At this point is important to understand justice. When two people have a relational or financial exchange, it is ideal that both parties are satisfied with what they get out of it. Justice is more of a perception between parties of what is fair and the study revolves around inequalities between parties. Honest people realize that their perceptions of justice are always skewed to their own advantage. That is why contracts are needed; they are an agreement between parties that keep us all honest. A builder wants less work and more pay while a homeowner wants more done for less pay. With that in mind, they come together and agree what is just for the both of them in a contract. A person might be in a relationship for pleasure only while another wants utility, or to be taken care of. For the relationship to continue they would need to come to an agreement between pleasure and care. If it cannot be reconciled, the relationship becomes unjust to both parties. If they both want pleasure only, it is easier to reconcile.  The relationship feels unjust only if one or the other become unpleasant. Of course most relationships are a mixture of three areas: commonalities, pleasure and utility. Commonality based relationships are the easiest to sustain since common ground among commonalities is easy to find.

With that in mind, lets look at the bigger picture of politics. This is the interaction between groups of people in a state. Aristotle observed that most states consist of the rich and poor. For the most part, the poor are in the majority and the rich are a minority. With a Democracy, poorer people are in charge of government and with a Aristocracy, wealthier people tend to be in charge. But if the ratios were reversed, the same issues would remain. The two main areas people want addressed most in a state are wealth and freedom. These are the areas we associate with happiness and well-being. A wealthier person wants freedom to live life how he wants and focuses on that part when considering laws while poorer people want inequalities in wealth addressed more.

The ideal in both areas is that the poor have integrity and are satisfied to work hard to build their own wealth. The wealthy should be free to enjoy what they earn while also being fair to those who are working their way up. Both call injustice in these areas greed. The wealthy consider a person who wants to confiscate without working a greedy person. The poor consider a person greedy who isn’t liberal with pay. A poor person’s perception gets off when they consider all the wealthy as hoarders while the wealthy might consider all the poor as squanderers. To one, the concern about having a wealthy person in charge is that they go bad and take advantage of others and hoard. To the other, if a poor person is in charge they bring the country down with squandering.

Concerning legislation, the wealthy are more apt to give some of their wealth to get the freedom to do what they want in life. They feel the country is served best if everyone is free of regulation. The poor are more apt to give up freedom for wealth. They think the country is served best with equal distribution. The best atmosphere to have is one that encourages both freedom and wealth. This seems to be an issue regardless of the era. An ideal state will have a lower class that respects wealth and works to acquire it and will have an upper class that has empathy for those who need a hand up in society. This is more of a character issue than a legal one. We all want a society that doesn’t have excess regulation and is absent the oppression that comes with poverty. Laws we make should take everyone’s perspective into consideration.