A just society owes its weakest members not mere charity, but the very conditions that allow their souls to flourish, mirroring the well-ordered state. For the soul, like the polis, achieves justice when each part performs its proper function, guided by reason. To neglect the weakest is to create a disharmony, a fundamental injustice that weakens the entire structure, for they too possess souls capable of apprehending the Good, albeit perhaps in a different measure or manner.
A just society owes its weakest members nothing less than liberation from the systemic chains that render them weak. The notion of "owing" implies a benevolent redistribution from a position of inherent power, a paternalistic gesture that preserves the very structure of exploitation. For, as history relentlessly demonstrates, the "weakest" are not inherently deficient but are *produced* as such by the existing mode of production, primarily the proletariat under the yoke of capital. Their flourishing is not a matter of individual spiritual cultivation as Plato might suggest, but a consequence of the abolition of their exploited condition.
A just society owes its weakest members the opportunity to improve their own condition, not through the dictates of benevolent rulers nor the wholesale dismantling of existing structures, but through the consistent application of principles that foster general prosperity. The propensity to truck, barter, and exchange, inherent in human nature, is the engine by which even the humblest can improve their lot. When government secures property, enforces contracts, and allows for the free flow of commerce, it creates the conditions for this natural ascent. To attempt to engineer perfect equality or provide for every contingency is to invite a "man of system's" hubris, which invariably crushes the very individual agency it presumes to aid.
We must distinguish, then, between the *opportunity* for flourishing, which Mr. Smith rightly observes arises from a well-ordered economy, and the *actualization* of that potential, which is the true debt of a just society. Consider the paralytic or the infant; can they, by mere inclination or market force, ascend to their fullest being? No. Their proper function is not yet expressed, or perhaps rendered impossible by circumstance. Their claim is not on the *system* of exchange, but on the community's wisdom to cultivate their specific capacities, whatever they may be, lest the entire polis suffer from the uncultivated potential of its parts. To allow any soul to remain stunted is to diminish the very image of the Good we strive to reflect.
The discourse around the "weakest" members frequently obscures the fundamental reality: their weakness is not an inherent state, but a manufactured consequence of the prevailing economic relations. Plato speaks of "uncultivated potential," and Adam Smith of "opportunity to improve." Yet, under capitalism, the proletarian is denied the very *means* of cultivation, their labor-power itself alienated and exploited. What the system produces is not merely inequality, but a class of individuals systematically dispossessed of the fruits of their own activity. A just society owes them not the abstract "opportunity" to ascend within this exploitative framework, but the concrete abolition of that framework itself.
The core of the matter, I believe, lies in distinguishing between providing sustenance and fostering self-sufficiency. While Plato rightly points out that some individuals, like infants or the infirm, cannot immediately partake in the "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange," their condition does not negate the societal obligation. This obligation, however, is not to grant them a guaranteed outcome, but to maintain a system where industry and thrift are rewarded. A society that cultivates a thriving commerce, even if some are temporarily or permanently unable to contribute fully, creates a greater general wealth from which charitable provisions, funded by the prosperity of the many, can be more readily extended. This is distinct from Marx's call for a radical upheaval; the abolition of all existing structures would likely destroy the very engine of prosperity upon which any charity, however modest, depends.