Justice and Equality

“Let us begin by considering the common definitions of oligarchy and democracy, and what is justice oligarchical and democratical. For all men cling to justice of some kind, but their conceptions are imperfect and they do not express the whole idea. For example, justice is thought by them to be, and is, equality, not however, for all, but only for equals. And inequality is thought to be, and is, justice; neither is this for all, but only for unequals. When the persons are omitted, then men judge erroneously. The reason is that they are passing judgment on themselves, and most people are bad judges in their own case. And whereas justice implies a relation to persons as well as to things, and a just distribution, as I have already said in the Ethics, implies the same ratio between the persons and between the things, they agree about the equality of the things, but dispute about the equality of the persons, chiefly for the reason which I have just given -- because they are bad judges in their own affairs; and secondly, because both the parties to the argument are speaking of a limited and partial justice, but imagine themselves to be speaking of absolute justice.” Aristotle, “Politics” Book III, Section IX.

The wealthy seek to have the power their wealth gives them legitimized by statutory law. They feel that they and they alone should be able to vote, hold political office, decide the laws, and lead the state. The poor wish to have equality mean equality of possessions as well as equality before the law.

If the wealthy succeed the fundamental principle that there must be a relationship between action and reward is broken for the majority of the population. The poor make up that majority, and when class laws prevent their rising or accomplishing all that they are capable of there is no reward for the exercise of their ability.

If the poor have their way then the fundamental principle that there must be a relationship between action and reward is broken for the entire population. Regardless of effort, no one can do better than anyone else. There is no motive for superior effort, no reward for superior merit, and the society fails.

Both errors produce a reduction in the vigor of the society involved due to the same action, removing the stimulus of normal motivation. Both remove hope of bettering the self through personal effort.

To apply the Aristotelian principle here, “Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate. Hence in respect of its substance and the definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme.”

The principle here is the fundamental one underlying all Natural Rights, people must have an environment which provides valid feedback. They must be free to chart a course to success or failure. Embedding legal privileges for this or that class in the law denies this freedom to the major portion of society. Legally confiscating the legitimate gains of Citizens to benefit other Citizens denies the entire population this opportunity. The two extremes are abuses of statutory law in favor of one or another Class. Virtuous Government is equality before the law for all and freedom to seek success according to personal effort and merit for all. Justice is not inequality before the law because of inequality in property or ability, and it is no equality in property and income regardless of effort and ability.