Aristotle's Democracy and the Welfare State

When Aristotle discusses various forms of government in Book III of "Politics", he reserves some of his least charitable comments for democracy, which he calls a perversion rather than a true form of government. Aristotle thinks that the masses of a state, being usually poor, will, if they have control over the state, use their power to seize the wealth of the rich. Thus, the masses will only act in their own interests and think nothing of the rights of their fellow citizens. To be fair, Aristotle does acknowledge that the elite also will sometimes steal from the poor, but it seems like Aristotle fears the rule of the masses more than he fears the rule of the elite, though he criticizes both...Aristotle criticizes EVERYTHING! That's what I love about the man, even though we rarely see eye-to-eye when it comes to politics.

Anyway, I was trying to imagine what Aristotle would think of the American political system in its present form. I imagined he would be horrified by the rule of the masses permitted by this representative democracy. He, so fond of categorizing, would surely not lump the American system with the democracies, aristocracies, and monarchies he wrote about; it would be a new breed of government to him. However, I don't think he would be surprised that wealth is regularly redistributed by the American system of taxation -- this is exactly what he'd expect to result from the rule of the masses. Unlike Aristotle, I find it hard to see the rich as victims. Nonetheless, it is true that having wealth does put one in the cross-hairs of many who are hungry, including the federal government, and one doesn't need to be particularly rich to feel the sting of wealth redistribution or, for that matter, to benefit from its effects. Is this system institutionalized thievery or an example of government intervention for the common good?

One delightful aspect of the 2008 presidential race is that two candidates with radically different ideas concerning the role of government and by association government's role to redistribute wealth are each seeking their respective party's nomination. The two candidates I speak of are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul wants to strip government to its bare minimum; he doesn't like government interference in citizens' lives, even if that interference would be positive for some. Kucinich, on the other hand, is a big believer in government's ability to help citizens. Ron Paul's government won't need much money to operate because it won't be much of a provider of services. Kucinich's government will need more money because it will provide more services. These two guys are on total opposite sides of the spectrum, but I find it impossible to say which one is more right or more wrong right now.

Honestly, this redistribution of wealth thing is an issue I really struggle with even though it's about as important and relevant as an issue can be to me. Something in me says that some things are too important to be simply bought and sold on the open market. I hate that surgery or prolonged hospital stays can wreck people's finances, for instance. However, there is a price to be paid for having government-funded health care, and I don't like taxes either. What is better in the long run -- to be protected and nurtured by Kucinich's motherly government or to be allowed to live freely and privately by Paul's unobtrusive government? Both are appealing and repulsive at the same time! I don't know what to do other than to listen closely to what both Paul and Kucinich have to say. I suppose I can also find comfort in the fact that all the other major candidates are more moderate on this issue than those two, so I'm clearly not the only one who can't make up my mind.

Book link: Aristotle's Politics