What is the best regime? Based on his discussion of happiness, virtue, and the good life in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle answers this question elaborately in his next text, Politics. In his elaboration, Aristotle investigates numerous regimes, examining in particular what claims determine them and what ultimately leads to their downfall. However, Aristotle's analysis is consistent with his work in the Ethics, and so the focus, or highest purpose, remains virtue. Unfortunately, a regime with such a pure focus has never existed; it has instead been hampered by factional conflicts among those who make up the city and the different visions of justice and inequality that result. Thus Aristotle's response is twofold: his immediate response points to those regimes that focus primarily on virtue; on a more practical level, however, he identifies the best regime as one that recognizes other focuses, such as wealth and freedom, in addition to the highest focus on virtue. This latter regime, however, is still an aspiration, and in fact Aristotle admits that it occurs only rarely. To therefore help bring about the best regime in practice, Aristotle also discusses by what means it could come into being, as well as what aids rulers have to maintain its existence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Aristotle begins his work in The Politics by examining the city and in particular how and for what purposes it is formed. Drawing on what he sees as a natural and human impulse toward some kind of sustaining and reproducing partnership, Aristotle observes that all cities, "while they arise for the sake of living, (exist) for the sake of living well" (Lord, 37). Living well, therefore, both individually and communally, requires a life according to virtue, since "the best way of living both separately for each individual and in common for cities is that accompanied by virtue" (198). Happiness will therefore be the result of such a virtuous life for the city according to Aristotle, as he further argues: "If anyone accepts that the individual [is happy] because of virtue, he will also affirm that the most excellent city is that one which he is happier" (199). Aristotle summarizes the importance of virtue by writing: "It is therefore evident that virtue must be a cure for every city", especially since living well "is the aim of the city" (98, 99). Not all regimes, unfortunately, care about virtue as Aristotle points out that they should. Instead, there are regimes that are alternately concerned with wealth and others with freedom. Furthermore, there are correct and deviant forms of each of these regimes outlined by Aristotle. More generally, Aristotle outlines six types of regime, three of which are correct regimes "looking to the common advantage", and three of which are their deviations, looking instead "to the advantage of the rulers alone" (95). Aristotle therefore identifies kingship as the most correct regime above aristocracy and the political system since kingship is a regime ruled by only one, and it becomes less likely that all are "exceptional in virtue" when the regime is ruled by many . Democracy, which is the deviant form of the political system, then preferentially follows the political system and is followed in turn by oligarchy, which focuses on wealth, and finally by tyranny, which is the deviation from kingship. Considering these possibilities, as well as their objectives, it begins to become evident which regimes are best according to Aristotle. Based on his claim that virtue must be a cure of every city, and that virtue cannot reach any upper limit in an individual, kingship and aristocracy therefore appearbe Aristotle's best choice since such regimes would be governed by one or a few with almost divine virtue. There are, however, arguments against the apparent excellence of these regimes, for example that a kingship would not facilitate governing and being governed, nor would it allow citizens to participate in politics as part of their leisure – and these at the end they point more towards the aristocracy as the best regime. However, aristocracy has its flaws, for example that the poor and many often confuse it with oligarchy. It allows, however, to govern and be governed, especially if it contains a select group of citizens. What becomes clearer about the best theoretical regime, however, is that there are many factors that must be considered when matching a city to its best regime, and these factors become increasingly visible when addressing the best practical regime. Regimes such as kingship and aristocracy therefore, where few – or even very few – elites govern virtuously, are almost impossible in practice. What makes this impossible, according to Aristotle, is the perpetual occurrence of conflicts between factions that arise due to competing claims by which inequality will determine the ruler. That is, while some argue that virtue should determine rulers, others argue that it should be wealth, and still others freedom (130). It is not surprising that such different claims within the same city and the same regime can be harmful and ultimately cause the regime's demise. Aristotle then notes "that all those who argue about regimes speak of a part of justice," which in turn is a debate about equality and inequality (99). Thus, while «justice is considered just and it is, but for the equal and not for all, inequality is considered just and it is, but for the unequal and not for all» (97). These factional conflicts then manifest themselves in alternative claims to power, which are themselves alternative visions of justice, or what is equal and unequal within the regime. A common factional conflict could therefore arise from the fact that individuals think that "if they are unequal in a certain thing, such as goods, they are (also) unequal in general, while others assume that if they are equal in a certain thing, such as freedom, are generally equal" (98). Therefore, since "everyone believes that justice is a certain equality", the resulting factions always reflect this variation in the interpretation of equality that occurs between the few and the many, or between poor and rich (103, emphasis added). Tendency to factional conflicts, as well as other variations, such as in population and climate, that distinguish each city from the next, Aristotle recognizes that the best regime for a city may not be the better for all others. Noting this resulting diversity in regimes, Aristotle writes: "Hence the variety of regimes - how many there are and in how many ways they are combined - should not be overlooked" (119). In addition to this variety resulting from the diversity of circumstances that make each city unique, Aristotle also emphasizes that the best city is perhaps only an ideal, or "the one for which one would pray above all, without external things being an impediment", and therefore exists a second range of regimes from which the city must choose (118). In this second interval, it is therefore more practical for the city to choose the regime that «is [the best] possible» and not «only the one that is at its maximum and requires a lot of equipment» (119). Driving this aspiration for the best regime, as Aristotle reminds us, is the search for the best possible life, and with maximum happiness and therefore virtue. Aristotle concludes: "For it is by seeking this differently and by means ofdifferent things that [groups of] individuals create different ways of life and regimes" (209). At this point the task of the rulers seems insurmountable as they must select and implement a regime that best suits their city. The rulers, however, they are not alone in this task, and in fact Aristotle lists several aids that can help them theorize and implement the best regime. These aids include the enforcement of laws, the help of citizens, the expansion of a middle element, or essentially of a class media, and finally, education. First, a ruler can use laws to thwart the passions and appetites of those who will participate in the regime authoritative in general to be man instead of law? If he has the passions that arise [from being human] in his soul" (100). Likewise, "Desire is a thing of this kind; and liveliness perverts rulers and the best men. So law is intellect without appetite" (114). Law can also be useful in cities where "people (are) similar by nature" and therefore equal in many respects, including matters of honor and virtue. Here, as Aristotle argues, “it is no more right [for equal people] to govern than to be governed, and it is therefore right [for them to govern and be governed] in turn. But this is already law, because the order [of governing and being governed] is law" (113). Although the law can therefore play an advantageous role in the task of rulers, it also has its limitations since it is not possible to write specific laws for any circumstance nor can they impose themselves without human guardians. Therefore Aristotle notes that individuals must be "established as guardians of the law and as servants of the law", or essentially to serve as second aid of the ruler or rulers citizenship carefully defined that includes those who are interested in serving the law regime and excludes those who are incapable of participating in government due to natural servile characteristics or lack of free time in the first place, as Aristotle observes, «although citizens are different , their task is to preserve the partnership, and the regime is [this] partnership" (90). Furthermore, as with laws, "a citizen in the common sense is one who participates in governing and being governed", since this is in accordance with his virtue (106). A citizen, however, is not anyone who is not a ruler, and Aristotle reinforces this distinction since farmers, for example, would be incapable of fulfilling the duties of true citizens. A notable absence in the peasant's life is free time, that is, time "both for the creation of virtues and for political activities" (211). However, citizens – properly defined – can be a significant aid to regime rulers as they tend to govern and be governed, while also having time to cultivate their own virtue and political involvement. A third aid, or perhaps strategy, that the ruler can employ is to "increase the average element, as this dissipates factional conflicts that result from inequality" (164). The middle element accomplishes this in part by reasonably mediating between the extremes and the two ends, but also by avoiding the passions and desires of these extremes that often lead to their own demise. Thus, in deviant regimes, where the middle element is often overlooked, it is common to see the regime overwhelmed by its own emphasis, such as in a democracy, where "many of the things that are deemed typically popular (eventually) overthrow democracies" (166) The intermediate element often also represents the average between competing claims, such as those between rulers and governedthe middle element who knows how to govern and be governed, as well as avoid the tendency to "become arrogant and vile in a big way, (or alternatively) mischievous and vile in a petty way" (134). As Aristotle then concludes, "it is the greatest fortune for those engaged in politics to have an average and sufficient property" since this element will most often produce "more stable regimes" (135, 149). the ruler, and perhaps the one most useful for preserving the regime according to Aristotle, is education. There are several purposes of such education, although it is primarily aimed at preparing non-workers and non-slaves for lives spent partly in leisure. Therefore, education in vulgar tasks is to be avoided since such acts are those that "bring the body into a worse state than wage labor, because they make the mind an abject thing and devoid of free time" (230). Therefore, since free time is a time for cultivating, among other things, virtue, education should aim primarily at preparing young people for such work. "Essentially (therefore)," according to Aristotle, "there are four things in which one habitually educates: letters, gymnastics, music, and the fourth, some in skill in drawing" (230). However, Aristotle makes an important distinction between education which is of the kind I have just described and education which he defines as "relative to the regime." the things that oligarchs or those who want democracy enjoy, but rather the things thanks to which the former will be able to manage an oligarchy and the latter will be able to have a democratically managed regime" (167). There must be some kind of moderation that is emphasized in education so that "the children of rulers no longer live in luxury, while those of the poor subject themselves to exercise and toil", as this is often what led to revolution ( 167). Education must therefore also emphasize this moderation towards the center of the two extremes. Considering these four advantages of the ruler, as well as the existence and causes of factional conflicts that all regimes tend to face, Aristotle's work suggests that politics appears to be the best regime in a practical sense. Of course, this is not a kingship – the most “correct” regime – nor an aristocracy which, like kingships, focuses on virtue as opposed to wealth or freedom. Furthermore, the political system is not even really a regime in its own right, with its own unique essence; it is instead "a mixture of oligarchy and democracy" (130). Aristotle extends this definition of the political system as a mixture by identifying the "three conflicting things of equality in the regime, liberty, wealth, and virtue" and noting that politics is a "mixture of the two: of the wealthy and the poor." . (130-1). But what is the advantage of such a mixture, and therefore what makes the policy a "better regime"? Aristotle would surely respond, parallel to his work in the Ethics, that just as virtue is itself a means - as well as the highest goal - politics, as a blend and essentially a mean between the divisive claims of oligarchs and democrats, also follows It is this scheme and is therefore worthy of choice. In many ways, then, the advantages of politics can be seen in the advantages of the middle element which Aristotle identifies since, "if it were correctly stated in [the discourses on ethics] that the happy life is a life in conformity with virtue and without obstacles, and that virtue is a means, then the mediocre kind of life is the best, the means that can be obtained by every kind of individual" (133). This feature of the political system becomes especially present when Aristotle discusses how a political system comes into being. As Aristotle observes, "there are three principles which define this combination or mixture", which are: first, taking "elements of.