So I'm sympathetic with this argument, but I'm also struck by the absence of a strong concept of natural rights, and by the strong presence of a concept of "the polis," as something with presumptive authority.
The concept has a somewhat pagan flavor, and definitely a statist flavor. The irony is that in this country, if there is a polis, it is founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which appeals for authority to "the consent of the governed." And the constitutional American polity does enjoy the consent of the government in a sense, but in a sense, very straightforwardly and obviously inferior to markets, which arise, as you say, from a spontaneous order of uncoerced decisions.
In a word, markets' legitimacy is superior to political legitimacy. That understanding is foundationally American. And America's success is built on that understanding, which the founders understood from the beginning was and continues to be superior to Aristotelianism, or at any rate do any kind of Aristotelianism which hasn't taken the truths of the Declaration of Independence on board to the extent of ruling out about initio the legitimacy of regulating markets merely in the interests of "the polis."
That's not my self conscious mental model, although I find surprising insights from left people sometimes.
I do think that the perils of civil authority power are more fraught than those of the other realms which happen among a freely associating citizenry. I am probably with Adam Smith who said "The mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind, though it cannot perhaps be corrected, may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquillity of any body but themselves."
A merchant might get rich selling vice to my neighbor, but my neighbor can't get at my pocketbook through them. But he can certainly get at it through the magistrate, since my neighbor believes "thou shalt not steal--except by majority vote".
The wicked nation is characterized as a place where "fraud and oppression does not depart from the marketplace." Unfortunately, by the time that has happened, the fraud and oppression has already consumed the magistrate, who was supposed to be setting the good example for the merchants and the hoi polloi. At this stage, "the market" and the magistrate have just become the Beast with two backs.
So, a good reason to oppose government intervention in markets isn't necessarily "we aren't getting conned by merchants, leave us alone!" more likely, it's triage; we are just trying to halve the conning, if possible, since the magistrate's answers to the merchant's injustice usually amplifies the oppression, or merely guarantees its perpetuity, since the magistrate has an income stream to protect based upon pretending to protect the people.
By the way, you were looking for a label... I like "Golden Rule capitalism." You might find my thoughts here interesting: https://lancelotfinn.substack.com/p/golden-rule-capitalism?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=bvjex
So I'm sympathetic with this argument, but I'm also struck by the absence of a strong concept of natural rights, and by the strong presence of a concept of "the polis," as something with presumptive authority.
The concept has a somewhat pagan flavor, and definitely a statist flavor. The irony is that in this country, if there is a polis, it is founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which appeals for authority to "the consent of the governed." And the constitutional American polity does enjoy the consent of the government in a sense, but in a sense, very straightforwardly and obviously inferior to markets, which arise, as you say, from a spontaneous order of uncoerced decisions.
In a word, markets' legitimacy is superior to political legitimacy. That understanding is foundationally American. And America's success is built on that understanding, which the founders understood from the beginning was and continues to be superior to Aristotelianism, or at any rate do any kind of Aristotelianism which hasn't taken the truths of the Declaration of Independence on board to the extent of ruling out about initio the legitimacy of regulating markets merely in the interests of "the polis."
That's not my self conscious mental model, although I find surprising insights from left people sometimes.
I do think that the perils of civil authority power are more fraught than those of the other realms which happen among a freely associating citizenry. I am probably with Adam Smith who said "The mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind, though it cannot perhaps be corrected, may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquillity of any body but themselves."
A merchant might get rich selling vice to my neighbor, but my neighbor can't get at my pocketbook through them. But he can certainly get at it through the magistrate, since my neighbor believes "thou shalt not steal--except by majority vote".
The wicked nation is characterized as a place where "fraud and oppression does not depart from the marketplace." Unfortunately, by the time that has happened, the fraud and oppression has already consumed the magistrate, who was supposed to be setting the good example for the merchants and the hoi polloi. At this stage, "the market" and the magistrate have just become the Beast with two backs.
So, a good reason to oppose government intervention in markets isn't necessarily "we aren't getting conned by merchants, leave us alone!" more likely, it's triage; we are just trying to halve the conning, if possible, since the magistrate's answers to the merchant's injustice usually amplifies the oppression, or merely guarantees its perpetuity, since the magistrate has an income stream to protect based upon pretending to protect the people.
You talk like a left-libertarian! Fascinating branch of thought. Do you think of yourself as a left-libertarian?