But physicians are of three kinds: there is the ordinary practitioner, and there is the physician of the higher class, and thirdly the intelligent man who has studied the art: in all arts there is such a class; and we attribute the power of judging to them quite as much as to professors of the art. Secondly, does not the same principle apply to elections? For a right election can only be made by those who have knowledge. […] So that, according to this argument, neither the election of magistrates, nor the calling of them to account, should be entrusted to the many. Yet possibly these objections are to a great extent met by our old answer, that if the people are not utterly degraded, although individually they may be worse judges than those who have special knowledge - as a body they are as good or better.
- Aristotle Politics Book 3 Chapter 11
Yesterday we looked at some of the philosophical grounds for Flying Francy Free in revolutionary manner. We saw how some of the same arguments are used by progressives to mutilate children, and how they erode the natural law arguments for any authority or governing sovereign at all.
But, apart from the taking Capitalism and Libertas to their extreme spiritual ends, there are still material moral issues with it.
See, capitalism as a foundation claims that prices are just if everyone consents to them in the buying and selling.
Leaving any power structures ignored.
Any human relationships.
Hierarchies in status that naturally exist.
The only thing that matters, in the end, is consent.
Thus, comes the reality that dollars are votes. And, because economic transactions pervade every part of human existence, so does the mentality and de-humanization that comes with it.
So, by advocating a Free Market….
You’re advocating a place where the 99% of people’s ability to choose doesn’t matter.
Just look at the wealth disparity. While high now, societies in previous eras always had a moral authority and means to reign in nobles, aristocrats, and oligarchs should they need to.
Now, with Libertas and the Invisible Hand, there’s no moral authority or mythos to do the same.
No moral authority to do, say, what China did - banning high frequency traders from manipulating markets to the detriment of everyday citizens. If buyers and sellers consent, who are we to judge?
No moral authority to say that certain chemical factories shouldn’t exist by homes, even if sellers are willing.
Or authority to say goods should meet certain safety standards, but be allowed a race to the bottom in price discovery and quality. After all, the poor man that couldn’t afford better knew what he was buying; too bad for his widow and children.
No moral authority to impose the responsibilities of ownership that existed in the middle ages, and only slightly do today. That property exists first for the common good, given to the individual secondarily in justice, to keep the peace, and promote the common good.
Examples being if you have squatters on your land for a certain number of years, the property now belongs to them as you’re a neglectful owner, and property exists to be used. Or that, if people have an ancestral claim to travel a stretch of property (to get to town, work, or water animals), you nor anyone you sell to can deny that to them - the claim exists in justice.
Any unjust use of property, begins to disassociate the owner from their just claim over the property.
These ideas, common to the Middle Ages where they held society together, have disappeared.
They are foreign to the modern man,
And anathema to the capitalist way of thinking.
Because, again, capital ‘freely’ exchanged is all that matters and votes in Capitalism!
Thus, we get a dehumanizing,
Materialist,
Ugly,
Reality.
Because the main consideration, of how we can justly use goods of exchange to achieve the common good, under a sovereign authority’s guidance…
Can’t be done.
Thus, chaos and the strong oppressing the weak.
Millions of dollars to one.
If you’re not in the hole, already, at that.
If the poor, for example, because they are more in number, divide among themselves the property of the rich-is not this unjust? […] But if it is not injustice, pray what is? Again, when in the first division all has been taken, and the majority divide anew the property of the minority, is it not evident, if this goes on, that they will ruin the state? […] If it were, all the acts of the tyrant must of necessity be just; for he only coerces other men by superior power, just as the multitude coerce the rich. But is it just then that the few and the wealthy should be the rulers? And what if they, in like manner, rob and plunder the people-is this just? If so, the other case will likewise be just. But there can be no doubt that all these things are wrong and unjust.
- Aristotle Politics Book 3 Chapter 11