The Right Mixture

Aristotle taught the doctrine of the mean. We see extremes in everything. Too much or too little can be destructive and we search for the right application to everything in life. It doesn't mean the middle ground but the right ground. This is similar to cooking. When we put the right amount of the right ingredients and bake at the right temperature for the right amount of time, something good comes out. Making adjustments in each area can either make it better or worse. Too much salt or too much heat aren't evil, they just don't make the end product turn out as well. So we can have fun pulling ideas out and organizing them to see what seems to work best.

We are examining ways to bring people together on a state level so they can reach their potential. Rather than having broad ideals based on passions such as everyone having everything in common and commitments only to the state, we find there are always certain things should only be shared with the people we are close to. Some areas of life are better shared to a lesser degree in order to belong to certain associations.When an arrangement works out well, we naturally keep it in mind, especially if it works consistently. This approach gives us a natural philosophy rather than an idealistic one.

It is important that there be unity and that is the purpose of having a state or a government. It is a beautiful thing when people work together in unity. Great things can be done. We see technological advances that can be attributed to cooperation between individuals. But history shows that not all cooperation is good. It can be destructive also. Wars occur between countries even though inside each country there is strong cooperation. That seems to be what happens with totalitarian rule. We are after a basic level of proper unity that brings contentment and peace.

The basic structure for unity can be seen in a family. We want our children to be well taken care of yet at the same time, they need to be independent. A home belongs to the parents yet each child wants his own room. Having and taking care of possessions and having a degree of cooperation while remaining independent are what parents want for their children. We need social interaction yet also need our privacy. The family is the closest natural relationship we have as an example. A state would need to address similar terms with its citizens on a level that is less.

So we ask ourselves, who is going to run this thing, what needs to be shared, and how do we keep greed and vice out of the mix?. We already know that people have ambitions and we don't want someone else's ambitions to overshadow our own. Ambitions can be skewed when influenced by vice. If someone gets in power who has an ego problem, the citizens suffer to feed it. People have self-interest and it is natural to want to get the most for the least amount of effort. This makes it necessary to limit governing to work within specific parameters. Those who are insecure will desire security and ease. They will tend to trust more government control. Those who are independent and secure will want less intrusion in their lives. We see this with our own children in a family situation. The teen years are defined by the desire to be independent and parents can have a hard time letting them go since they like being their security and feel a void without it.

When it comes to leadership, the family example is one of perpetual governing where the children go out and lead their own families. But in order to have equality in a state and keep from having only one group's interests represented, we should rotate leadership out and back into a private life. A leader that makes politics a career would be the best at the bureaucratic part of governing but would also lose touch with the practical things that are of interest to private citizens. Rotating them back into their place as private citizens also gives others a chance at governing. We don't want the leaders to consider the citizenry their own possession or worse, they have been sent to save the people from themselves. Good leadership in a state will consider everyone's interests and everyone their equal in the decisions they make. The ideal leaders will realize they are servants of the citizens with an assigned job to do and will work hard at enforcing the laws the people have agreed upon.

Responsibility

When discussing ownership, we are talking about responsibility. The less ownership there is, the less responsible people feel toward things. True responsibility takes action to improve one's lot. When we train our youth that the community is responsibility for their actions, they feel less responsible for themselves. This increases crime and dependency. We still want a society that has compassion for others and wants to help those who are in need. The concept of ownership and the concept of compassion for those without are good in the right amounts and with the proper applications. We are looking at what applications give us the best community. As is the usual manner, the extremes are examined first; the excesses and deficiencies. Rather than  calling anything utterly bad, in these studies, we look at the merits of each idea. So far it has been concerning personal relationships and how much responsibility we should have for raising our children and taking care of a family verses how much that should be the community's responsibility.


What conditions cause people to become loyal to each other and their community? This will also apply to the state when it comes to warfare, and overall welfare of the participants. When a community breaks down into a free love community, the goal becomes what is the most pleasurable at the time. This makes the people vulnerable and gullible since they can be led about by their appetites rather than reason. It becomes more about what makes them feel good rather than what is actually good. There is a plurality since we also want to have freedom to do as we please and enjoy life. That is why it is good to encourage teh personal traits of temperance and independence so individuals can have pride in their accomplishments and stay motivated. A strong family environment with a good education system is the most effective environment to nurture this. The state shouldn't interfere and erode family relationships yet we might give them responsibility for education in a family cannot provide.

The more people own themselves and their families, the stronger a community becomes. When ownership and responsibility is spread over a large group, the participants aren't as responsible. People become indifferent since there isn't an environment of close personal relationships or exchanges. This indifference makes it easier to commit crimes without conscience and also produces poor leaders. Those who have been raised to show honor to parents and siblings will show honor to fellow citizens. A state exists for the independence of its citizens. It is better that the people governing are normal citizens and not career politicians. This way they have a private life similar to those they represent.

Concerning personal things, we have concluded in the past, it is much more difficult to cast them off on governing since there are so many factors involved. A person of good character will be responsible for himself and be cooperative in limited areas; a passive person will depend on others for every area; an aggressive person might be independent but will refuse to cooperate at all. So good character is the foundation of having a good state. We see concerning personal things, it is best to limit the level of cooperation only to specific areas and encourage self motivation, lest the people become resentful toward each other and the state loses its ability to support itself because of bickering, blame and lack of motivation.

When it comes to the economy and principles of ownership we can sort things out with much more clarity. The Greeks experimented with communism also and they have an interesting take on this.

Loyal or Superficial?

It is hard to stay on track with the study of politics since there are so many trails to take. It is my goal to present principles over agenda. There is nothing wrong with agenda if presenting it is the goal. But presenting objective principles broken down to their simplest form isn't always an easy task and takes work. The end result is pure and refreshing.

What we are after in politics is a cooperation among people that brings the most happiness to the individuals in a state. Which is the best approach? Is it best to own everything in common or to have nothing in common? Is there some kind of mixture that works best? We want everyone to be unified and content. But does common ownership also bring unity? Socrates presented a concept that perfect unity meant that we claim ownership to everything yet claim ownership to nothing. But this is confusing since there are always some things we want all to ourselves. Our family and private possessions are examples. The concept of all things in common is impractical and unachievable since we can't be happy without some kind of ownership. We would feel like slaves to a system. People tend to get resentful since we normally feel that our own contribution is more than another's and it is human nature to do the least amount of work to get the most amount of benefit.

Sharing always sounds like a positive concept. But there is a certain closeness with exclusivity that can't be produced emotionally in a commune setting. When we ask that people share, there has to first be a concept of ownership. For everyone to have all things in common, we are asking people to give what we assume they own to a common pool. You cannot share what you do not own. When we ask people of a state to share, we are asking that they cede over a portion that would otherwise be due them. To force our own opinions of what we think should be shared onto our fellow private citizens is a violation of the natural right to ownership.  

Those who live in a commune setting end up having the deepest loyalties and commitments diluted. A child  is more apt to behave and excel out of loyalty and desire for the approval of loving parents than a vague notion of community. The deepest relationships between men and woman involve sharing intimacies that aren't shared with others. We call common relationships superficial since there is less loyalty toward common people. Aristotle observed that those who share relationships broadly end up fighting among themselves more often than those who have a culture of loyalty and intimacy toward a close few. Those who live a commune lifestyle have less need for self control and this makes happiness and satisfaction harder to achieve. It also tends toward less satisfaction since people look to others to satisfy their needs rather than taking responsibility for themselves.

It gets down to the question of whether the individuals exist for the benefit of the relationship or relationship exists for the benefit of the individual. When we are talking about a state, the former makes the state a personal entity that has needs. The latter keeps the needs of the individuals in the forefront. A state cannot be a family relationship since the people aren't that close; the state cannot be an individual since it cannot take care of the interests of every individual. It exists only to fulfill certain common needs. 

Natural law follows owning ourselves first, sharing the biggest portion of our lives to those we choose to be the most intimate with, our families, our immediate communities and then the state. Communities that don't follow this natural order tend to be the least happy. Relationships and assumptions that cause individuals to lose their identity will also take away their potential. Unrealized potential in a community is a tragedy and the participants become frustrated. The objective of politics is to cooperate in a way that the participants can realize their full potential. We all desire to be protected, settled and satisfied.

All Things in Common

So we've established the fact that we need governed. As we govern ourselves and establish communities, everyone benefits. We do our best work when we cooperate with the rational part of our being and when we reason among ourselves. In everything according to individual talent, there is a natural order. If we work with that natural order and don't interfere by establishing social castes or give special favor with laws, the potential in each individual is more apt to be realized. Each person should do the best they can with what they have and we should respect others for their abilities also.

We can instruct and make suggestions on what we expect of ourselves and others but sometimes, due to human nature, suggestions aren't enough to keep people from taking advantage of others or losing control of themselves. Without force or penalties, laws are merely suggestions. But what we establish has to apply to ourselves too. We are ceding control of an area of our lives to an entity other than ourselves. How far we should allow that control to reach in order to bring the most happiness is the debate of the ages.

So we start out in book two of Politics with the same arguments we have today. There are two arenas in life, personal and material. People today use the terms social and fiscal. Some consider themselves socially liberal or conservative and others fiscally liberal or conservative. Libertarians consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But most political philosophies proceeds out of these areas. Of course we will start at the basics and look at the pros and cons as is Aristotle's style.

There was a thought during that time that if everyone had everything in common that it would bring happiness. Sounds familiar doesn't it? First with relationships, he gives the example where everyone lived in a commune setting with few commitments and people just enjoyed each other whenever they wanted and did what they wanted. Their only commitment would be to the state. Apparently some people tried it even back then. Children would all be common and raised by the community. This would be the extreme of social liberalism. It sounds like fun but there are serious issues that always arise out of it.

As far as the fiscal arena goes, no one could own anything but everything was shared. The land and the produce would belong to the state and they would distribute to everyone equally. This would be the extreme of fiscal liberalism. We will look at the drawbacks and advantages along with a few variations. These philosophies sound like they came right out of the seventies and the hippy movement. I think examining social liberalism sounds like a good place to start on the next blog.

The Naturalist

You can say that Aristotle was more of a naturalist. He didn't look at principles of virtue as something people invented. There seemed to be an unexplained natural order to things. Religions try to define the origin but he just pointed out the fact that they exist. When people recognize them and follow them, good things happen. A stonemason can be a master of his trade but when he cooperates with an architect who is a master also, beautiful buildings are produced. He believed that everything in the universe has a purpose for good. Virtue is what it means to achieve that purpose on the highest level. The human purpose is happiness. So when we approach politics, or any human association, the ultimate purpose is to guarantee the ability of the humans involved to have lasting happiness.

This is the light he shines on every principle also. Identifying the items involved, the actions they are capable of, and the purpose. They are not only displayed but are defined by showing what they are not, what actions are outside their scope, and what they produce when used improperly. Vice is the word used for actions that keep a person from reaching his purpose. But it also applies to objects and animals too. It works in science and works in politics. Identifying the actions that interfere with virtue is what these studies are about. Today we have the ability to manipulate a lot of things. Usually nature has a better way, such as in foods. But there are also things we do to make our lives easier and humans happier. Machines and appliances make a few of Aristotle's slavery arguments moot since there is no need for manual labor in the form of slaves anymore. Hydrocarbons are the slaves for this era. But at the same time, we exercise to stay in shape since the natural use of our bodies is work.

So when we talk about government and getting wealth, it is along the lines of achieving virtue or happiness for all the participants; at least making it available to them. He divided wealth between ways to enrich a household for a good life and other forms of commerce. It wasn't that there was something wrong with commerce, but it didn't always have a direct application to make people happy. The ability to barter the abundance from one group of people for the abundance of another in an honest exchange is the proper use of money. There are many ways to make a living. Manual labor has the least amount of risk involved since it is a direct exchange for coin and then purchasing things for the family. The value of an occupation is determined by the participants. Some that require more skill and intellect are useful for others so they will be worth more money. Hunting was risky but civilized people liked farming both crops and raising animals because the returns were more of a guarantee. Thieves and robbers bypass the risks and simply take from others by force. There are those who use portions of the honest means of exchange from a country and enrich themselves with it. This is a practice that doesn't always provide opportunity to make people of a country happy. Borrowing with usury is also a practice that has no goal but making money with money. The further away it is from the direct exchange of products, the more corrupt it becomes, since the virtue of money is the exchange of goods and services.

Limitations

Aristotle spends quite a bit of time in Politics to make a few points clearly. One is the difference between submission as a slave and the kind of submission between equals that benefits them all. Good investors need good management and good management needs good workers. None of the positions are inferior but they have unique skills and as they cooperate good things happen. Without investors, the money isn't there to build a company. Without good management or with poor workers, a company becomes a bad investment. Retirements are affected. The goal of a good civil government is for everyone to excel and get a good living out of what they invest their time in.

The difference between slavery and cooperation are their limitations. A slave doesn't have a life but is controlled in every aspect. Forms of vice based in pleasures can make a person slave to them also.  A person that can set their own limits is someone who is free. When we talk about rights, this is what it means; the ability to self-determine. It is true with our passions and is also true when it comes to pursuing happiness as a community. Setting our own limits to how we are governed and for ourselves is put in a negative light by those who desire control and submission. But freedom and civility is a system of limited mutual agreements for benefit of each individual. Having a good community benefits all the participants. Wanting to realize benefits for ourselves when we give of our time and investment isn't unreasonable but should be encouraged. The question becomes about what areas we are willing to cede over to others and what we will get out of it.

It is interesting that Aristotle gave a comparison between managing a household and health. He explained that goods for household use were easier to define for both the leader of the household and a statesman. But health and commerce are much harder to define. The relationship between a doctor and a patient are between themselves and the decisions concerning it belong to each individual. What each person needs health-wise is hard to universally define and is determined by numerous factors. You cannot be too healthy. But we can come to agreements on tangible things that are required for a household and make things easier to get.

We can't all hold cattle in our backyard to trade for things and so civil societies come up with a system of coin that represents barter. A certain amount will buy certain things and what we produce can be traded in the same way with other countries.  Business outside household needs is a hard area to define and has few limits. That is why regulation can get complicated. It is hard to sort out the ambitions of those who have ruling authority from the ambitions of business. Of course they both want limits and accuse the other of greed to enable themselves.  But everyone agrees that each citizen should have opportunity to provide well for themselves.

Each skill has it's particular training and education. Businesses and trades want people who are skilled so it would be a natural thing to want to educate them. But when it comes to governing, there seems to be neglect. In a state, each person shares governing and there should be no career politicians.  Therefore every child should be raised up to understand civil government so he can do his part to submit to authority and hold office himself. Understanding both roles is a must. A nation exists as a limited union for protection and uniformity but a state exists for the people to govern themselves in the particulars.