this is the order of exchanges that got us to this present dispute.
first you mistakenly assume that the transition into capitalism was an escape from paternalism in general, in the way that it existed in feudalism and the monarchy:
guide wrote:Capitalism never promised “freedom for” all things for all people. Rather, its principle was “freedom from” paternalist or royal interference.
then i claim that a qualitatively similar kind of paternalism evolves in the new capitalism:
promethean75 wrote:or so it appeared. certainly the transition from feudalism to mercantile capitalism marked a break from that paternalism characterized as the authority of the aristocratic class, but it took an alternative form of that same tyranny shortly thereafter.
next we start quibbling over the definition of 'aristocracy', and this takes you away from the direction i was heading to show how aristocracy is just another form of paternalism:
guide wrote:What is an "aristocratic class"? You don't distinguish adequately aristocracy, rule of the most educated, or, as we would call it today, rule of the most qualified, from hereditary aristocracy.
guide wrote:Aristocracy is the name of the regime type where people are chosen for offices for competence rather than on the basis of property qualifications (oligarchy) or by lot (democratically).
these distinctions are well and good, but what i'm saying (and explained in that last post) is that regardless of how these aristocrats are put into power, the end result is the same. the role the aristocrat plays in relation to the ordinary citizen, in all cases, becomes another form of paternalism based either on some authority granted to them by citizens who were deceived into believing they are necessary (in government), or on the power gained by owning the means of production (in capitalism).
i then went off on a tangent explaining the farcical history of traditional philosophy and how it was intimately related to establishing governments. you, being a philosopher, would obviously object to that. but part of that objection is my fault, since such a radical new interpretation of what traditional philosophy is would require much more than what i provided. you might say i just threw that out there to see if anything would 'click' in your head, and save myself some time. alas, it did not.