greatest stake in the markets for services and physical infrastructure which now need to be encouraged. Fortunately, these new markets could be actively supported by economists and other professionals, who are starting to realize that millions can't support the fiscal and social responsibilities of a complex economy without active roles. Nor is it a simple matter to expect monetary redistribution from professional incomes for lower income levels, as was once the case via (a more dominant) tradable sector based revenue. Fortunately, time and knowledge can provide, what money is less prepared to accomplish in a services dominant economy. Let's extend better defined production rights to average citizens. By doing so, we might begin to bridge the chasms between prosperous and struggling regions which now stand in the way of peaceful democratic processes.