My reading of Andrew Jackson is that he plainly opposed Federal money intervention en toto precisely because any regulation would inevitably be hijacked by the monied interests. Didn’t he advocate state competition in the money market? He certainly didn’t advocate a Federal income tax. I grow tired of one of our nation’s forefathers being invoked in anachronistic fashion to promote doctrines that would make the man roll in his grave. The most efficient way of distributing money is self-evident to the person who earns it and, with a multitude of cases in the fullness of time, spontaneous order is achieved.
The book's title comes from the lead essay, which argues that egalitarian theory always results in politics of statist control because it is founded on revolt against the ontological structure of reality itself. It is an attempt to replace what exists with a Romantic image of an idealized primitive state of nature, an ideal which cannot and should not be achieved. The implications of this point are worked out on topics such as market economics, child rights, environmentalism, feminism, foreign policy, redistribution--and a host of other issues that are driving public debate today.
In relation to your second observation, you leave out the all-important “To me” that was at the start of that sentence. I did not intend to make a theological point about grace/free will! To put it very differently, the desire to make such renunciations does not stem from ‘medieval’ (a term I am loathe to use to give a negative connotation) masochism but as a loving response to God’s grace and mercy. This grace is helping me to discover my vocation, and I am discerning what I think is God’s invitation to make these renunciations. Does this leave you a little less perplexed? I’ll be the first to admit I should be more exacting when expressing myself.