Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Tue Feb 6 16:11:40 2007 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 01:03 PM 2/6/2007, Mason Gaffney wrote:
>I believed and taught that for some years, but now am having doubts. Means
>and ends are not so easily separated; so often the means becomes the end.
>"Goal displacement" is a phrase for it. One aspect of it, Virgil called
>"auri sacra fames", the accursed lust for gold.
Aristotle understood this confusion of means and
ends, and it was for him the distinction between
natural and unnatural exchange. In natural
exchange, we work to get the money for oiko-nomic
reasons, That is, for proper "household
management." The point of the economic was simply
to have the material means to support the family.
But if the means become ends in themselves, then
the exchange becomes unnatural in the sense of
having no natural limit. Think about going to the
store to buy bread. You would buy, if you are
able, as much bread as the family needed, and no
more. The exchange has an in-built limitation.
But if making money is your only goal, you might
buy up every loaf of bread in hopes of cornering
the market and making a large profit. There is no
natural limit on such exchanges, only contingent
limits, such as the amount of market power your wealth commands.
John C. Medaille
|
|
|