An Aristotelian Analysis of the US Debt Problem

1. Don't you just hate Aristotle? Here is a real academic (he studied at Plato's Academy when Plato was still alive) and does field work by observing EVERYTHING, from the heart beats of chicken embryos from which he hypothesises the existence of the living soul to the mystical exercises of the Eyptian high priests which leads him logically to the contemplative unmoved mover, which later (from the 4th century onwards) becomes the central image of the One God of the great western religions. Not only does he observe, but he writes it all up under a wholly self-consistent and original methodology that is gifted to generation after generation for 2,400 years; so much so that a lot of our way of thinking is not just irrational or rational, but almost unquestionably ARISTOTELIAN through and through. Most relatively contemporary psychologists who have not studied Aristotle really cannot even begin to define rationality and irrationality without Aristotle. I was a bit lucky to read and study Aristotle as a youngster. I wrote a junior thesis on Aristotle's concept of substance in his Metaphysics when I was 16. One teacher warned me that I should not presume that such thoughts would be completely embraced by most people. After the 1000th time, one gets bored showing how Aristotle's epistemological distinctions actally do help in solving practical problems.

2. But sometimes it's important to remember that there are some methods for solving what appear to be intractable problems. Let's briefly lay the groundwork. Here's the essential nut of Aristotle's view of that which forms the essence of law within a polis:

“constitutions which aim at the common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve despotic rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons” (1279a17–2)

If we apply the above to the US debt problem, the obvious answer is that a "just" budget must aim at "common advantage" and any other proposal that aims at the advantage of the rulers (politicians and the rich) is simply unjust since it is inappropriate for a community of free persons. Common sense, right? Really? Show me where in place and time such has ever existed? Aristotle is setting up a dichotomy for which each new generation must choose.

3. Without any purply patches and obfuscations, the solution to the US debt problem means REDUCING the total debt by (1) reducing spending and (2) increasing taxes. Any proposed or actual plan which does not do both would be unjust. Does it matter what flag, party or colour this solution comes from?