Однозначно «за» частную собственность

Aristotle: the theory of justice and just price

Разработал проект идеального государства. Население: земледельцы, скотоводы, ремесленники, торговцы, наемные  рабочие и рабы.

Наиболее почетно  – земледелие. Пренебрежительно относился  к ремеслу.

Экономика – важная и почетная деятельность земледельцев.

Хрестомастика – беспечное искусство наживать состояние посредством крупных торговых сделок. «Обслуживает экономику»

«Если человек не голоден, не испытывает жажды, у него есть крыша  над головой – он богат»

Был сторонником  рабовладения. Деление на свободных  и рабов – закон природы.

Проанализировал развитие форм торговли:

1)Меновая (Т-Т)

2)Товарное обращение  (Т-Д-Т)

3)Обращение денег  в качестве капитала (Д-Т-Д)

Резко осуждал ростовщичество.

Однозначно «за» частную собственность

As early as Aristotle, philosophers recognized the necessity of the exchange of goods. A house builder needs shoes and a shoemaker needs a house. As the exchange is to be mutually beneficial to each party (each needs what the other is to exchange), the costs should not be born disproportionately by one party.If unequal exchanges were to occur, they would serve as random instances of wealth redistribution; if wealth were to be redistributed at all it should be done according to a normative scheme not on the basis of random individual transactions. 
 
An apparent contradiction existed in the philosophy of Aristotle (as well as Plato). Although recognizing the need for exchange of goods (exchange was necessary to society), Aristotle was skeptical of tradesmen (those engaged in retail exchange) and only reluctantly allowed them into his ideal community. The theory of the just price can be seen as a reconciliation of the apparently contradictory acceptance of exchange transactions but wariness of those who facilitate them. Aristotle was interpreted as arguing that exchange is necessary for society but exchange was not possible unless equality was maintained in an exchange. It was those tradesmen who engaged in unequal exchanges who were to be restrained and it was these who gave rise to the skepticism. 
 
Based on Aristotelian theories of justice as the mean, advocates of the just price theory assert that voluntary exchanges need to be proportional in value. No person should profit from another's loss.In an exchange, justice is found in an equal exchange but injustice is found in an unequal one as the mean is not maintained. [10] Yet, equality does not mean identical items be exchanged (this would defeat the idea of exchange). A proportionality of value needs to be maintained. So if a shoemaker were to exchange with a homemaker, one would not exchange one shoe for one house but rather that number of shoes which equate to the value of the house. [11] Since a homebuilder will not necessarily need so many shoes, money was invented to serve as a method for achieving this proportion. [12] With the invention of money, value can be expressed in prices quantified in a standardized manner by that money. A just price is thus a price that equals the value of the thing being purchased. [13]

For Aristotle, then, justice requires that equal cases be treated alike (equally) and that unequal cases be treated differently (unequally) in direct proportion to the differences (inequalities) between the cases.  Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900), a British philosopher, put this idea very nicely when he said that justice is treating similars similarly and dissimilars dissimilarly. 

An example of this would be the distribution of profits among the partners in a company in proportion to the amount of money which each partner had originally put into the company. This formula can also be applied to cases of punishment. According to this principle, if two criminals come before a judge for sentencing, and one has commited a murder and the other the theft of $100, the former should receive a much harsher penalty than the latter because the crime is much more serious. Justice requires that they be treated differently because their cases are different. (We will leave out of the present discussion the thorny problem of weighting the seriousness of crimes.)

But what, according to Aristotle, are the relevant factors in determining which cases are similar and which dissimilar?  The problem raised by this question may be illustrated by the following example. Suppose two convicted criminals come before a judge for sentencing. They have both committed burglaries, and the value of the goods stolen by both of them is approximately equal. But one of the thieves is a Catholic and the other is a Jew.  The judge gives the Jew a harsh sentence and the Catholic a light sentence.  What would be our reaction? The sentence is unfair! Why?  Because the judge apparently gave different sentences to the criminals on the basis of religion rather than on the crime committed. But the Aristotelian could respond that the judge treated the two thieves differently because indeed they are different; one is Catholic and the other is Jewish. Thus the judge followed the Aristotelian principle of treating similar cases similarly and dissimilar cases differently. These two cases are different! But, we would probably respond that the difference in religion is not a relevant difference with respect to the distribution of punishments.  This, then, is the issue: What are relevant and what are irrelevant similarities and differences in the distribution of rewards and punishments?  Aristotle's answer to this question is vague, but he seems to appeal to merit (accomplishments).  We shall discuss this criterion in more detail below.