4 ms·

> So how do we create a more fair economy? Well the easiest way would be to forbid private capital.

svieira 6y ago
That's an easy way to create a different kind of unfair economy, but not a way (by itself) to create a fair one. If there is no private capital there is no private ownership. If there is no private ownership then you're back in _The Republic_ ignoring the fact that Aristotle already pointed out the crucial flaw in that desire - people care more for what is their own than for what is held in common > For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few. Each citizen will have a thousand sons who will not be his sons individually but anybody will be equally the son of anybody, and will therefore be neglected by all alike. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html Or perhaps you're looking for the angels that Madison writes about in Federalist #51 to distribute all capital fairly without assigning ownership of any of it to those to whom it is distributed? > It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp
- monadic2 6y ago
  I would imagine the societies we have well documented are better cases for exploring abolishing private property than Aristotle—decent at constructing ontologies, not exactly a sociologist. I place my heart in writers far more relevant to today than Madison, of all people—the federal government has never looked so sick, the non-representation of our politicians so obvious. I agree that government is fallible; the answer to that is not to revert to locke (or, more likely, a thin veneer of locke over malthus and hobbes).
  - godelski 6y ago
    This comment did not add to your argument. It can be summarized as "I like different philosophers than you" and misses the point. I'll remind you that one's ideas should be based on the merit of those ideas and not where they lie in history or along a political spectrum. Also, to have a discussion you need to bring something more than "I'm right, you're wrong, your guys are old." Otherwise you will continue to not be taken seriously.
godelski 6y ago
I'm sorry, you're going to have to expand on this. Dang even made a sticky noting specifically this. We can discuss it, but it isn't obvious to me or others, albeit it might be obvious to you.

That's an easy way to create a different kind of unfair economy, but not a way (by itself) to create a fair one. If there is no private capital there is no private ownership. If there is no private ownership then you're back in _The Republic_ ignoring the fact that Aristotle already pointed out the crucial flaw in that desire - people care more for what is their own than for what is held in common > For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few. Each citizen will have a thousand sons who will not be his sons individually but anybody will be equally the son of anybody, and will therefore be neglected by all alike. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html Or perhaps you're looking for the angels that Madison writes about in Federalist #51 to distribute all capital fairly without assigning ownership of any of it to those to whom it is distributed? > It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp

monadic2 6y ago
I would imagine the societies we have well documented are better cases for exploring abolishing private property than Aristotle—decent at constructing ontologies, not exactly a sociologist. I place my heart in writers far more relevant to today than Madison, of all people—the federal government has never looked so sick, the non-representation of our politicians so obvious. I agree that government is fallible; the answer to that is not to revert to locke (or, more likely, a thin veneer of locke over malthus and hobbes).
- godelski 6y ago
  This comment did not add to your argument. It can be summarized as "I like different philosophers than you" and misses the point. I'll remind you that one's ideas should be based on the merit of those ideas and not where they lie in history or along a political spectrum. Also, to have a discussion you need to bring something more than "I'm right, you're wrong, your guys are old." Otherwise you will continue to not be taken seriously.

godelski 6y ago

I'm sorry, you're going to have to expand on this. Dang even made a sticky noting specifically this. We can discuss it, but it isn't obvious to me or others, albeit it might be obvious to you.