I concur. This merits human analysis. I'd be curious to know the subjective effects of combining the two. In particular, I'm wondering if mirtazapine reduces "wanting" while enhancing "liking".

The main reason I'd been thinking this is due to comparison to similar drug combos in humans. I'd heard that combining hydroxyzine and opioids was sometimes prescribed to enhance the effectiveness of opioids and/or use lower opioid doses; I'd also read on some harm reduction forum that some people enjoy combining opioids with antihistamines. Given that mirtazapine is to a large extent just hydroxyzine but with added adrenergic effects, it seems likely that much of these data can be cross-applied (between mirtazapine and hydroxyzine in particular).

"The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self-protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages, a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European condition"

Distance was a huge issue with trying to unite the people and form a strong political movement. The farmers and the urban workers were suffering through similar problems of poverty. Both types were being exploited by the wealthy few; the urban workers were stuck in factories by the Captain of Industry while the farmers were constantly in debt to the merchants. The biggest struggle of the Populist party was to connect the two types of voters, and the main way they do that is through connecting their struggles.

"We assert our purposes to be identical with the purposes of the National Constitution; to form a more perfect union and establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

In these two documents they both use the constitution to prove their point, even though they are on opposite sides of the same problem. On one hand Grover Cleveland is saying that the Constitution doesn't allow for a bill to pass that only helps individuals, but on the flip-side the People's Party says that helping the farmers will create a more perfect union. The farmers wanted to have assurance that if their crops had a bad season they wouldn't have to starve for the rest of the year. Cleveland seems unsympathetic to the cause even though the happiness of the farmers directly affects how they'll vote during the election.

The sentence highlights the social inconsistency within the age of the second industrial revolution. At this time, social inequality was due to political corruption and how wealth was distributed. Thus, the man with capital had more power and wealth than the man who does not have capital. Also, what I found distinct about this quote is that Sumner contrasted it with the idea of the first paragraph, in which he stated and acknowledges that equality was possible if everyone could "share" the wealth and power, then inequality would be solved. However, by stating the quote (highlighted), there would be no work and that it was necessary to have men with capital because they are the propellers of success in society.