A broad essay about our society and the presidential race.

The Republic

What most people know of Plato’s The Republic is the idea of the Philosopher Kings, which was the ideal form of government set forward by Socrates in the dialogue. However in the beginning the discussion starts about what is just and what makes one a just person. Socrates and Polemarchus had just finished hammering out the first conclusion of the dialogue: A just person is a good person, their role is not to harm anyone with the understanding that the role of a just person was to help others and make them more just.

At this point Thrasymachus interrupts and claims that justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger citing as his example that the rulers of a state make laws which are beneficial to themselves which those ruled over must obey. However Socrates shows that a craft considers what is advantageous for that which it governs: medicine considers what is advantageous for the body, not what is advantageous for medicine. Therefore the craft of ruling or governing considers what is advantageous for the people, not what is advantageous for the ruler.

Thrasymachus now flips the argument on its head and argues that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, and that injustice is what is profitable and advantageous for oneself. He gives a list of supporting evidence, much of which sounds very familiar to us today such as the unjust man will pay less taxes than a just man, and the unjust man will get a large return while the just man gets nothing. He says that injustice, on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterful than justice. He casts injustice as a virtue, and justice as a noble naiveté. This is eventually refuted by showing that an unjust person has the characteristics of a bad and ignorant person while a just person has the characteristics of a good and knowledgeable person.

I will stop here, for I feel that our society today has embraced Thrasymachus’ view. Our politicians by and large certainly practice their craft with an eye towards re-electability rather than what is advantageous to the people. Corporations engage in every tax and legal loophole imaginable to maximize their profits, while at the same time practicing what is advantageous to their investors rather than their workers. Every time I hear Hillary Clinton call Bernie Sanders an idealist I hear Thrasymachus calling justice a noble naiveté.

On Duties

This work by Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman statesman in the waning days of the Republic, is an excellent read and I had to resist copying the whole text. Let it suffice to discuss two points.

Cicero points out there are, also, wrongs committed by a sort of chicanery, which consists in a too subtle, and thus fraudulent, interpretation of the right. He gives as one example a leader who ravaged the land of his enemy during the night on the pretext that the truce has been for so many days, not nights. We see so many examples of this in our society. Many very intelligent but unethical people make huge sums of money looking for these loopholes. There is the spirit (or intent) of a law and the ‘law as written’. Exploitation of the latter leads to things like large corporations paying zero taxes or the aluminum merry-go-round at Goldman Sachs’s.

The second thing to point out is really a forestallment. Cicero writes about taking from others to give others as an unjust thing. And in context, it is. If Sally works and Bob doesn’t, it isn’t just to take Sally’s money and give it to Bob. It is worth mentioning though that Cicero would argue that is Sally is a just person, she will want to give some money to Bob anyway.

However, where this is not the case for today in America is that the shift of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 10% over the last thirty years didn’t ‘just happen’. It happened due to unjust changes in policy and laws. Tax havens, shipping jobs overseas, replacing workers with technology, and a host of other factors deflated the income growth of the bottom 90% and inflated the income growth of the top 10%. It is only logical that to start engaging in just practices will produce the opposite: deflating the income growth of the top 10% to raise the income growth of the bottom 90% until a more just dispersal is attained. To benefit from 30 years of unjust practices and then try to protect those benefits behind the mantle of justice is truly shameful.

The Founding Fathers and Education

There is a seemingly growing element of reverence for the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, unfortunately by a group of people that seem to actually know very little about the former and who haven’t read the latter. Both of these things are worthy of respect, the Constitution is the foundation for modern day democratic republics and is full of just ideas, even if they aren’t always applied justly. Likewise the Founding Fathers were just but flawed, as all people are. Yes, they were undoubtedly racists, misogynists, and imperialists, yet within their world view they set out to create a just society. However, I believe the kind of uninformed, almost mythological view of the Founding Fathers expressed by segments of the society is potentially dangerous.

The second puzzling thing is amongst these same people (and others as well) is a ridiculing of Liberal Arts education (that is to say, any education which is not STEM and profession focused). Why is this puzzling for this group to feel this way? All the Founding Fathers had Liberal Educations. It was a Liberal Education which wrote the constitution. Up into the early 20^th century, one did not go to college to learn a profession, one went to be educated. This consisted of a liberal arts education with a focus on the classics. Every Founding Father would have been familiar with Plato and Cicero, among others, whose works were cornerstones in the process of our Constitution. As Fisk University put it:

The Classical Course is intended to give those who pursue it a liberal education. Its purpose is not so much to give specific or professional knowledge as it is to give power in thought, correctness of judgement, breadth of view, standards of refinement and established character. The experience of history justifies this course

Perhaps if we had more liberally educated people, our society would be more thoughtful and just rather than the divided mess we have today.

Capitalism and Capture

Of the modern economic structures we have currently, I still believe Capitalism to be the best model. However I think it is incorrect to say that Socialism and Communism fail while Capitalism succeeds. I think all three fail in their own ways, and that generally governments are set up by just minded people and begin to fail immediately, and are marked by declines punctuated by just governments who restore the government to a more just position, which then begins to decline again. I believe that the failure of Capitalism are these ‘gilded ages’ where the economic power of the system benefits the smallest number of people. The last time America had a gilded age, it took Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt to right the ship. In our new gilded age, who will right the ship? Of the current crop of candidates, only one seems like a just person.

The first thing that must be addressed is that there is no such thing as a free market. A truly free market is the capitalistic version of Utopia. It is the ideal state of capitalism but one that only exists ideologically. The market exists as a series of government policies and laws. Those who have a great deal of wealth wield undue influence over the market and can use that influence to prevent others from succeeding in the market. This is why strong regulation is required by the government.

Capture in this context refers to regulatory capture. This is when a regulatory agency set up to act in the public interest instead advances the interests of the industry it is supposed to regulate. We see this everywhere but nowhere more troubling than that in which could be considered the ultimate regulatory body- The U.S. Congress. Most of its members are in the pockets of powerful industry lobbies.
The Media

If you know anything about Theodore Roosevelt, you know that he had a great ally in his reformation in the media. Specifically investigative reporters at magazines like the legendary McClure’s which revealed the unjust practices of the corporations and monopolies of the day. Unfortunately he eventually turned on his allies and the corporations learned their lessons, buying all the major media outlets.

We hate the bias in the media, but it is an unfortunate outcome of capitalism where media has to be a profitable business. It would be far better if the media had some sort of separate status and was funded independently, but currently some governing body would have to handle the transfer of funds to them and that body would likely end up with undue influence.

The internet has enable smaller news sources which can be good, but most of them are shilling for one side or the other, and combing through their data to vet them as a reliable source can be exhausting.

The 2016 Presidential Race

It seems clear to me that we are living in an unjust society. Those governing by and large are governing for their benefit instead of that of the people. The large benefits of our economic model are mostly going to a small number of people and the regulatory agencies which are supposed to correct this are regulating for the benefit of those being regulated. This makes the question of who will next lead the country an important one.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is far too mobile in her positions to be considered a just candidate. She has largely engulfed the positions of her opponent into her own, which pundits argue is a good thing, yet I don’t believe she will stick to those positions. She has said she will only release her Wall Street speeches if *all* candidates do so, including the Republicans. She had to add that last caveat as her opponent already released all of his (since he had none). Clearly there is something in those speeches she doesn’t want her base to see.

I really hope that in my lifetime we will have a woman as President. However I believe Hillary is pursuing it for the honor itself and not for a desire to govern for the people.

Marco Rubio

Like Hillary, I believe Rubio wants the Presidency for the sake of honor. His abysmal attendance in Congress tells me he doesn’t take the idea of governance seriously and it was just a stepping stone for him. He has also leveled some fairly infantile attacks against Trump.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is a strict Constitutionalist. Until the Constitution says something he doesn’t like such as President Obama nominating a Supreme Court Justice. That is not a just position.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump is going to ‘Make America Great Again’ and get us all jobs, build a huge wall, deport millions of people, ban Muslims from the country (‘not forever’) and has all the best words. Yet his clothing lines are made overseas, his hotels are staffed with immigrants, and he admits to using every tax loophole he can and to buying influence in Congress.

Trump supporters are quick to counter these divergences between what Trump says and what Trump actually does with ‘everyone [in business] does that!’ Everyone knows this is a fallacious argument, you know that when you tried this argument on your parents they answered back that if everyone jumped off a cliff (or bridge) would you? The fact that Trump engages in unethical behavior because no one stops him from doing so is not a just argument. If Trump were a just person, his products would provide American jobs and he would pay his share of taxes.

Recently, Rubio made a crass un-Presidential joke about Trump’s hand size and implied that Trump would also have a small penis. This was a mark against Rubio. Far more troubling though was Trump feeling the need to defend against this remark on national television. That is not the sign of a confident man.
Finally, while Trump may not endorse the support of all the white supremacist groups he has been receiving, what does it say about your campaign if it is attractive to these unjust people? 

Bernie Sanders

I have many concerns over the specifics of Bernie Sander’s plan; that the tax rate may be too high, that it may hurt businesses. But here’s the thing, policies can be adjusted, but you can’t make an unjust person a just person. Mr. Sanders has, so far as I’ve been able to find, consistently governed to the advantage of the people and is the only just candidate in the field.