---------

Subject: Economic Prosperity and Law...

(Tuesday, February 24, 2009)

(approx. 4175 words, 8 pp.)

(or)

(or)

(or)

From Plato’s Republic, to Aristotle’s Politics, to Cicero’s Republic, and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Western man has asked the question, What is the Just Republic, and how does it relate to the morally virtuous and truly fulfilled life of the individual and to the wealth, health, and overall prosperity of the nation? Following what appears to be, now, an inevitable worldwide economic meltdown in 2008, it is time once again to raise these time-honored questions of mankind on earth. What are the same lessons learned, yet again, in this our day? The seeds were laid for this latest collapse in the 1960s with an overall or general social/ cultural shift to a morally relative humanism, which is a foolish sand upon which no society, individual life or economy can be built. Once again, this is the lesson learned, but the dynamic of setting up "a just republic" or "commonwealth" with liberty and justice for all is a much greater question, yet to be answered in the long story of man on earth...

Where did we leave off last time? Why are models of "anti-body" for the nation in radical individualism and collectivist egalitarianism overtly humanistic?

The "body model" is generally the social end of individual moral theory...

The "body model" for the nation is generally the social end of individual moral theory as much as the beginning of economic or political analysis. So, to begin this analysis of why "anti-body" radical individualism and collectivist egalitarianism are overtly humanistic, forget the body model for politics or economics or for the nation as a whole in order to start this and ask simply: What were Socrates/ Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero doing by their own statements? They were attempting to understand naturalistically how the desirability of the individual moral life (for true happiness and fulfillment) relates to the nation or republic or city state, etc., as a whole. (Indeed, so was C. S. Lewis.) Each was asking is there really a moral good for the individual, and is it really the most fulfilling and happiest life, and is it really the best and wisest life, and further is there ultimately a righteous God (True Good, Creator/ First Cause, Designer in order to do science, etc.) and is there quite possibly an ultimate accountability before God in a Judgment for us as individuals in the afterlife, etc.?

Cicero, Socrates, Aristotle, and Paul all say "yes" to these questions in one way or another, as does Solomon, of course, and even Moses holds righteous individuals will create a righteous and prosperous state, and in doing right, the nation will not be overtly judged by God! However, it is after asking these basic questions about the desirability of the individual moral life that Socrates in Plato’s Republic, Aristotle in his Politics, and Cicero in his writings (philosophically, if not chronologically) go on to develop the naturalistic implications of this for the good of the nation as a whole as well as for the individuals in it pursuing moral virtue. In truth, under inspiration, even Paul in the New Testament follows this same line of argument for the well-being or "prosperity" (so to speak) of the whole Church as a ‘body,’ as well as for its individual members fulfilling themselves.

Clearly, there is an interconnection between personal moral theory, social theory, political theory, and, ultimately, economic theory and law, and, hence, ultimately there is a connection for desirable regulation of markets and commerce, etc. It is after these thinkers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Paul) address the wise desirability of the moral good life for the individual that they go on to develop a theory of the body politic of all its members harmoniously (that is, morally!) interacting and ultimately producing an overall "prosperity," economically and otherwise, for the nation or group ("body") and its individual members in their (moral) interaction. (Again, morality is treating others as yourself or as you would wish to be fairly treated yourself, etc..)

It is after establishing the reality of the wisdom and desirability of personal moral theory that Cicero, Socrates, Lewis, and Paul go on to say that this harmonious interaction of people in a group fulfilling themselves in their talents and potential but not taking advantage of each other (that is, in immorality) that the state, or nation, or republic, or even Church is best described as parts of a body interacting as equal but with different functions in the whole! But the Sophist, the hedonist/Epicurean, the City of Man humanist, and, as we will see, David Hume and John Stuart Mill are not on board with this! Either for the individual’s true good in moral action (as real, wise and desirable) nor for the combined interaction of such individuals for the nation’s, or body politic’s, good. Why? Because the individual moral’s good and its wisdom (a la Socrates, Solomon and Cicero) is not taken as valid in the first place in order for it to play itself out in a body politic model in the second place, that is, in a "whole" or "body" of such individuals interacting and co-existing! And, further, the non-existence of these two things together become the central counterpoint of the humanist’s philosophy.

There are, almost inevitably, either "individuals without a whole" for the humanist or "a whole without individuals," and in both cases there is no real moral good for the individual, or these humanist thinkers would not be humanists! For the traditional "good" or rational moral truth thinker (as Socrates or Cicero), one starts by asking is the moral life (treating others as we would wish to be treated, etc.) truly the wise and good life, that is, as truly the best life and most fulfilling life for the individual, and then one goes on to develop the implications of this for the state, or group, or whole "body," etc. with concepts of how this moral interaction of individuals works to the benefit of all.

However, if one starts, as the humanist does, with the idea that one’s supposed good is merely maximizing "self" in one’s own personal power, fame, fortune or pleasure, it is impossible to then move on to the implications of a justice for the state or group or whole in a moral harmonious interaction of individuals. For the humanist, therefore, there is and can be no real "justice" for the state, or nation, or republic, etc., beyond an unrestrained individualism, or the power of one group over another, or, sometimes, a radical egalitarianism for some humanists. (We simply cannot re-write all the humanistic thinkers of all history here to ease hurt feelings for today’s liberal, libertarian, and humanist intellectuals.)

There is an historical worldview pattern, for better or worse

For better or worse, there is an historical worldview pattern, and traditionally one learned this in school in order to understand the great debates throughout history between thinkers who believe in a real good, truth, and right, and those who do not, called humanists, who believe that "man is the measure of all things."  Modern humanists (such as Bentham, Mill, Russell, and Dewey, etc.) are the modern day descendants or counterparts to the Epicurean/ hedonists of antiquity, for better or worse. (What’s new? Everyone used to know this.) And, the Sophist, who opposed Socrates and did not believe in real good, truth, or right (but only winning the argument or legal case, etc.), is the counterpart to the so-called postmodernist or Existentialist (or even legal positivist) of our day, who is stuck in endless, ultimately meaningless subjectivity, he himself says, no less (or even mere power of the state with no higher good).

Further, the entire starting question of Western philosophy is set forth in Plato’s Republic, namely, What is one’s true happiness, and fulfillment? Is it the moral life of common humanity and mutual interest? Or, is it pure (amoral) self-interest maximizing one’s own gain in pleasure, power, fame and fortune? This is the foundational question that repeats itself over and over in the worldview debates of history between rational moral truth thinkers versus humanists. And from Socrates’ position one almost inevitably goes on to believe in a real Good as Plato says, and a real Truth as Socrates argues with the Sophists, and a real Right in this world, as, in essence, Aristotle is going to argue. And by the time you get to Cicero, he is developing almost all of these themes clearly and consciously, and how they relate to the just state or Roman Republic.

The "body model" is specifically the social model for "justice" (historically) for people who are pursuing the true individual human good and fulfillment in moral interaction, or, in essence, who are pursuing mutual or common interest! As opposed to this are people who are seeking only their own self-interest in pleasure, power, fame, and fortune as the point or goal of life individually, or in a disparate groups vying for power in the larger society. And this is almost exactly, specifically how the argument is set up not only in Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Paul, but ultimately in the great Saint Augustine, himself. (I kid you not.)

What does Paul also say in so many words? We act with harmonious moral interaction with each other with different gifts, talents and abilities, but we are as a single people of God, like a body! Paul says, in effect, "the world" does not work this way, and those folks are not trying to do moral harmonious interaction in the first place in order to be a single group/ body in the second place! But Cicero and Augustine and Socrates say the same thing! The state of the humanist world is not like "a body," and it is not seeking to be, and it is not part of the humanists' theory because they reject the reality and wisdom of the moral good in the first place in order to go on to a body model in the second place. And this is true whether it is the Sophist, hedonist/ Epicurean, or the lost world in Augustine, or the amoral unbeliever (who denies the natural and special revelation) in Paul. Where this is going for economic theory (and even law) for the individual and the nation should be pretty obvious!!!

This has so much to do with economics, and economics that work for prosperity and stability, and with the collapse of ‘08, and with Clinton’s and Bush’s foolishness, that it is hard to know where to start! But the best place to start, in my opinion, is with John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the famous 19th century utilitarian, who is a forerunner to the American humanist, utopian/ socialist, "pragmatist" John Dewey (1859-1952)! How did John Stuart Mill (ultimately coupled with John Dewey in America) virtually destroy the British Empire and derail not only the American Republic but ultimately the economies of both our great nations, and virtually the world? Very talented fellows!

Mill lived in England in the famous, some would even say infamous, "Victorian Era," that is, the time of the great Queen Victoria, and it was an era known for its traditional moral values, family life, capitalism, middle class values, and so forth. Now, the utilitarian Mill (more or less, a philosophy of something is "good" if it "works," supposedly) is a direct philosophical descendent of the infamous Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832), who had a famous hedonist "pleasure calculus" for life for determining life’s "goods." Bentham is seen to be a flat revival of the amoral (even anti-moral) Epicurean hedonism of antiquity, even by Bertrand Russell, one of the 20th century’s most famous humanists, no less. Mill, as a follower of Bentham, is going to build his utilitarianism on, in essence, a form of amoral (even anti-moral) Epicurean hedonism in opposition to Victorian Era morality! (Is life crazy, or what?)

So, Mill in the height of the moralistic, family values Victorian Era looks around and says, in effect, "This thing has got to go!" This is a little like the blistering attacks of Lucretius against Cicero, or his philosophical positions at any rate of morality, natural order, God, life after death Judgment, and so forth.  Mill, however, to my knowledge, does not do an outright blistering attack on Victorian England and its moral values, as such, but rather a dismantling of its philosophical underpinnings (again the humanist Russell would agree, but he thinks it is good thing), which are to be found in the Christian social and political philosopher John Locke, who was so instrumental with the American Revolution founders, and their political theory.

Further, Locke was the central philosophical figure of the British people as well, and maybe even entire Empire for a good 200 years (again, so says even the humanist Russell, and correctly I think). So, what this comes down to is if utilitarian hedonist Mill wants to take down the family values of Victorian England (as the basis of the society), he has to take down John Locke and the whole of the Natural Law, which was also the basis of the American Revolution. Not entirely, but pretty much this is going to be the Epicureans versus Cicero all over again. And Dewey is going to do pretty much the same damn thing in America in the early 20th century. The philosophical gloves are off!!! And when the dust finally settles 100 to 150 years later two great "empires" or nations, and two great economies will bite the dirt, hard! By the 1960s neither Britain nor America have virtually any traditional morality foundations, and by 2008 the economies of both societies, built upon the sands of hedonist humanism, have collapsed, though how economics, as such, relate to this may not be immediately obvious.

The key to this: Mill is not a utilitarian, just as Dewey is not a pragmatist!

The best way to understand John Stuart Mill’s "utilitarian" attack on the moral (natural) law is to understand what Solomon, Socrates, Cicero, and Jesus are doing. These people are ultimately whom Mill is shooting at more than even Locke or Jefferson! And, further, to understand where this thing is going to end up, it is, namely, Mill is not really a "utilitarian," just as Dewey is not really a "pragmatist"! And this is similar to the fact that Karl Marx’s classless society or workers utopia was not really about justice or prosperity even for the workers let alone everybody else! (The gloves are off.) Things in philosophy can often be the exact opposite of what they claim to be.

I want to be very clear here: Mill, no doubt, thought he was a "utilitarian," and Dewey thought he was a "pragmatist," but neither were what they thought they were and almost for the exact same reasons since Dewey "pragmatism" is pretty much a humanist "utilitarianism" by a different name! Dewey becomes an ill-humored, outright aggressive humanist with his pragmatism, but not Mill with his utilitarianism, in my opinion. Dewey is actually a communist, for all intents and purposes, and he is quite up-front about it; Mill is not, but given the dynamic of what Mill is doing within the British society, he was as destructive to Britain as Dewey was to be to America, indeed perhaps more so.

What are Solomon, Socrates, Cicero, and Jesus doing? Indeed, what do they say of themselves that they are doing; indeed it is the very point of their work. They are telling us the best way to live, the wisest way to live, about building your house on a rock and not on the sand, and so forth. This is, in essence, a "pragmatism." The moral life "works," it is the best life, the most fulfilling life, the most prosperous life, etc. Indeed, again, this is the central starting question of Plato’s Republic, Is the moral life really the best life? And, it is the central point Socrates makes defending himself before the Athenian Assembly. It is also the central question of Cicero’s On Duties, namely, what should one do if the moral seems not to be the best course of action? "Look, again," says Cicero, in effect, "because you are missing something." And virtually the entire book of Proverbs in the Bible is why the moral life is the wisest! And the famous Victorian philosopher Bradley even wrote a treatise called, "My Station and its Duties."

So, not only are Solomon, Socrates, Cicero, and Jesus claiming to tell us what really "works" or is truly "pragmatic" or "utilitarian," etc. but it is the central point of their teaching, and Solomon and Jesus oppose this to the foolish life, and Socrates to the Sophist of no real good, truth, and right, and mere self-advantage, and Cicero is opposed by the hedonist/ Epicurean humanist. So, how does Mill pull off his humanist and false utilitarianism, which is no "utilitarianism" at all, for the individual and society, and for their good and prosperity? It is a famous argument, and it is so good and so convincing that if you are reading this in 2009, you probably believe Mill’s argument because after a few decades in the late 19th century virtually everybody in the intellectual classes and then subsequently in the general culture bought into it. And, indeed, this argument became in many ways the foundation for modern legal positivism in the late 19th century, which quickly came to dominate law schools in America and Britain. It is a good and clever and very simple argument, with a lot of sleight of hand! (Fasten your seatbelts, please! Time to go to the big leagues...)

Mill’s argument is: "You should be free to do whatever you want so long as no one else is hurt." Very simple argument! Is that true? Seriously, think about it. Is it true? Two nations, even empires, and eventually a world economy is going to bite the dirt on this principle! So, is it true? The answer is actually "yes," it is true. I’m dead serious. So, what is the problem, and where do things go wrong? Very, very wrong, in fact... The sleight of hand lies in the way Mill is going to define, in essence, (this is my wording) the word "hurt." This philosophical mis-definition of "hurt" is made by Mill because Mill is, or is a descendant of, materialist hedonist humanism, and its wisdom, and its particular supposed "utilitarian" or "pragmatic" values.

In effect, Mill will say the only way one is "hurt" is by being outright physically harmed, or hit, or hurt, etc. (or cheated in outright lying or in outright stealing). Everything else you should be "free" to do, because no one is physically hurt or harmed (or cheated). The argument then goes on to say that all other legal prohibitions on human behavior should be removed because all those prohibitions are mere "social conventions" or "mores," because there is no real moral law or real moral good, and, hence, there is no real wisdom, practically, pragmatically speaking, in the teaching of Solomon, Socrates, Cicero, and Jesus because there is no real moral good to create the best life, again practically speaking. The argument, with time, becomes known as removing all prohibitions on behavior (economically and socially) that are supposedly "victimless crimes." And, again, this has the same sleight of hand, as the larger anti-moral argument generally because "victim" is limited to (immediately) physically harmed (in essence, physical pleasures and pains only of the hedonist) or outright cheated.

So, with Mill’s argument and his "freedom" to do whatever one wishes so long as no one is physically harmed, immediately or otherwise (or outright cheated), what has to go? As is well known, laws against porn, prostitution, adultery, gambling houses, drugs, homosexual solicitation, even, one could say, laws against sub-prime mortgages, whatever, and on, and on. (Because no one is physically harmed or cheated.) Two big points here 1.) these are clearly not "victimless" crimes by any stretch of the imagination unless you pre-define victim to be only physically harmed, which is not the meaning of the word in the dictionary! Things can be very detrimental (that is, not "good"), even if no immediate physical harm is done, as such, (but Empiricism does not even acknowledge such realities). And, therefore, 2.) there are many laws and regulations dealing with highly undesirable behavior for individuals and the society (and banks?) where no one is physically harmed, immediately or otherwise, or outright cheated. Clearly. Bush’s and Greenspan’s argument was they could not regulate the mortgage industry, on ideological principle, no less, because no one is being physically hurt or outright cheated, and the market would self-correct itself. No problem! Note: not wise of them, practically and pragmatically speaking!!!

For the libertarian the role of the government is not to have wise and well-regulated commerce, practically speaking, but to have the government not regulate commerce, in theory, at all. And the market will self-correct, which it did! The entire world economy collapsed! Wonderful! What caused the meltdown of the mortgage industry? It was "private behavior between two consenting adults, where no one was outright physically harmed (or cheated)." This seems to ring a bell with me, I just can’t remember what (maybe, supposedly, "just in the bedroom")!!! It is easy to see why not just hedonists but both humanist liberals and libertarians love Mill so. He completely ignores the actual questions and larger practical realities addressed by Solomon, Socrates, Cicero, and Jesus who all asked is the moral life truly the wise life in actual pragmatic results (of good and in being truly fulfilled and not "harmed")? The answer for the self-based humanist hedonist has always been "no," there are no larger non-immediate physical harm considerations, and that is his starting position before he makes his faulty social, economic, legal, and political theory on what one should be "free" to do, "unregulated," as it were. Porn, prostitution, adultery, gambling houses, drugs, homosexual solicitation, etc. are clearly not "victimless crimes," unless you pre-define "harmed" as "physically harmed," and usually even immediately harmed!

Let us recall for the Sophist and hedonist there are just pleasures and pains ("physically"), and one’s advantage over others. Mill’s argument works well, but only if you concede its humanist hedonist self-based principle for the supposedly fulfilled life! If there is no harm outside of (usually) immediate physical harm, what should you be allowed to do? That begs the question of what is really good in your true interest as Aristotle asks specifically, and Plato does with his ring that makes you invisible, and Solomon does with his proverbial wisdom to his son, etc. You will note, Mill’s argument tends to hold up or support the entire liberal and libertarian agenda except maybe abortion, where you must deny the personhood of the fetus, for his argument to work there. The pro-aborts do not let the personhood question to be raised because even their own hedonists arguments fail there, and even the question of the personhood of the fetus is not allowed to be raised in the Supreme Court, (if memory serves me correctly).

In any case, what Mill is doing in the name of "utilitarianism," which his theory clearly is not, is exactly what Dewey does in the name of "pragmatism," which his theory is not. Professing to become wise and reasonable and utilitarian and pragmatic, they became foolish, unreasonable, not utilitarian, and unpragmatic! Indeed, they are simply developing the thought of a utilitarian hedonism of the ancient Epicureans and the modern Bentham, (and even the (nutty) Empiricist David Hume). Again, Bertrand Russell would agree with all of this, and he himself holds, as Dewey and Mill do, that there is no real moral good (sexual or otherwise) and true human fulfillment and happiness in it, practically speaking, but rather just so-called "mores" and "social conventions" and so forth. This is the heart of the humanist argument from antiquity, and it is a central tenet of the Humanist Manifesto and that all morality is only mere "mores" and "social conventions" is a central tenet of humanist sociology and anthropology (for good or for ill, and everybody know this).

So, where is this going in economic theory? Many questions are going to emerge now, easily: What are true "self-interest" and "gain"? Who was Adam Smith, and how do markets work and create "the wealth of a nation"? So join us next time...