it would necessarily follow, that both or one of them
must be destroyed. But now in a city which admits
of this community, the tie of friendship must, from
that very cause, be extremely weak, when no father
can say, this is my son; or son, this is my father;
for as a very little of what is sweet, being mixed
with a great deal of water is imperceptible after
the mixture, so must all family connections, and the
names they go by, be necessarily disregarded in such
a community, it being then by no means necessary that
the father should have any regard for him he called
a son, or the brothers for those they call brothers.
There are two things which principally inspire mankind
with care and love of their offspring, knowing it
is their own, and what ought to be the object of their
affection, neither of which can take place in this
sort of community. As for exchanging the children
of the artificers and husbandmen with those of the
military, and theirs reciprocally with these, it will
occasion great confusion in whatever manner it shall
be done; for of necessity, those who carry the children
must know from whom they took and to whom they gave
them; and by this means those evils which I have already
mentioned will necessarily be the more likely to happen,
as blows, incestuous love, murders, and the like;
for those who are given from their own parents to other
citizens, the military, for instance, will not call
them brothers, sons, fathers, or mothers. The
same thing would happen to those of the military who
were placed among the other citizens; so that by this
means every one would be in fear how to act in consequence
of consanguinity. And thus let us determine concerning
a community of wives and children.
CHAPTER V
We proceed next to consider in what manner property
should be regulated in a state which is formed after
the most perfect mode of government, whether it should
be common or not; for this may be considered as a
separate question from what had been determined concerning
[1263a] wives and children; I mean, whether it is better
that these should be held separate, as they now everywhere
are, or that not only possessions but also the usufruct
of them should be in common; or that the soil should
have a particular owner, but that the produce should
be brought together and used as one common stock, as
some nations at present do; or on the contrary, should
the soil be common, and should it also be cultivated
in common, while the produce is divided amongst the
individuals for their particular use, which is said
to be practised by some barbarians; or shall both the
soil and the fruit be common? When the business
of the husbandman devolves not on the citizen, the
matter is much easier settled; but when those labour
together who have a common right of possession, this
may occasion several difficulties; for there may not
be an equal proportion between their labour and what
they consume; and those who labour hard and have but
Copyrights
Politics: A Treatise on Government from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.