Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: -of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.
- Aristotle Politics Book 3 Chapter 7
After yesterday’s post discussing the need to Free the Men, not the Markets, I think it’s time to turn to the natural reasons why Capitalism and Free Markets are Bad News.
They lead people to thinking Libertas is to be desired over all.
See, one of the people linked to yesterday, Mr
, is someone whose thought I’m gaining a burgeoning bit of respect for. His ideas are laid out, in detail, over time, coherently. He is a defender of extreme individual sovereignty and free markets.Of the individual’s ability to break with a sovereign, at any time, if he so chooses.
While keeping all property, somehow, and creating his own state within what was previously the sovereign’s territory.
Unfortunately, he’s wrong that there is moral founding for this stance.
To say nothing of the many arguments about being able to financially maintain public infrastructure, goods, laws, military, the poor, etc…
What he fails to understand is two fold:
He is, at once, ratifying the idea of social contract to it’s most extreme limit, while in other places saying he disdains it. But, if there was no social contract, what would the individual break that would give him the moral authority to be able to ‘break’ with the sovereign? One cannot divorce a marriage that one has not entered, after all.
Natural law basis for government is founded upon the same arguments as the family. Just as you have no choice to what family you are born into, but have duties to it from birth to death; so too do you have duties to the state you are born into without choice. To use arguments otherwise, as I pointed out to him, are the same arguments to take a child away from parents for transgender mutilation. Or, and I didn’t say this, unjust wars to ‘free citizens in other countries.’
If you doubt me on my claims, just look at Revolutionary France.
Who thought they could export their ideals,
through peace or through war,
upon all of Europe.
For the good of the People, you know?
Or the war it waged upon it’s own citizens.
To this day, people celebrate Bastille day….
Where a nothing, unimportant, undermanned prison was taken…
When it surrendered, the main leader beheaded,
And Mistress Libertas gave some of her first birth cries…
Maturing quickly to the bastard, bloody bitch Madame Guillotine.
And the following:
Laws against any but the state religion - maybe now this religion would be Liberty? Or Science!
Forced oaths to the constitution - like when they realize they have problems with keeping it.
Killing of dissidents - how else would you deal with enemies within your borders, but within their own sovereign border? Or those suspected to soon do so? I see gangs like the old union enforcers…
But hey.
Those might be a fitting end, actually.
To the Empire of the Usury, Sodomy, Sex, and Abortion.
But it’s not the one I’d chose.
Does that mean I can declare Sovereignty?
There is still a danger in allowing them to share the great offices of state, for their folly will lead them into error, and their dishonesty into crime. But there is a danger also in not letting them share, for a state in which many poor men are excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies.
- Aristotle Politics Book 3 Chapter 11