libertarianism works

I'll just have to quote Wikipedia, which caters to the lowest common denominator and is not subject to much interpretation regarding academics backed with texts.

"Chrematistics (from Greek: -ç-ü+++++¦-ä+¦-â-ä+¦+¦+«) according to Thales of Miletus is the art of getting rich.

Aristotle established the fundamental difference between economics and chrematistics. The accumulation of money itself is an unnatural activity that dehumanizes those who practice it. Like Plato, he condemns the accumulation of wealth. Trade exchanges money for goods and usury creates money from money. The merchant does not produce anything: both are reprehensible from the standpoint of philosophical ethics.

According to Aristotle, the "necessary" chrematistic economy is licit if the sale of goods is made directly between the producer and buyer at the right price; it does not generate a value-added product. By contrast, it is illicit if the producer purchases for resale to consumers for a higher price, generating added value. The money must be only a medium of exchange and measure of value."

All of the market players basically indulge in the most lame, degenerate and corrupt form of economy there is. It's actually self-evident. I, for one, felt dirty each time I did it, and really don't see the point anymore. Doing it is just being a hurdle in the way things pass from hands to hands. It is being a parasite leeching on the life-force of goods exchanged, on the life-force of the market.

What's really depressing is that for most, such truths cannot be experienced, so tainted their souls are.

It's a description of a /small/ scale economy. It just doesn't work when you increase the scale.

It precludes, for example, companies such as supermarkets. Enjoy wandering out to a farm when you want to buy anything.

This only occurs because people are lazy.
So don't blame the people who make money off this, blame the lazy people who enable this type of behaviour.

Please don't ever, EVER try to mis-use Aristotle to back up your insidious, corrupting socialist propaganda ever again.

That will be all, thank you.

According to Aristotle, the "necessary" chrematistic economy is licit if the sale of goods is made directly between the producer and buyer at the right price; it does not generate a value-added product. By contrast, it is illicit if the producer purchases for resale to consumers for a higher price, generating added value. The money must be only a medium of exchange and measure of value."

There's a lot of short sight in that statement (made by you or Aristotle does not matter).

Traders on a macro scale infuse liquidity in the system, that's their "goods".
They make so that the added value actually decreases due to competition.
Check illiquid markets, spreads are huge and thus prices are not "right" as you state above.

Liquid markets - and they are liquid also because of traders - have small spread so the end consumer pays less added value.

Notice the "less" term: don't delude yourself, even direct sales have added value, sometimes well superior than identical large scale commoditized items. By Aristotle there'd be no licit trading, I know no one who would knowingly sell at a loss or at pure "right price".

How is buying and reselling something that would be bought anyway -at a lower price-, adding liquidity, grease, and flexibility to a market?

Wait a second... you think that in a world without traders the item would be sold at a lower price? I bet if we get rid of all the guns there will be no violence too.

Convenience? Convenience is added via the service being faster.

So when someone puts its good on the market, and someone buys them to resell them, it makes them faster to buy?

An added step means a quicker service?

I am sure Aristotle would also agree that murder, invasion, and extermination of entire organizations is a valid way to obtain resources, and that "because I can" is enough of a reason to destroy a defenseless vessel in a suicide attack.