Conventional Wisdom

Each society and within each social class there exists certain mindsets. We also see variations among different personalities. Conventional wisdom is what forms among people who share things in common. Some of this wisdom is good and useful and some notions are mistaken. People in different classes lean certain ways. Concerning those who would rule over us, or for a better word, manage our common affairs, we want representation of all the classes and yet this can make governing confusing also. Military rule is good for security but doesn't do so well concerning business. It is good to have the best and brightest in office but they too can have a disconnect with issues due to pride. That is one of the reasons why in the United States they came up with a three chamber system of lawmaking and a three-branch system of government.

When a country is free and peaceful, it gets harder to find those who have experience dealing with barbarism. Barbarism is a mindset that has lost civility due to an ideal or greed. Within a society, there are individuals who succumb to this and we have a domestic police force to defend innocent citizens. There always exists Utopians in a society who deny people can be that way, but it is a reality that has to be dealt with.

A society can become aggressive and convince themselves the world needs to conform to their rule. There have been wars declared between countries to settle disputes in somewhat of an orderly form but with barbarism there are no rules. It takes people who have experience with this mindset to deal with them. Barbaric people laugh at domestic principles of civility. Aristotle observed how vulnerable people can become when ruled by a domestic class and gave examples of countries that had been defeated due to a domestic based conventional wisdom. The women at that time made up a majority of this class so he appears sexist in this section. Although a household can be managed well by the use of grace, mercy and agreements, this doesn't work with barbaric people. They actually take pride in deception. This tends to get a country defeated when it comes to battles, invasions and terrorism. Historically, peaceful countries end up becoming servants to those who aren't afraid use aggression.

Stability

When forming a good government, the motive is to create something that is beneficial to everyone. This is a difficult task since everyone has different interests. A determination has to be made as to what areas we are going to give control, what people will have control and to what extent the control will be imposed. We start out by studying government and theoretical governments of the past. Governing is good but becomes despised when it isn't applied properly. When people don't perceive they are being represented, rebellion ensues. It is important that the citizenry be educated about the proper application of authority and appreciation for its proper use before a country can be peaceful.
It goes both ways since either common people or those in authority can be victims of mistaken notions.

There are a few good points we can touch on out of book eight of Politics. Concerning who should govern, we find that a military government ends up making slaves out of the common people. We see that today in some countries. The people end up farming and building for the benefit of the army and officers while they maintain an elite status. This certainly isn't a benefit for the people and is subject to abuses. A government should also have a mixture of white collar professionals. But to put business professionals in charge can also have the same effect. They will want to mold things for their own benefit and make slaves of everyone else. And blue collar workers would be concerned about their interests and not understand the effect legislation has on commerce and treaties.

Regardless the representation in governing, one thing needs to be common. Aristotle thought that having the ability to easily change laws is a great evil. Stability comes from having laws that don't change so people can understand them easily and get in the habit of obeying them. He makes a couple interesting remarks about the origin of man. Some believed that the people had come out of some kind of disaster while others believed that we came from the earth in barbaric form. He thought that either way, old laws will need to be improved occasionally as a society becomes more civilized and he quotes some ridiculous laws that these old civilizations had. Even with a nation a couple hundred years old we can do the same.

Constitutions and laws need a way to be amended, but this also needs to be very difficult since the goal is that any laws we pass will be for everyone's benefit and not just a certain class of citizen. They also shouldn't be changed to represent trends but remain as a solid foundation for a civilized society. Of course, there are always particulars that laws cannot cover that require judgment, but we shouldn't go down the road of trying to cover every spurious concern. The particulars are where we should be trained to have good discretion. We enlist judges and arbiters when two cannot agree on the proper applications and to apply penalties as needed.

Republic

We looked at and are going with the natural law. That is what we see working in the relationships around us. The best way for a group to get together is in a friendship setting; everyone gets along and we all agree. But these are based in a commonality such as sports, schools and proximity. We can only interact at certain levels depending on the type of relationship. Basically a community or group decide what areas they will share and what are out of bounds. This is normally done naturally between ourselves. If people want to formalize the relationship it can be done by charters, bylaws and various forms of contracts. The one that shares the most and is the most intimate is the marriage contract. The less intimate the contract, the fewer areas we want to share. We might let the neighbor borrow our lawnmower but won't let a stranger from another town do it. 

While establishing governing authority at different levels, we have to keep this in mind. While some free spirits are perfectly happy sharing and sharing alike, most people wisely are not. This isn't selfishness but is wisdom. The further authority is from whom they are supposed to attend, the more indifference there is.  We call it being out of touch. So we set up layers with county, city, state and federal responsibilities. Those closest to us take care of the more intimate details and the furthest away take care of things that pertain to national interest. These interests and areas we agree to share are where we debate details. Those who stick closer to natural law will want less federal and more local sharing. They like voluntary personal agreements the best and dislike compulsion. Those who haven't mastered natural life will want to cede more responsibilities over to a governing authority, hoping for a better outcome. 

The tendancy in ancient history was to find some kind of figurehead to trust in, hopefully with supernatural authority. This still goes on in countries today. The change that came with Greek philosophy was the concept of a republic. Instead of a figurehead for everyone to follow, a constitution was revered. The people would come together and agree on what areas to share in common, what class of people would run them and how to make changes as needed. A constitutional government ruled by laws is what makes up a republic. It starts out as a timocratic friendship; where for the most part, everyone agrees on the degree of collaboration and sharing laid out in the constitution. As people come along who want intervention and favors, it decends into a democratic party system where getting the majority on ones side is more important than taking care of the common interests of everyone. Poor decisions are made out of hysteria and mob rule. Leaders circumvent the constitution in order to please the mob. This is a history that repeats itself.

I still think it interesting to look at ideas about these ideas on sharing and authority but hope that it doesn't get too boring for you the reader. We have covered sharing lands and family structures. What kind of people do we want in charge? Are there advantages to a class system? We have touched on so many areas, lets go into a little more detail next time.