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.