Note: The copy of Politics used for this article is not the standard copy. I tried to be as specific as possible about the steps. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Aristotle and Machiavelli both exalt the judgment of the masses in political affairs. Aristotle states that “the many…can surpass—collectively and as a body, though not individually—the quality of the best few” (1281a). Machiavelli similarly believes that “The population is generally more prudent, more predictable, and has better judgment than a monarch” (156). The reasons for each person's claims about the lucidity and usefulness of the masses are based on different objectives. While Aristotle focuses heavily on the importance of the masses and the middle class for a stable political organization, Machiavelli limits himself to defending the collective wisdom of the population, stating that "Everyone speaks badly [of the population]... because they can do so without fear even when [the population] is in power." The contrasting ways of presenting the attributes of the masses strongly reflect each author's goals. Politics centers on Aristotle's quest to find "the kind of Constitution which the greatest number of cities can enjoy" (1295a). Machiavelli, however, makes it clear that his Prince and his Discourses are intended more for the benefit and education of present and future rulers than for the enjoyment of cities, although he does not think the two are always mutually exclusive. the middle class is rooted in the belief that goodness is not necessarily an inherited characteristic. He states rather early in Politics that men think wrongly when they believe that "just as man is born from man and animal from animal, so a good man is born from good men. It often happens that nature desires but fails to do so." achieve this result" (1255a). In saying this, Aristotle openly states that it is not possible to transmit goodness through a hereditary line as one transmits family heirlooms or, for that matter, leadership positions. The next pillar of the argument that Aristotle uses to strengthen his support for the middle class and the common people is his belief that “those constitutions which take into account the common interest are just constitutions, judged by criteria of absolute justice” (1279a). This statement reflects Aristotle's goal of finding a political situation in which "most people can live" and in which most "cities can enjoy". Since Aristotle believes it is fundamental that the city is happy for the individual to be happy (1324a) it follows that for a city to be happy it must have a constitution that takes into account the common interest (that satisfies the maximum number of people in a city , and thus makes the city as happy as possible).1 It is important to note here that Aristotle's goals for government are not necessarily the happiness of its citizens, but he firmly believes that the most stable governments will be composed of at least some happy people . In his criticism of Plato, Aristotle questions the absence of happiness in Socrates' class of guardians.2 Aristotle argues that "If the guardians are not happy, who else is? Certainly not... the mass of common people." (1264b). The importance attributed by Aristotle to the happiness of the masses is better explained in Book IV of Politics in which he explains the importance of the middle class in achieving a stable and desirable political organization. Like many of Aristotle's (and Plato's) other postulates about government, many of Aristotle's beliefs and conclusions about the middle classthey are rooted in mathematics. He states, very simply: "As it is admitted that moderation and the average are always the best, it is clear that in the possession of all the gifts of fortune an average condition will be the best" (1295a). Aristotle supports this claim by arguing that the middle class is neither arrogant like the rich nor criminal like the poor, and that the middle class is the class that embodies the ever-important rule of neither seeking office nor refusing it (1295a), a quality that Socrates found it equally, if not more important than Aristotle. Another point that Aristotle makes in his praise of the middle class is that the rich never learn obedience while the poor never develop leadership skills. The result of the mixing of rich and poor is a slave/master relationship, which is not conducive to a political association based on friendship. Aristotle concludes that a city governed as a friendship, "composed of equals and equals, which is the condition of those in between" will be destined to have "the best constitution since it is composed of the elements that... naturally go to build a city" (1295b). Aristotle's reasons for believing in the goodness of the middle class can be used to access what Aristotle sees as the main threats to political organizations in general. Aristotle states in his book on factions (Book V) that "The inferiors they form factions to be equals, and equals form factions to be superior" (1302a). Where there is a large middle class, however, Aristotle says that "there is less probability of factions and dissensions than in any other constitution" (1296a) This improbability of faction combines with Aristotle's belief that the middle class "enjoys greater security than any other class" since it does not "desire the goods of others nor do others desire their goods" (1295b) and leads to the conclusion of Aristotle that "Where the middle class outnumbers both other classes, it is possible for a constitution to be permanent" (1296b). In other words, the middle class can be used as an instrument to achieve maximum self-sufficiency of a permanent and stable political organization in which the constitution best serves the majority, or the common people. Machiavelli also recognizes the great importance of the masses; in The Prince he states that no ruler can be secure without the support of the masses, militarily or otherwise (32-33). Here, however, it is important to make a distinction between the masses and the middle class3, since they can be two very different groups. Although Machiavelli states that "A republic can only be established where considerable social equality exists or where men are made equal" (Discourses 153), he does not attach the supreme importance that Aristotle places on the presence of a middle class. Like Aristotle, Machiavelli writes for an audience of leaders, but Machiavelli is more interested in political organizations from the leader's perspective than anyone else. As Machiavelli writes more directly to leaders, he often suggests the ruthless measures a leader must take to achieve a certain political goal, whether it is good for many or not. For example, Machiavelli states that "whoever wants to establish a republic in a place where there is a good number of lords cannot do so except by starting by killing them all" (Discourses, 153). But even if Machiavelli is at least pretending to write to an audience of present and future rulers, this does not mean that he is writing in favor of leaders who rule over the common man. In fact he equates and even superiors the masses to the single leader when he writes «The defect for which the authors criticize the masses is a defect that is found in all men... especially in rulers» (Discourses, 154). In this sentiment he echoes Aristotle.