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.