To understand where we are going with this, we need to review the doctrine of the mean. Virtues always lie in between two extreme passions. A person who possesses the virtue of courage is somewhere between fearful and foolhardy. A good soldier is willing to give his life for his country but takes care to preserve his own life and those of his fellow soldiers. A person caught in vice has sacrificed the middle and is compelled to stay at an extreme due to a pleasure they get out of it. A foolhardy person wants so bad to appear courageous to his peers, he takes unnecessary risks. A fearful person wants security so bad he can’t move forward. We all take pleasure at times with pushing limits, but all should agree that virtue is the best place to be. This also has a political application.

We looked at what brings tyranny to a country. It started with a description of three types of authority; monarch, aristocratic and democracy. But technically there are only two. A monarch can be concluded to be an extreme form of aristocratic governing so we are left with aristocratic and democratic. On one side we have only the elite and best running a government and on the other we have the common people running things. The qualifications for aristocratic authority can be due to inheritance, a virtue of some kind such as war experience or simply having money. The qualifications for democratic are the various definitions of citizenship.

An aristocratic government becomes a tyranny when the leaders become more concerned with securing their positions, wealth and honor than the well-being of the citizens. A democracy becomes a tyranny when the majority of people lack virtue and want heroes to tend them rather than rising up themselves, solving their own problems and becoming better citizens.

There are two things at issue, quality and quantity. To be ruled by a few elitists has its obvious disadvantages for the common people. A democracy that contains people who are dependent and submissive will set the stage for abuse. The virtue of having a nation has to be somewhere in between. This is called the middle class or the mean. A country that has a large middle class both in virtue and in wealth will be the least likely to allow abuses from either direction, elite snobbery or complacent poor. A country that champions middle class leaders will contain satisfied citizens. The ultimate goal of a community would be to grow citizens who have enough virtue to handle either wealth or poverty with good character. Those of wealth giving others a hand up and those in poverty despising it enough to work their way into the middle class. The best way to do this, taking into account the particulars of a society, is what good political debate should be focused on.

A body is confined

My daddy taught me how to talk 

Hey mister moon, I see your plight 

People are diverse and that is the beauty of belonging to the human race. Some like to live on the edge and push limits. There are others who want structure and things to stay the same. There are degrees in between and there are different areas to apply these principles such as relationships, jobs and leisure activities. In most sciences a person can look at things with precision and produce repeatable results. With social sciences it can be frustrating because there are so many variables. When we land on good principles, we also have a person’s will to factor in. In past studies we have looked at how some people know what is right but choose not to do it, others lack the ability, while still others do wrong involuntarily due to outside forces and influences. Circumstances and particulars are involved too.

The goal for having a stable society is happiness since happiness is the ultimate goal that everyone is reaching for. Politics, or the study of human interactions, is the science that looks at things that help people reach this goal together. Not for just a chosen few, but everyone in a community. In the same way that certain plants thrive with the right nutrients, sunlight, and water, diverse people have needs that vary. The trouble with social planning is that it holds a standard and a template that might be ideal for one group of people but not everyone. A hydrangea wouldn’t be happy to live in the desert like a cactus. But all plants need sunlight, carbon dioxide and water as a general principle. We have to approach relational matters using general principles but there are particulars to each person and area.

A civil government exists to keep people civil with each other and to protect them from hostility. We have to be alive to be happy of course and being free to use our own will is also a requirement. A part of happiness is acquiring things and being able to accumulate goods. That is where we get life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Every person in a country should have equal ability to do what they want with their lives as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Ideally everyone should be free to their own pursuits, but since men aren’t angels, we need to have laws. The rule of law was compared to the rule of personalities in the last post.

The ideal country is one where everyone has good character and looks out for his fellow man. In this structure, anyone can be a leader. Their occupation wouldn’t matter as much as their integrity. When everyone is integral, a political position is more of an office with duties than a means to impose one’s will on others. There is a job to do such as protection and making laws that benefit everyone. The less virtue a a country contains, the more they rely on having a leader to keep thing together. From small groups to large ones, well behaved people need less tending than those who misbehave. People resort to hero worship when they feel deficient in themselves. A society demands tenders when they quit attending to themselves. So when we look at ideal governments, it doesn’t matter if it is a monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, the leaders become tyrants in relation to how much the people are complacent in moral excellence.

The solutions aren’t religious ones. It is an inferior people that need Fathers in the faith or a Pope. We all have things to learn from each other but it should be as equals. When people rise up as individuals and seek their own unique solutions to their dilemmas, a nation becomes stronger. Those who point fingers at others as the cause to their problems are obviously insecure and lack character. This is a sad state for themselves and the people around them. A hero based society feels more comfortable when pointing fingers in either a negative or a positive light. It can be universally observed throughout history that nations with strong individualism and good character will thrive. Notoriety shouldn’t come from any particular leader but from the virtue of the people.

There’s a door in a chamber of my soul

Lets get back to the study of politics. Humans need interaction; politics is the study of that interaction in a group setting. Having skills in this area is important. We are seeking universal truths, the ones that everyone can recognize as being right while avoiding biases from associative truths. The question today is, “Who should rule over a nation or a country?”. What should the qualifications be? Of course being a citizen would be the first qualification.

In what areas should a ruler be qualified? A person who is skilled in business will take care of business areas best but might neglect the needy. A person who is charitable might run the country into debt by neglecting business. Perhaps a doctor or a good lawyer? One would be good with health care and the other concerning trials. How about a high degree of Education? Certainly someone smart would be best. Degrees don’t necessarily represent practical experience though. We don’t want someone who only only knows theory. A military person would be great for defense but might neglect domestic affairs. We can all agree that a person who has virtue or has good character would be a qualification for all, but shouldn’t it be the only one.

In primitive societies, it is either the strongest or the greatest who rule. The citizens seek someone with the virtue of a god. Today we call this celebrity or hero worship. But after while they become a disappointment because of human fallibility. Their children or subordinates aren’t necessarily any good and so a country digresses to a council system. People with the most virtue according to what the country values become in charge. But they end up taking advantage of others and becoming elitists. So this digresses to a democracy where the people rule and consider their cause virtuous. But then the majority oppresses the minority and factions take over. This is how it goes through much of human history.

A society advances beyond this when the virtue of every individual is realized. We find that no one is worthy to rule over another. There are no experiences, birth, talents or God given authorities that give one person the right to rule over another. This is a universal truth: We are all equals under God or whatever your higher authority is. The only thing left to rule are the laws that apply to everyone and are applied universally. Those who are in office are mere administrators of this law. An advanced society follows the rule of law starting with their constitution.

When equality is truly realized it becomes difficult to take advantage of others. An independent person abhors being taken advantage of and will do everything possible to not be a burden to others. A society full of people who understand the real meaning of equality is the most advanced. This universally applies to all our relationships with friends, families and fellow citizens.

There is no doubt that working together we can accomplish greater things, but in order to get the greatest contribution from each individual, the supremacy of individual worth has to be at the center of everything. Those in authority have a job to do and those under it should make it easy for them. Workers have a job to do and should do it with all their strength. But at the same time, a position or wealth doesn’t make one person better than another. So the answer to, “Who should rule?” is no one. In an advanced society there isn’t a need to rule, only to take one’s turn administering the law.

Every point here can be expanded on but my hope is that you can take these universal truths and expand on them yourself.

What are words?