It may also be a doubt where the supreme
power ought to be lodged. Shall it be with the
majority, or the wealthy, with a number of proper
persons, or one better than the rest, or with a tyrant?
But whichever of these we prefer some difficulty will
arise. For what? shall the poor have it because
they are the majority? they may then divide among
themselves, what belongs to the rich: nor is this
unjust; because truly it has been so judged by the
supreme power. But what avails it to point out
what is the height of injustice if this is not?
Again, if the many seize into their own hands everything
which belongs to the few, it is evident that the city
will be at an end. But virtue will never destroy
what is virtuous; nor can what is right be the ruin
of the state: therefore such a law can never
be right, nor can the acts of a tyrant ever be wrong,
for of necessity they must all be just; for he, from
his unlimited power, compels every one to obey his
command, as the multitude oppress the rich. Is
it right then that the rich, the few, should have
the supreme power? and what if they be guilty of the
same rapine and plunder the possessions of the majority,
that will be as right as the other: but that
all things of this sort are wrong and unjust is evident.
Well then, these of the better sort shall have it:
but must not then all the other citizens live unhonoured,
without sharing the offices of the city; for the offices
of a city are its honours, and if one set of men are
always in power, it is evident that the rest must
be without honour. Well then, let it be with one
person of all others the fittest for it: but
by this means the power will be still more contracted,
and a greater number than before continue unhonoured.
But some one may say, that it is wrong to let man have
the supreme power and not the law, as his soul is
subject to so many passions. But if this law
appoints an aristocracy, or a democracy, how will
it help us in our present doubts? for those things
will happen which we have already mentioned.
|