Libertarians hold up Plato and Aristotle as 'significant thinkers.'
Here it is their defense of inequality. Both men lived at the top of a society built on the backs of slaves. They were in the 'leisure class' with plenty of fre time to talk.
I found the views of their idolized philosophers on slavery, and why they considered it a natural state for some people. Not them, or course.
Also they lumped in all those conquered by war and all women as having been born to be slaves. And in their writings, they said should have no voice in their society, nor any right to decent treatment.
This was the basis of the Confederacy, that blacks and other groups were born to be slaves, this is why Paul and other Libertarians are labeled racists by the SPLC:
http://newsone.com/1748295/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/
Where I went is a long read, but I'll explain more further down:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014260932#post149
It's the libertarian version of freedom, as described Lincoln, that they want the liberty to own other people as slaves to serve their own interests to make them rich.
Plato excused / justified slavery:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2180538?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102597678397
Know how the RW insists the USA is a 'republic' and not a 'democracy'? Limited government is all they are selling, not the Constitution, which says to look out for the general welfare.
They and Libertarians say 'democracy'is 'mob rule' as it increases the power of the inferior. Romans used the term 'democrats' as a perjorative since they tried to lift up the working class of the day. Sound familiar?
More Plato here:
http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm
Now to Aristotle:
Some aspects of Aristotle's theory of slavery
Slavery -- natural or conventional?
Aristole's theory of slavery is found in Book I, Chapters iii through vii of the Politics. and in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics.
Aristotle raises the question of whether slavery is natural or conventional. He asserts that the former is the case. So, Aristotle's theory of slavery holds that some people are naturally slaves and others are naturally masters. Thus he says:
"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?
There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule."
This suggests that anyone who is ruled must be a slave, which does not seem at all right. Still, given that this is so he must state what characteristics a natural slave must have -- so that he or she can be recognized as such a being. Who is marked out for subjugation, and who for rule? This is where the concept of "barbarian" shows up in Aristotle's account. Aristotle says:
"But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,
'It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians';
as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one."
So men rule naturally over women, and Greeks over barbarians! But what is it which makes a barbarian a slave? Here is what Aristotle says:
"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."
So the theory is that natural slaves should have powerful bodies but be unable to rule themselves. Thus, they become very much like beasts of burden, except that unlike these beasts human slaves recognize that they need to be ruled. The trouble with this theory, as Aristotle quite explicitly states, is that the right kind of souls and bodies do not always go together! So, one could have the soul of a slave and the body of a freeman, and vice versa!
Nonetheless, apparently because there are some in whom the body and soul are appropriate to natural slavery, that is a strong body and a weak soul, Aristotle holds that there are people who should naturally be slaves. It also seems that men naturally rule women and that bararians are naturally more servile than Greeks! This seems like an odd, indeed arbitrary, way for the virtues of the soul to be distributed! Las Casas deals with a similar problem in regard to the native peoples of the Americas...
Contrast the ancient 1% with:
...John Locke's theory of slavery in The Second Treatise of Civil Government Locke does not believe in natural slaves or in the conventional view that all prisoners of war can be legitimately enslaved. He is a just war theorist who explicitly rejects the doctrine that might makes right.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html
I don't idolize people who defended slavery in the exact same terms as the Confederacy, in their claims of others' innate inferiority. The Founders owned slaves but realized if equality was going to mean anything it would have to be eliminated.
The South rejected the idea of human equality by the same rationale as Plato and Aristotle. This is libertarian tea party ideas of governance ignoring the rights of those whom the powerful regard as innately inferior and put on Earth for their use.
This is so similar to the ideology of the GOP and theocrats, there is little difference to me. They're confident that they will never face what they are willing to inflict on others.
= new reply since forum marked as read
