Liberty, Equality, Aims and Membership of States

The aims determine the education and membership of the state

Previously, we have seen from the quotes of Machiavelli, Aristotle, Han Feizi and Kauṭilya, what factions are able to wreak upon states, we may now take up the question of preservation of states. Yet before that is done, we must first clarify what liberty and equality are, so that there should be no doubt as to the forms in which they are considered good, and the forms where they are bad.

This then, will give us a strong foundation to establish the aims of a mixed government, the criterion of membership of the citizen body, and the education of this citizen body hence selected, for the aims will determine the other two.

Liberty and Equality, never pernicious, when properly implemented:

Of the proper application of Liberty:

Now Aristotle holds these to be the definitions of liberty:

“A basic principle of the democratic constitution is liberty. People constantly make this statement, implying that only in this constitution do men share in liberty; for every democracy, they say, has liberty for its aim. 'Ruling and being ruled in turn' is one element in liberty, and the democratic idea of justice is in fact numerical equality, not equality based on merit; and when this idea of what is just prevails, the multitude must be sovereign, and whatever the majority decides is final and constitutes justice. For, they say, there must be equality for each of the citizens. The result is that in democracies the poor have more sovereign power than the rich; for they are more numerous, and the decisions of the majority are sovereign. So this is one mark of liberty, one which all democrats make a definitive principle of their constitution. Another is to live as you like. For this, they say, is a function of being free, since its opposite, living not as you like, is the function of one enslaved. This is the second defining principle of democracy, and from it has come the ideal of 'not being ruled', not by anyone at all if possible, or at least only in alternation. This is a contribution towards that liberty which is based on equality.”

-Aristotle, Politics, Book 6

From these, we get three elements in liberty: To live as one likes, to not be ruled, and to rule and be ruled in turn. We shall see the last when we discourse about equality, but for now, let us turn to the first of these.

Now to live as one likes means to not be impeded or compelled, as Epictetus puts it in his Discourses, beautifully illustrating it with the metaphor of the caged bird, which tries to escape its captivity, and in this process, injures itself or dies. Liberty is said to be something one guards with his life and if a free man is faced with inevitable servitude, he prefers to die than be subject to such a state, and these are the words he employs:

Now consider in the case of animals, how we employ the notion of liberty. Men keep tame lions shut up, and feed them, and some take them about; and who will say that this lion is free? Is it not the fact that the more he lives at his ease, so much the more he is in a slavish condition? and who if he had perception and reason would wish to be one of these lions? Well, these birds when they are caught and are kept shut up, how much do they suffer in their attempts to escape? And some of them die of hunger rather than submit to such a kind of life. And as many of them as live, hardly live and with suffering pine away; and if they ever find any opening, they make their escape. So much do they desire their natural liberty, and to be independent and free from hindrance. And what harm is there to you in this? What do you say? I am formed by nature to fly where I choose, to live in the open air, to sing when I choose: you deprive me of all this, and say, what harm is it to you? For this reason we shall say that those animals only are free, which cannot endure capture, but as soon as they are caught. escape from captivity by death. So Diogenes also somewhere says that there is only one way to freedom, and that is to die content: and he writes to the Persian king. You cannot enslave the Athenian state any more than you can enslave fishes. How is that? cannot I catch them? If you catch them, says Diogenes, they will immediately leave you, as fishes do; for if you catch a fish, it dies; and if these men that are caught shall die, of what use to you is the preparation for war? These are the words of a free man who had carefully examined the thing, and, as was natural, had discovered it. But if you look for it in a different place from where it is, what wonder if you never find it?

Epictetus, Discourses, Book 4

Such is agreed to by Sallust as well, in the conspiracy of Catiline:

“We desire only our liberty, which no honorable man relinquishes but with life. We therefore conjure you and the senate to befriend your unhappy fellow-citizens; to restore us the protection of the law, which the injustice of the prætor has taken from us; and not to lay on us the necessity of considering how we may perish, so as best to avenge our blood."

-Sallust, The Catiline Conspiracy

Strabo, in his geography, tells us that:

The law-giver, says Ephorus, seems to lay, as the foundation of his constitution, the greatest good that states can enjoy, namely, liberty; for it is this alone which makes the property of every kind which a man possesses his own; in a state of slavery it belongs to the governor, and not to the governed.

-Strabo, Geography, Book 10, Chapter 4

Now it is held by some that liberty causes degeneration and that it has a licentious air to it. They hold that liberty causes communities to die out, that it causes individuals to become separated from their fellows, atomized and isolated.

But I hold such a thing to be based on a fallacious understanding of liberty itself, and in not defining it properly, and also that such has been allowed to happen purely due to the destruction of customs, the “mores maiorum” if you will, which uphold liberty, and the failure of people to weed out the corruption before it took root.

Now, knowing that men are political animals since they live in states, forming associations for self sufficiency, according to Aristotle, we should indeed consider what constitutes a state, and there are held to be four elements necessary for sound government.

For this, Aristotle says:

“Whereas without free population and wealth there cannot be a state at all, without justice and virtue it cannot be managed well”

-Aristotle, Politics, Book 3

“What has come to prevail in democracies is the very reverse of beneficial, in those, that is, which are regarded as the most democratically run. The reason for this lies in the failure to properly define liberty. For there are two marks by which democracy is thought to be defined: 'sovereignty of the majority' and 'liberty'. 'Just' is equated with what is equal, and the decision of the majority as to what is equal is regarded as sovereign; and liberty is seen in terms of doing what one wants. So in such a democracy each lives as he likes and for his 'fancy of the moment', as Euripides says. This is bad. It ought not to be regarded as slavery to live according to the constitution, but rather as self-preservation.”

Aristotle, Politics, Book 5

Now from this, we see that maintaining a populace in liberty means having a statesman's rule over them, and not a master's or tyrant's rule, as Demosthenes tells us in the fourth Philippic. He differentiates despotic rule from statesman's rule, saying that in Athens, the men do not accept slavery over themselves, and they do not wish to be despots over others either, but wish to live in liberty and equality under the state. But, license is different from this, since as Aristotle tells us, the failure to properly define liberty leads to democratic constitutions being the opposite of beneficial, and why this happens, is a result of the education which is given to the members, and such bad examples that come from an ill considered education make all liberty look like license.

Now on such examples, Machiavelli tells us that:

“Good examples arise from Good education, Good education from Good laws, and Good laws from tumults that many inconsiderately damn”

-Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Book 1, Chapter 4

Of the tumults, we may speak at another time, but from his words, Machiavelli demonstrates that Rome, with her education, could produce a multitude of great men, and this education arises from good laws.

But the question of education and laws may be held to be a chicken and egg situation, since Aristotle says this:

"It is useless to have the most beneficial laws, fully agreed upon by all who are members of the constitution, if they are not going to be trained and have their habits formed in the spirit of that constitution - in a democratic spirit, that is, if the laws are democratic, but oligarchically if they are oligarchic; for as one individual may be morally incapable, so may a whole state. Now to have been educated for the constitution does not mean simply doing the things that members of an oligarchy or democratically minded people enjoy doing, but doing what will enable them to live as oligarchs or as democrats, as the case may be"

-Aristotle, Politics, Book 5

But on closer examination, it may be said that both form a feedback loop, and while laws give rise to the form of education, education upholds the laws by forming such citizens who uphold the constitution.

But it remains to see how education itself may be established, and for this Machiavelli tells us again, in the Discourses, that:

“For as good customs have need of laws to maintain themselves, so laws have need of good customs so as to be observed.”

-Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Book 1, Chapter 18

Now from the words of Cicero in his orations, we see that the foundations of liberty and justice are the laws of the state, and without them, there is no liberty possible. He says that the Romans are slaves to the law, only to be able to be free men. He says that the liberty of the Romans is based on the laws. Citizenship and liberty are coterminous and if one goes, the other will as well. Liberty means the rights of citizenship. The foundation of liberty is also the ability of a citizen to retain or abandon his privileges. The citizen can not be deprived of his citizenship against his will, not even by a vote of the people.

From the words of Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli and others then, we draw the conclusions here:

Laws are the foundation of liberty, and without laws, no liberty can be kept by anyone. But laws themselves are not enough, and for this, education and customs must accompany laws, so that liberty can be realized.

Let these be enough to show us that where free people are made to live as they like, but in accordance with laws and after having a good education in accordance with the state's purpose, freedom will never be pernicious, but rather it will always be found to make men great in the world.

Now these points give us directions to a mode in which liberty may be realised, for as it is seen here, liberty is to not live under subject or slave status, and it means to be able to live as one likes, subject only to a good education and laws which allow for the flourishing of such a freedom, and not living with license, for as demonstrated in a previous post, license eventually leads to tyranny.

But now to turn on to the question of not being ruled, when one is free, such a thing may very well be held to be impossible, since to not be ruled is not possible for anyone, whether they be Gods or Men, since even the Moirai rule Zeus the king of Gods, and Zeus too can rule over them since he is also called moiragetes, but he does not, so that the order of the cosmos can be upheld. In the same way, though Īśvara or Nārāyaṇa are sovereign fully over everything, they too uphold order and are subject to the four Yuga cycle. Also, as we have seen, man naturally lives in a polis, forming associations, and since to rule is natural to men, they will rule, but in a democracy, since there is equality due to free birth for all the members of the polity, they are all guaranteed to rule, and because all must be able to rule, this rule is always by turns, because in no other way can equal rule be realized.

Let these be enough to show us what the form of liberty shall be, in a democratic form, mixed or pure.

Of the nature of Equality:

On equality, we should take the words of Aristotle as being sufficiently demonstrative of how it works:

"Now all men believe that justice means equality in some sense, and they are in limited agreement with the philosophy of justice which I explained in my Ethics: They hold that justice is some entity which is relative to persons, and that equality must be equal for equals. The question we must keep in mind is, equality or inequality in what sort of thing?”

Aristotle, Politics, Book 3

This last bit is what we must remember, for it holds the key to understanding what the nature of equality is in a democracy, and it must also be known that neither equality or inequality can be absolute, as Aristotle tells us, once again:

"Since those who are equal in one particular ought not to enjoy equality in all things, nor those who are unequal in one respect have inequality in all, it follows that all constitutions in which such a state of affairs prevails must be deviations."

-Aristotle, Politics, Book 3

Now to conclusively answer the question of the basis of equality, we have the words of Aristotle once again:

"There are the three grounds for claiming equality in a constitution, freedom, wealth and virtue (a fourth claim, called 'good birth', arises out of the two last of these three, for good birth is wealth plus virtue going back to one's forbears)"

-Aristotle, Politics, Book 4

Now in a democratic form, mixed or pure, the equality is based on being born free, or as written above, freedom, though this can also vary among democracies, for some accept no freeborn immigrants into the citizen body, while the others accept them, though the scale of acceptance may vary, and also, any property qualification could mean an inability for some to participate in government, though acquisition of the qualification threshold could restore rights in such a system.

But as to determining the exact nature of equality, one draws a conclusion which is never falsified: Equality is for the members of the citizen body, and it is only guaranteed for those who are considered fellows in the commonwealth, not for everyone else.

Now to turn to the question of a popular government surviving without liberty and equality, let us first consider a popular government without liberty, but with equality.

If we take it that all free men are equal, but they have no liberty under the constitution, this will cause them to be enslaved or subject to despotic rule. Why that is so, is easy to figure, for though it may be said that the freeborn people do have a sense of fellowship, in such a form, the absence of liberty implies coercion and obstruction of the people by the great men, since if the latter do not like the decision of the majority regarding something, they may override it, and hence destroy the democratic element.

Now if we consider the opposite case, with the presence of liberty but absence of equality, we see that men would be able to take actions without fear of obstruction or compulsion, but the absence of equality may lead them to consider some men as lords over them, and some worthy of being treated like slaves, though all may share freeborn status. This inequality would eventually lead to an oligarchy, and if allowed to go ad extremum, it would produce a tyranny, since inequality would mean someone is superior, and the most superior in this case would end up with sovereignty.

Hence, we can see that any government which is ordered to include the popular element alone or mixed with the virtuous men or rich men, must uphold equality and liberty, because otherwise, the popular element will not be able to sustain itself, as the great men have a very great ambition, which always ruins a city, lest you bring it down by ways and modes, as Machiavelli tells us.

But if one were to think of a popular government without liberty and equality, he can never conceive of one, for when these go, an oligarchic rule sets in, and if allowed to continue to an extreme, one ends up with despotic rule.

Let this be enough to show that liberty and equality are the lifeblood of the popular element in a mixed government, or a democracy.

Now, it being made clear as to how liberty and equality are essential to a democratic form, we shall now turn to questions of membership in a constitution, aims of governments and education of the state.

τέλος, membership and education

Now of the six forms in Aristotle's Politics, five are said to be pure, and one is said to be a composite of two from the five.

The τέλος, or aim of a tyranny is said to be the preservation of the ruler himself, and since monarchy is the opposite of tyranny, we can infer these to be the aims of monarchy, from the words of Aristotle, and our own reason, for the ends of aristocracy and monarchy are held to be the same in Aristotle's view: virtue endowed with material goods, benefaction and preservation of the subjects, things related to education and what the law prescribes.

Of oligarchy, wealth is said to be the end, for in it, the wealthy take all power for themselves, and not the whole body of the people.

Of democracy, freedom is said to be the end, for in it, the populace does not live under master or despotic rule, but under statesman's rule, and we have already mentioned above, how the statesman's rule works.

The sixth form is held to be a composite of oligarchy and democracy, and it is known by the name of polity in Aristotle's Politics, but can also be called a republic, since it includes the two humours always present in each republic, according to Machiavelli and Aristotle: The great and the masses.

Now the aim of a mixed government will be composite too, for it will not follow one aim alone, but it will fulfill all the aims of its composite members.

From the above, we see that a republic would contain the rich and the masses, both of them sharing power, yet when the virtuous are given their share as well, it become a mixed aristocracy, and if the aims of all constituents are mixed, we get three things as the aim of the state: Virtue, wealth and freedom.

A mixed constitution displays the characteristics of each of its constituents, and it would also look like none of them, maintaining an ambiguity of sovereignty while being in balance all the time.

The aims of life in the Indian tradition:

Now it being known that Dharma, Artha and Kāma are the three main aims of life in the Indian tradition, we can now use this information along with what we have learned from Aristotle, to see how a mixed constitution may be made, starting with the membership and education:

Now Virtue is separate from Dharma, yet both can contextually be connected. Dharma etymologically, is that which holds, and Virtue is considered to be that which is among either or all of corporeal, mental and spiritual excellence, and the definition of virtue too, differs according to peoples. But Dharma itself gives rise to virtue and happiness, and a virtuous man maintains Dharma, according to the Indian tradition, while Aristotle states that the happy life is one lived with virtue.

Artha being wealth, but also power, is the second, and in this, one sees wealth being included, along with power.

Kāma is said to be all the sensual desires of a man, but this is different from freedom, though they may be linked tangentially, since freedom of the kind stated above allows one to pursue Kāma, which is harder to realize in a despotic rule.

While for now we do not consider Mokṣa, due to it being something which is not majorly pursued compared to the other three, as Yaśodhara says in the beginning of his commentary on the Kāmasūtra that not everyone pursues Mokṣa, but all pursue the other three, we stick only to these two triads, of the puruṣārtha-s and of the aims of the state, both of which are pursued by the individual and the community at large.

Now to connect the forms, their corresponding aims and the puruṣārtha-s with each other according to their characteristics above, we get some combinations here:

Dharma and virtue, being one pair, give us two associated forms: The kingly and the aristocratic, which is similar to kingly rule, but not ruled by one man alone.

Artha and wealth being another, give us two associated forms: Aristocratic and oligarchic, for in both of these, wealth and power is pursued.

Kāma though, can never make a full pair with political freedom, except by being associated with political freedom as the Kāma for honour. But assuming this to be true, we get the mixed government called a republic, and a democracy, as the corresponding forms.

Now if one is to ensure the fulfillment of the puruṣārtha triad, and the triad of virtue, wealth and freedom, it is obvious, that one must mix the aristocratic and the republican mode which is a mix of oligarchy and democracy, together, but the kingly power in such a government manifests as the various magistrates, but in many people than in a few, so that liberty is protected.

Having linked the two sets of triads by finding their analogues in the way stated above, and using such to conceive of a mixed constitution, we may now come to the question of membership of such a state.

Membership of a state:

Now membership of the polity, or better stated as citizenship, is decided on the basis of gender, free birth, wealth, profession, and virtue.

On virtue, Kauṭilya gives us some elements, in the Arthaśāstra, while deliberating on the qualities of magistrates:

“Well trained in arts, possessed of foresight, wise, of strong memory, bold, eloquent, skillful, intelligent, possessed of enthusiasm, dignity, and endurance, pure in character, affable, firm in loyal devotion, endowed with excellent conduct, strength, health and bravery, free from procrastination and ficklemindedness, affectionate, and free from such qualities as excite hatred and enmity.”

-Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, Book 1, Chapter 9

Such is the list of virtues of magistrates in the Indian tradition, and one sees that virtue is only cultivated through education, in all nations, and never through instinct alone.

Of wealth, free birth and profession, the first is the most fickle, for wealth may be squandered, gained abruptly, lost abruptly, acquired by industry and war, by men and states both. Moreover, wealthy men are not always virtuous, and are prone more to ambition and to rule others as lords.

Hence it is the worst of criteria to decide membership.

But what of gender? Given our times in which we have given the franchise to women, should we include women in the membership? While we do encourage the general feminine virtues that every woman should cultivate, the questions of citizenship need better deliberation.

To this, the words of Aristotle may point to what we must do:

The deliberative faculty in the soul is not present at all in a slave; in a female it is present but ineffective, in a child present but undeveloped.

Between male and female, the former is by nature superior and ruler, the latter inferior and subject. And this must hold good of mankind in general.

Over a wife, rule is as by a statesman.

For the male is more fitted to rule than the female, unless conditions are quite contrary to nature.

It is true that in most cases of rule by statesmen there is an interchange of the role of ruler and ruled, which aims to preserve natural equality and non-differentiation; nevertheless, so long as one is ruling and the other is being ruled, the ruler seeks to mark distinctions in outward dignity, in style of address, and in honours paid.

As between male and female this kind of relationship is permanent.

-Aristotle, Politics, Book 1

Now this may give us some clues to inclusion of women. Since the deliberative faculty is weak in women, it would be fallacious to grant them membership without discrimination, for a weak ability to reason will soon lead to ruining of the state.

But since we may also witness reason in women which is cultivated through education and through great experience, it may be expedient to grant such women, and only such women who display such aptitude, the full privileges of citizenship , but for this, it may be better that such women should naturally have these features and an inclination for such, and not be forced to cultivate such virtue, for the duties of citizens are much greater than election of magistrates, and to admit women, they too should have well cultivated faculties of reason, just like the men. The second best ones who should gain membership are women who are mothers to the most excellent of citizens, for having brought up such men to be upright, these mothers deserve a place in the citizen body.

But this last one is the safest, for even if a woman has a great power of reason, if she does not find a virtuous man as her match, her example may cause the population of men and women to fail in the pursuit of Kāma, and the failure to establish conjugal relations will cause the state to eventually come to ruin. And only in raising the children with their father is the virtue of a woman seen, not otherwise. Let this be enough as to how the women should be given franchise, if at all.

The next is free birth, and this means that one is not born a slave. In our age, this is redundant, for most are born free, but the slave mindset is different from institutionalised slavery, for there are marks of inherent slavery in peoples, and such marks are suggested by Aristotle:

Whenever there is the same wide discrepancy between human beings as there is between soul and body or between man and beast, then those whose condition is such that their function is the use of their bodies and nothing better can be expected of them, those, I say, are slaves by nature. It is better for them, just as in the cases mentioned, to be ruled thus. For the slave by nature is he that can and therefore does belong to another, and he that participates in reason so far as to recognise it but not so as to possess it. The use made of slaves hardly differs at all from that of tame animals: they both help with their bodies to supply our essential needs.

While it is not invariably true that slaves are slaves by nature and others free, yet this distinction does in some cases actually prevail - cases where it is expedient for the one to be master, the other to be the slave. Whereas the one must be ruled, the other should exercise the rule for which he is fitted by nature, thus being the master. For, if the work of being a master is badly done, that is contrary to the interest of both parties; for the part and the whole, the soul and the body, have identical interests; and the slave is in a sense a part of his master, a living but separate part of his body.

-Aristotle, Politics, Book 1,

Now from this, we understand that free birth alone does not mean anything, for if one can only have the use of his body, and not have anything in faculties of reason, such a man is not fit to be a free man, but a slave. On the contrary, if a man is born in servitude, but has the power of reason, he deserves to be manumitted, and made a liberated man.

And finally, to the questions of profession, such is the opinion of Aristotle:

Source of images: Aristotle's Politics, Book 7

Now such usage being anachronistic to us, since we have eliminated formal slavery, it may be hard for us to decide the questions of membership based on profession, but we forget that while we could eliminate the formal institutions, it is much harder to eliminate the force which gives birth to them, as Machiavelli says in the Discourses about the dictatorial authority of the Romans:

For it is forces that easily acquire names, not names forces

-Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Book 1, Chapter 34

And from this, we understand that though the institution of slavery has died out, the characteristics of slaves last beyond the institution, and such characteristics must not be given any place in the citizen body.

Lastly, what of workers who manufacture things today? Should we consider them to be mechanics, or should they be a separate category?

For this, we may indeed say that they are mechanical professions, for they are concerned with making various tools, and thus, they may be deprived of the franchise. But on second thought, while they are mechanics, they do deserve some place, yet they should be made to quit their mechanical work as soon as they have gained enough to sustain themselves, and if this be not possible, they should, at any rate, be encouraged to associate with the virtuous than with their fellows, to bring them closer to virtue.

But to conclude our discourse on profession, we may say this:

Commercial professions viz. Mercantile and those concerned chiefly with money, as well as Mechanical professions viz. Handicrafts and labour, are considered to be opposite to virtue.

These lives have no great nobility in them, and one does not get to cultivate virtue in these, for in pursuit of wealth, one is forced to trample on his fellow men, and in mechanical livelihoods, only corporal virtue is cultivated, if at all, with no place for reason.

Agricultural or pastoral professions, though noble, deprive one of leisure to cultivate virtue and to participate in activities of a citizen. Also, the citizens have to be men of sufficient property, and not poor, for necessities of sustenance would kill all opportunities of leisure.

Hence the virtuous avoid the three types of professions stated as far as possible, and are instead educated differently. Their education is said to be the trivium and the quadrivium, which we will speak of in a later piece when we look at the education, and at any rate, no man should be admitted who lacks the faculties of properly cultivated reason.

But one still needs the rich and the free men to have a mixed goverment standing, what about it then?

To this, we may say that only a minuscule part of mechanics should have membership, not everyone from that class, for if the mechanics are the majority, the nature of the government changes into a plebiscitary democracy, and harder it is to maintain it, while it ruins all virtue, and eventually leads to a tyranny.

But of the commercial and agricultural workers, they should always be given membership, for they are necessary to achieve the goals of wealth and freedom, though for the former, it is necessary to make them fund some λειτουργία, which are public services associated with culture, and also to make them fund government activities, so that they have less wealth to be able to influence the society. For the latter, one must institute payment for government services, to compensate for time taken off from work, and the revenue lost in such a time.

Thus, one way of organizing of membership would be the inclusion of the virtuous, the farmers, the rich men, and only a minority of mechanics, to preserve the mixed constitution, while all must be educated properly in accordance with the constitution, and on the appropriate education, a discourse will be seen later on, in a future post, at length.