Decisions Decisions

We've left our buddy Aristotle behind for too long so let's review where we were at: In the Politics, the second book, we find him examining the governments of different countries in his day. It is uncanny how similar things were then to the way it is now. After a quick review of the principles, we are going to move on the third book. The second and third book seem to be out of order since in the third he starts at basics and moves into more complex things. It is interesting nonetheless.

Having a single person in charge is the most efficient form of government but problems arise when the ego of that person gets in the way of the common good. A people pleaser can be just another variety of tyranny. What we are looking for is a person who is respectful to the laws the people have set up and considers himself a servant. He will fulfill his duties without thinking he is a messiah. The downside, of course, is the common tendency of people to let their egos get in the way. When a single person governs unchecked and goes bad, it is to the demise of the entire country. So we want to take advantage of single-mindedness in areas where it can be applied safely without descending into tyranny towards everyone.

Sometimes it is better to have a group in charge. We form committees to get an expert opinion on a matter. We still will utilize a single person as the head of the committee. Where this goes wrong is when the experts consider themselves elite and exclude the opinion of others. In governing they may even work things to give their group the upper hand in a society above all others. This is what is meant by an aristocracy. Ideally they should meet to give their opinions yet consider themselves common like everyone else. They should be humble and let other experts take the reigns when they have completed their job or tenure. When they form their own fiefdoms or non-experts get in due to association, the country suffers.

It is ideal that everyone is friendly to each other and make their decisions according to these friendships rather than according to laws. It always seems that the majority ends up bullying the minority though. Normal people have varying interests and hold jobs so they get representation to take care of those interests in their stead. This goes bad when their own interest is forced on everyone by forming factions. The more sway a government holds over everyday life, the decisions made by these people become more critical. We have seen the bad decisions people make when in a mob. So while this form of decision making best represents the people, it is still prone to making poor decisions through hysteria and inexperience.

This is the gist of the reviews of governments that Aristotle made. In book three we look at what constitutes a state. At its basic form, we have to start at what makes a person a citizen. Some make the qualification becoming a landowner, but that is too exclusive since some people move around and rent. A citizen would be someone who has the ability to participate in some way with governing. So in order to participate there still needs to be qualifications. We can head that direction next time....

Interests

Everyone has their own passions, ambitions and their own ideals. Some are oriented toward art and others toward sports; some are vegetarians and others enjoy hunting; some are liberal and others frugal; there is nothing inherently wrong with either view. We simply have things we enjoy and want others to enjoy them too. It is in our nature to want others to emulate us and to emulate those we admire. We hit a snag occasionally because each personality is different so we all have different heroes.

In the past, we looked at the desire some have for a certain kind of Utopia that meets their ideals. In another light, we looked at the practical view that champions personal interests above all else. Regardless of the political persuasion of a person, there are passions that influence their decisions. We have numerous passions and objectives in our individual minds. These passions need a governing part called reason so we aren't confused animals. A group of people also become dangerous when led by passion over reason. Everyone will have different passions and objectives, but they have to settle on common goals for everyone. This way of thinking has nothing to do with a majority but is concerned with benefits for everyone. What are the things everyone would want to be protected? The difference between suggestions and laws is that laws have enforcement for hire to make sure they are obeyed.  An idea in the private or free area of our lives in a free society, cannot be forced on others. We cannot be forced to give to a certain charity or buy a certain product. If we refuse, no one is going to come and force us with the threat of jail or fines. So laws are always a negative regardless of how they are presented. They must be limited in order to preserve individual freedoms to make our own choices.

When it comes to forming a government and making laws, the more areas that are addressed by law, the more divisive government becomes. Each area that is put under the authority and force of a government becomes an area of interest for special groups with those who have the associated passions. Rather than having areas of personal interest where personal drive can be applied, special interest groups are formed instead to protect their interests. The officials of the government, regardless how they arrive in office, have to pander to these groups. There are areas that should be addressed commonly and others left to the individual. The struggle is between individuality and commonality. What areas are best left out of the enforcement realm and what areas do we cede over to it?  As far as passions go, they are diverse and we should respect other's views. Views only become contentious when they become a part of the universal application of government ie. force. Laws that favor sports will be contentious to those who are interested in art so it is better to leave the specific interests of both out of our universal laws while preserving the interests of the general public.

That is the goal of politics although it is hard at times. We all want our way and have our causes but should they be given the iron hand of government or should we gather help on our own? The interests can be controlled by who we let in office. In every government that Aristotle examined, there were deficiencies also. Generally the struggle becomes keeping good people in office while limiting their influence so they don't become elitists. An elitist is only concerned about his own interests. These interests are expanded as a government grows. Focusing everyone's eyes back to a written constitution is how a republic is preserved. It is a common agreement for a society that isn't controlled by fads and passions.