Liber II, Pars III — Quod utile est in vita politica quemlibet propriis gaudere possessionibus. Cap. VI.

Liber II, Pars III — Quod utile est in vita politica quemlibet propriis gaudere possessionibus. Cap. VI.

Socrates and Plato held the opinion, as the Philosopher recounts. Philosopher. They said it would be useful and expedient for the city if citizens did not rejoice in their own possessions, but if everything were common to them. Rather (which is worse), they wanted even women and children to be common. For Socrates said (and Plato, his disciple, followed him) that if no man had a wife of his own, but anyone could approach any woman for his pleasure, there would be supreme unity and supreme love in the city. Then indeed all men would love all women as their own, and likewise all people would love all children as their own sons, because a father would not know which boy was his son, but would regard any boy as his own son, and would love all children as if they were his own. Thus, Socrates and Plato thought. But in 3. In the book where the governance of the city is discussed, this opinion will be explored in greater detail. For now, it suffices to know what should be understood about the possession of external goods, as it relates to the governance and management of the household. If, indeed, people generally did not have a corrupt desire, and if in most cases they were not inclined to evil, it would benefit the city for possessions to be common, because the good is more divine the more common it is; for every good, when reduced to the common, shines more beautifully (according to Boethius). However, given the current circumstances, it is beneficial for the citizens of the city to enjoy their own possessions, since civil life is the life of common people; for people generally are not so perfect that they would be content to live such a life. We can also draw from various sources in the book of Politics. We can identify three ways through which it is advantageous for the city for citizens to have their own possessions. The first way is taken to remove inertia and laziness. The second is to prevent disputes. Third, to remove disorder and confusion. The first way is clear. For a person loves themselves so much that they are always more concerned about their own good than about anyone else's. We see that if it is easy to consume and destroy possessions, it is also very difficult to work and acquire substance and possessions for one's own profit, which leads many in the city to be in need and to be poor, even though citizens can enjoy their own possessions and are concerned about them as if they were their own goods. Therefore, if no one had anything of their own, but all citizens had common possessions, because citizens would not be as concerned about cultivating common possessions as they are about their own, it would often happen that such an ordered city would come to poverty, so that citizens could not provide for themselves in life. Thus, something is not useful in general if it is useful in a specific case. In such circumstances, it is useful for the city that citizens have their own possessions, so that due to laziness regarding the common goods, the homes of the citizens do not suffer from poverty. The second way to investigate this same point is taken from the removal of litigation. For the most part, disputes and conflicts arise among those sharing something in common: we see that brothers born of the same father often have disagreements. Natural friendship, according to the Ethics, often leads to conflict among friends, especially when they share a common inheritance; how much more would there be discord among citizens who do not have such strong ties if their possessions were common? The third way is derived from the removal of disorder and confusion. For, according to the Philosopher, this is how it happens. In political matters, this would happen if citizens did not have their own possessions, as occurs when something is entrusted to multiple ministers: when this happens, each minister holds back from doing what is commanded, hoping that another will fulfill what is required, which leads to the matter either not being accomplished or being done in a confused and disordered way. Therefore, to eliminate confusion and disorder regarding what is beneficial for the city, it is useful for citizens to enjoy their own possessions, so that they may be more diligent, more orderly, and without conflict, allowing fields, lands, and other fruitful things to be cultivated.