The Highest Aim of Society

[1] In Section 2 of Chapter 2 I showed that a man is most completely in control of his own right when he is most guided by reason.

Consequently (see Section 7, Chapter 3), a commonwealth is most powerful and most completely in control of its own right if it is founded on and guided by reason.

The best method of self-preservation is to live in the way prescribed by reason.

It follows that those actions are the best when a man or commonwealth is most completely in control of its own right.

We are not asserting that everything that is done by right is also done in the best way; it is one thing to till a field by right, another thing to till it in the best way.

It is one thing, I say, to defend oneself, to preserve oneself, to give judgment, etc., by right another thing to defend and preserve oneself in the best way and to give the best judgment.

Consequently, it is one thing to rule and to take charge of public affairs by right, another thing to rule in the best way and to direct pu blic affilirs in the best way. So now that we have discussed the right of every commonwealth in general terms, it is time for us to discuss the best way in which a state should be organised.

[2] The best way to organise a state is easily discovered by considering the purpose of civil order, which is nothing other than peace and security of life. Therefore the best state is one where men live together in harmony and where the laws are preserved unbroken.

For it is certain that rebellions, wars, and contempt for or violation of the laws are to be attributed not so much to the wickedness of subjects as to the faulty organisation of the state. ’ Men are not born to be citizens, but are made SO.2

Furthermore, men’s natural passions are everywhere the same; so if wickedness is more prevalent and wrongdoing more frequent in one commonwealth than in another, one can be sure that this is because the former has not done enough to promote harmony and has not framed its laws with sufficient forethought and thus it has not attained the full right of a commonwealth.

For a civil order that has not removed the causes of rebellion and where the threat of war is never absent and the laws are frequently broken is little different from a state of Nature, where every man lives as he pleases with his life at risk.

[3] But just as the vices of subjects and their excessive license and wilfulness are to be laid at the door of the commonwealth, so on the other hand their virtue and steadfast obedience to the laws must be attributed chielly to the virtue and the absolute right of the commonwealth, as is evident from Section 15 of Chapter 2.

Hence it is deservedly regarded as a remarkable virtue in Hannibal that there was never a mutiny in his army.3

[4] A commonwealth whose subjects are deterred from taking up arms only through fear should be said to be not at war rather than to be enjoying peace.

For peace is not just the absence of war, but a virtue which comes from strength of mind; for obedience (Section 19, Chapter 2) is the steadfast will to carry out orders enjoined by the general decree of the commonwealth. Anyway, a commonwealth whose peace depends on the sluggish spirit of its subjects who are led like sheep to learn simply to be slaves can more properly be called a desert than a commonwealth.'

[5] So when we say that the best state is one where men pass their lives in harmony, I am speaking of human life, which is characterised not just by the circulation of the blood and other features common to all animals, but especially by reason, the true virtue and life of the mind.

[6] But be it noted that in speaking of the state as being established to this end, I meant one established by a free people, not dominion over a people acquired by

right of war. For a free people is led more by hope than by fear, while a subjugated people is led more by fear than by hope; the former seeks to engage in living, the latter simply to avoid death. The former, I say, seeks to live for itself, the latter is forced to belong to a conqueror; hence we say that the latter is a slave, the former is free.

So the aim of a state that has been acquired by right of war is to dominate and to have slaves rather than subjects.

If we have regard to their right in a general way, there is no essential difference between a state created by a free people and one acquired by right of war, their aims, as we have just shown, are very differen� and so too are the means by which each must be preserved.

[7J In the case of a prince whose sole motive is lust for power,s the means he must employ to strengthen and preserve his state have been described at some length by that keen observer, Machiavell i, but with what purpose appears uncerta in.

If he did have some good purpose in mind, as one should believe of so wise a man, it must have been to show how fool ish are the attempts so often made to get rid of a tyrant while yet the causes that have made the prince a tyrant cannot be removed; on the contrary, they become more firmly established as the prince is given more grounds for fear 6 This comes about when a people has made an example of its prince and glories in regicide as in a wonderful exploit 7 Perhaps he also wished to show how wary a free people should be of entrusting its welfare absolutely to one man who, unless in h is vanity he thinks he can enjoy universal popularity, must go in daily fear of plots.

Thus he is compelled to look more to his own defence and in his turn to plot against the people rather than to look to their interests. I am the more inclined to take this view of that wise statesman because he is well known to be an advocate of freedom, and he has given some very sound advice as to how it should be safeguarded.8