Chapter 3

In the next place we must inquire how this equality is to be procured. Shall the qualifications be divided so that five hundred rich should be equal to a thousand poor, or shall the thousand have equal power with the five hundred? or shall we not establish our equality in this manner? but divide indeed thus, and afterwards taking an equal number both out of the five hundred and the thousand, invest them with the power of creating the magistrates and judges. Is this state then established according to perfect democratical justice, or rather that which is guided by numbers only? For the defenders of a democracy say, that that is just which the majority approve of: but the favourers of an oligarchy say, that that is just which those who have most approve of; and that we ought to be directed by the value of property. Both the propositions are unjust; for if we agree with what the few propose we erect a tyranny: for if it should happen that an individual should have more than the rest who are rich, according to oligarchical justice, this man alone has a right to the supreme power; but if superiority of numbers is to prevail, injustice will then be done by confiscating the property of the rich, who are few, as we have already said. What then that equality is, which both parties will admit, must be collected from the definition of right which is common to them both; for they both say that what the majority of the state approves of ought to be established. Be it so; but not entirely: but since a city happens to be made up of two different ranks of people, the rich and the poor, let that be established which is approved of by both these, or the greater part: but should there be opposite sentiments, let that be established which shall be approved of by the greater part: but let this be according to the census; for instance, if there should be ten of the rich and twenty of the poor, and six of the first and fifteen of the last should agree upon any measure, and the remaining four of the rich should join with the remaining five of the poor in opposing it, that party whose census when added together should determine which opinion should be law, and should these happen to be equal, it should be regarded as a case similar to an assembly or court of justice dividing equally upon any question that comes before them, who either determine it by lot or some such method. But although, with [1318b] respect to what is equal and just, it may be very difficult to establish the truth, yet it is much easier to do than to persuade those who have it in their power to encroach upon others to be guided thereby; for the weak always desire what is equal and just, but the powerful pay no regard thereunto.

Next, we must ask how to achieve this equality. Should property qualifications be divided so that five hundred rich people count as equal to a thousand poor people? Or should the thousand have equal power with the five hundred? Or should we establish equality differently? We might divide the groups this way, then choose equal numbers from the five hundred and the thousand. Those chosen would have the power to appoint magistrates and judges. Would this arrangement fully satisfy democratic justice? Or would a system based only on numbers do so? Defenders of democracy say that whatever the majority approves is just. Supporters of oligarchy say that whatever those with the most property approve is just. They argue that the value of property should guide us. Both claims are unjust. If we accept what the few propose, we establish a tyranny. Suppose one person had more property than all the other rich people combined. According to oligarchic justice, that person alone would have the right to supreme power. But if superior numbers prevail, the majority will act unjustly by confiscating the property of the wealthy few. We have already discussed this. What kind of equality, then, will both sides accept? We must work from the definition of justice they share. Both sides say that whatever the majority of the state approves should become law. Let us accept that, but not without qualification. Since a city consists of two different groups, rich and poor, let whatever both groups approve become law. Approval by the majority of each group should also suffice. But if the groups disagree, let the majority decide, with votes weighted according to assessed property. For example, suppose there are ten rich people and twenty poor people. Six of the rich and fifteen of the poor agree on a measure. The remaining four rich people join the remaining five poor people in opposing it. Add up the assessed property of each side. The side with the greater total should determine which opinion becomes law. If the totals are equal, treat the result like a tied vote in an assembly or court. Such bodies settle ties by drawing lots or some similar method. But although discovering what is equal and just may be very difficult, [1318b] persuading the powerful to follow it is harder. Those who can take advantage of others are harder to persuade. For the weak always want equality and justice, but the powerful pay no attention to either.