BRINGING PHILOSOPHY TO LIFE
BPTL #28: Do Not Pass Go!
Economic values are not the most important concern when we consider the common good in a democracy, but they do play an important role. This became clear on August 5 when a federal judge issued a ruling in a case that involves Google’s current role in the global marketplace.
Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a 277-page ruling that Google had abused a monopoly over the search business. The Justice Department and states had sued Google, accusing it of illegally cementing its dominance, in part, by paying other companies, like Apple and Samsung, billions of dollars a year to have Google automatically handle search queries on their smartphones and web browsers. Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.
A legal scholar affirmed the legal significance of the ruling this way:
“This is the most important antitrust case of the century, and it’s the first of a big slate of cases to come down against Big Tech,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s law school who studies antitrust. “It’s a huge turning point”
(https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html)
In philosophical terms, the issue relates to the question of distributive justice, a topic that was central to the political philosophy of Aristotle in the fourth century BCE. Plato had already explored the topic of how wealth should be distributed in The Republic, so Aristotle, as usual, developed and analyzed what Plato began. The central question concerns the extent to which wealth, especially property, belongs to individuals or to the whole republic. This relates directly to the question of monopoly because one important aspect of that issue concerns the size of corporations and how to limit them when they grow too large and too powerful. When individual wealth and corporate power become too big, democracy can no longer function. Where can we find standards by which we can evaluate excessive growth? How can they be justified? In Book 2 of The Republic, Plato’s characters Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus examined and evaluated the concept of government as a social contract among human beings rather than a structure imposed by the gods, a king, or some other external authority. This issue is important to the current series on the nature and value of democracy because Plato’s Athens was the site of the world’s first democracy. The idea of a social contract emerged again in the 17th century when Thomas Hobbes built his political philosophy on the idea of a similar social contract that provides the foundation and justification for all social and political values. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau also embraced the concept of a social contract and incorporated it into documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that were designed to articulate the basic principles of American democracy.
Philosophy, as I understand it, “is the rational analysis and justification of fundamental concepts, principles, decisions, and actions.” Democracy requires the consent and compliance of all, which means that even those who disagree with a particular vote or decision must accept the rule of the majority. Decisions and actions are made by the individuals who rule at any given time, so they change from time to time, place to place, and from one administration to another. One problem with thinking of government as based on a social contract is that it leads to relativism. Legislators and administrators must be free to change laws and policies because of new developments and to achieve a consensus that is required for governments to function, however this does not mean that all values are relative. Universal concepts, principles, and values are essential to the rational process concerning what we think and do because they can remain constant even when policies and laws change.
Judge Mehta’s ruling concerning Google’s current policies and practices invites us to think more deeply about monopolies and trusts and why they violate principles that are vital to good government, especially to genuine democracy. Moral and political values such as justice are useless as guides if they are relative to a particular location or population that changes from time to time and place to place. The problem with a monopoly is that it is unjust in the moral and political sense of that term, so laws—and even constitutions—are not sufficient. Unjust laws and unfair constitutions do not deserve our respect. The Google case is one among many that are now attracting attention. Former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, in an opinion piece published on Substack, explained “why giant mergers harm workers” (https://substack.com/home/post/p-148169732?source=queue). Reich says:
The idea that government should rein in the wild forces of capitalism was by 1942 well established. America had gone through a catastrophic Great Depression that revealed the need for stronger regulation of business and finance. The nation had also begun to mobilize the economy to fight World War II. America then understood that stable prices and good wages depended on government taming corporate greed for the common good. This wasn’t socialism or communism. It was democratic, progressive capitalism. It was a means of saving both capitalism and democracy.
Reich is specifically concerned by the proposed merger of two grocery chains in the U.S.—Kroger and Albertsons. This attempted merger resulted in the Federal Trade Commission filing an anti-monopoly case in a federal court in Oregon. Here is an excerpt from the FTC website:
The Federal Trade Commission today sued to block the largest proposed supermarket merger in U.S. history—Kroger Company’s $24.6 billion acquisition of the Albertsons Companies, Inc.—alleging that the deal is anticompetitive.
The FTC charges that the proposed deal will eliminate fierce competition between Kroger and Albertsons, leading to higher prices for groceries and other essential household items for millions of Americans. The loss of competition will also lead to lower quality products and services, while also narrowing consumers’ choices for where to shop for groceries. For thousands of grocery store workers, Kroger’s proposed acquisition of Albertsons would immediately erase aggressive competition for workers, threatening the ability of employees to secure higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions.
“This supermarket mega merger comes as American consumers have seen the cost of groceries rise steadily over the past few years. Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons would lead to additional grocery price hikes for everyday goods, further exacerbating the financial strain consumers across the country face today,” said Henry Liu, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Essential grocery store workers would also suffer under this deal, facing the threat of their wages dwindling, benefits diminishing, and their working conditions deteriorating” (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-challenges-krogers-acquisition-albertsons).
Justice requires freedom to act, but a so-called “free market” does not sanction unrestrained activity on the part of corporations and individuals. Workers and customers must also be free to choose among alternatives based on quality, price, and a variety of other factors. Anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws are designed to protect all stakeholders in the economy. People who claim that government regulation of markets infringes on the freedom of powerful corporations and individuals seem to embrace the same contradiction that emerges in Plato’s dialogue Gorgias. Plato’s character Socrates is pressing the sophist Gorgias to explain why the rhetoric he teaches his students is so good. Gorgias says:
Socrates, it really is the greatest good: it is what gives freedom to individuals and gives rulers the power of ruling over others.
Socrates: And what do you think that is?
Gorgias: It is the power of words that persuades judges in court, senators in the legislature, citizens in the assembly, or participants in any other public meeting. If you have the power, the physician and trainer will serve you. Because of your ability to speak and persuade others, the businessperson will make money for you (Plato, Gorgias, translated by Benjamin Jowett and Albert A. Anderson, Agora Publications, 1994, Greek page 452).
The contradiction is subtle but fatal for Gorgias’ claim about the goodness of persuasion. To say that the art of persuasion gives freedom to individuals but also gives rulers the power to rule over those same individuals simultaneously deprives them of their freedom. The point the character Socrates makes throughout Plato’s Gorgias is that persuasion alone is not sufficient for the simple reason that one can be persuaded by false claims as well as true ones. If all Gorgias teaches his students is how to persuade and they cannot distinguish true claims from false ones, they are more likely to do harm than good.
If corporate leaders in business use their great power to dominate the market by unjustly eliminating competition, reducing the wages of their workers, and maintaining unsafe workplaces, they are reducing the freedom of the other stakeholders and weakening rather than strengthening the economy. They might, of course, attempt to claim that they have a moral right to dominate just because they are the brightest and the best. Google defended its dominance in the contemporary marketplace on that very same basis: In his final arguments, Google’s lead lawyer, claimed: “Google is winning because it’s better,” (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html). This is similar to what Plato’s character Callicles claims in in the Gorgias. Callicles embraces what he calls “natural justice.” Socrates challenges him to explain and defend that position.
Socrates: Once again, then, tell me what you . . . mean by natural justice. Don’t you mean that the superior should take the property of the inferior by force, that the better should rule over the worse, and that the noble should have more than the base? Am I right in my recollection?
Callicles: Yes, that’s exactly what I said and what I still say.
Socrates: Do you mean by the better the same as the superior? I couldn’t make out what you were saying at the time, whether you meant by the superior the stronger, and that the weaker must obey the stronger. That’s what you seemed to imply when you said that great cities attack small ones in accordance with natural right, because they are superior and stronger, indicating that superior and stronger and better are all the same. Or do you mean that the better may also be the inferior and weaker and the superior may be the worse. Or do you mean that better is to be defined the same way as the superior. This is a point I want to have clearly explained. Are the superior and better and stronger the same or different?
Callicles: I’ll tell you plainly. They are the same (Plato, Gorgias, translated by Benjamin Jowett and Albert A. Anderson, Agora Publications, 1994, Greek page 488).
Callicles’ way of thinking about justice resembles the rhetoric of Donald Trump, his long-time advisor Roger Stone, and the MAGA Republicans. This group has recently been joined by Elon Musk, the richest man in the world. Heather Cox Richardson, in her latest Substack post, quotes current language that could have been written by Callicles:
Yesterday, on the same day that Trump declared he had the right to interfere in a presidential election to put himself in power, the pro-Trump owner of X, Elon Musk, reposted to his nearly 200 million followers a statement suggesting that women and men who can’t physically defend themselves are inferior to “alpha men” and are not good participants in government because they lack the ability to think critically. “This is why a Republic of high-status males is best for decision making,” the original post said. “Democratic, but a democracy only for those who are free to think.” Over the statement, Musk posted: “Interesting observation.”
This is not the place to explore that way of thinking about justice in depth, but it might suffice for the present project to provide a taste of the way Plato’s characters show how ridiculous it is to think of justice as the unlimited acquisition of power, fame, and wealth. Socrates continues to get Callicles to clarify what he means by “the superior.”
Socrates: My good friend, I wish you would tell me once and for all whom you claim to be the better and superior and in what way. Callicles: I have already told you that I mean those who are wise and courageous in the administration of the state. They are the ones who ought to rule and ought to have an advantage over their subjects. That is justice. Socrates: Do you mean that they should have more than themselves?
Callicles: I don’t understand.
Socrates: I’m talking about self-rule. But perhaps you don’t think that each of us must rule over ourselves. Perhaps you think that it is enough simply to rule over others.
Callicles: What do you mean by “rule over ourselves”?
Socrates: Nothing complicated. I mean what is commonly said, that we should be moderate, be in control of ourselves, and should rule over our own pleasures and passions.
Callicles: How charming! You mean to equate the moderate and the foolish?
Socrates: Of course. Anyone can see that’s what I mean.
Callicles: That is what you mean, Socrates. Moderate people are fools! How can a person be happy who is the servant of anyone or anything? On the contrary, I claim that the person who wants to live fully ought to encourage unlimited desire and not curb it. When desire has grown to its fullest, we should have the courage and the intelligence to gratify it and satisfy all longing. This is what I mean by natural justice and nobility. But the majority cannot achieve this goal. Therefore, they blame the ones who can, being ashamed of their own inability, which they try to hide. This leads them to say that excess is something shameful. As I said before, they enslave the nobler natures and, being unable to satisfy their own pleasures, they praise moderation and justice because they are cowards. If a man had originally been the son of a king, or had a nature capable of acquiring an empire or a dictatorship or exclusive power, what could be more shameful or evil than moderation? I ask you, what could be worse for such a man, who could be enjoying good with nobody to hinder him, yet who accepts custom and reason and the opinion of others to master him? Must he not be in a miserable condition, whom the reputation of justice and moderation prevents from giving more to his friends than to his enemies, even though he is the ruler of the city? No, Socrates, the truth is this (and you profess to be devoted to the truth): luxury, excess, and license, if they are properly supported, are happiness and virtue. Everything else is custom contrary to nature, worthless human invention (Plato, Gorgias, Greek pages 491-492).
Plato and Aristotle, throughout their works, embrace the value of moderation, what Aristotle calls “the golden mean.” Socrates’ contrast between “ruling over ourselves” and the goal of “ruling over others” should make clear why, from a moral perspective, it is time to put the brakes on the flow of wealth and power to only a few members of our republic.
I conclude this episode with Socrates’ description of a happy life:
This is the aim a person who seeks to be happy ought to have in living. Individuals as well as states ought to direct all their energy toward this end, rather than suffering from unrestrained lust and never-ending desire which lead ultimately to a criminal life. Such a person is friend neither of gods nor of human beings, being incapable of community and friendship. Callicles, philosophers tell us that community, friendship, orderliness, moderation, and justice bind together not only human beings but also heaven and earth. That’s why this universe is called a cosmos, which means order, not immoderate disorder (Plato, Gorgias, Greek pages 507-508).