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.