Chapter 10

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.

There is also the question of who should hold supreme power. Should power belong to the majority, the wealthy, a group of worthy people, one person better than the rest, or a tyrant? Whichever we choose, difficulties arise. Should the poor hold power because they are the majority? They may then divide the property of the rich among themselves. And this would not be unjust, because the supreme power has declared it just. But if this is not the height of injustice, what is? Again, if the many seize everything belonging to the few, the city will clearly come to an end. But virtue will never destroy anything virtuous, nor can what is right bring about the state's ruin. Therefore, such a law can never be right. Nor, by the same reasoning, can a tyrant's actions ever be wrong. All his actions must necessarily be just. For his unlimited power forces everyone to obey his commands, just as the multitude oppresses the rich. Is it right, then, for the wealthy few to hold supreme power? What if they commit the same robbery and plunder the majority's possessions? Their actions would be just as right as the majority's. But clearly, all actions of this kind are wrong and unjust. Then let the better citizens hold power. But must all the other citizens then live without honor, excluded from public office? The city's offices are its honors. If one group always holds power, the rest must clearly go without honor. Then let power belong to the one person best suited to exercise it. But this would concentrate power even further, leaving more people without honor than before. Someone may object that supreme power should belong to the law, not to a person whose soul has so many passions. But if the law establishes an aristocracy or a democracy, how does that resolve our present doubts? The consequences we have already described will still follow.