No doubt life is good 

Passion is like a roller coaster 

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.

Let’s review a bit starting with ethics. We find that you can’t judge people by their success. It isn’t good to judge ourselves either. Real success has to do with how we deal with random events, wins and losses. Those who handle them well and move on to improve themselves and those around them have the greatest successes. As we govern ourselves well, we are more apt to reach the goal which is happiness.

The goal of a state is the happiness of its citizens. The concept of an ideal citizen should not be based on his ability to participate in the economy or own land. We are looking for someone who not only contributes his skills to the community but is also educated and informed so he can participate in politics and govern. The highest qualification should be good character. This will allow him to be considerate of the needs of both the individuals and the whole of the state whether he has opportunity to govern or not.

The best commanders are those who have learned well to obey. The best rulers are those who rise out of the ranks. A citizen who has lived under the law is the best candidate to make law. Those who don’t intend to go back into private living will tend to be despotic. Laws tend to be made to enrich a professional politician and give him a legacy. Rulers become elite and the republic becomes the governed against the government. Someone who intends to go and live under the laws they have made will be apt to look to the needs of the common man. Hard decisions are made that may not benefit the lawmaker. He will promulgate good character in the citizenry and the government.

We have gone over the three kinds of government in the past but everything with Aristotle builds from the simple to the complex so lets review the benefits and issues with the different forms. A monarchical  government is one where a single person makes the decisions. This is the most efficient form but also the one the most prone to tyranny. Everything depends on the character of one person. The aristocracy is one where a group of a few of the brightest rule. This is ideal at times except the group might become elitist and after a while a oligarchy may form where they secure their positions with cronies and lose touch with the populace. An elite ruling class can form that despises normal citizens who don’t agree with them. The last form of government is the one we have been discussing and that is a constitutional government that is formed democratically. This what is normally called a republic. Armed citizens are the ones that usually form this kind of government. They prefer to have written laws that benefit every citizen as the ruler the land rather than any particular person.

It’s interesting to see how the USA and other nations have elements of the three kinds of government built into their systems. There are also parties that form in every nation. We can observe today in the USA the major parties are Democrats and Republicans. A Democrat is one who trusts more in majority rule. They are willing to quickly change laws. But problems arise when the opinion of the majority doesn’t benefit the entire citizenry. A Republican is someone who trusts more in the rule of law. They don’t trust majority opinions as much since they might be based in hype. They are against ruling by passion. This view can be inflexible at times and will not respond to changing times as quickly.