On #Aristotle Ethicas: A Happy Man

Again, it is perhaps absurd to make our happy man a solitary, because no man would choose the possession of all goods in the world on the condition of solitariness, man being a social animal and formed by nature for living with others.  Of course the happy man has this qualification since he has all those things which are good by nature: and it is obvious that the society of friends and good men must be preferable to that of strangers and ordinary people, and we conclude therefore, that the happy man does need friends.

This includes both Material goods as well as social goods.  After all, which man would want to be all alone, sharing nothing with society, or at least family and friends?

I recently stayed at home, while my wife, sister-in-law, and foster-son went to visit my parents for the day.  By the end of the day, I was pacing like a caged animal, and wondering what time they'd be coming home.  It's the small things such as people in the house that make a man happy.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Friendship

Some will say that they who are blessed and independent have no need of friends, for they already hall that is good, and so, as being independent, want nothing further.  Whereas, the notion of a friend's office is to be as it were a second self and procure for a man that he cannot get by himself.

It is evident that even the most highly successful men will need friends.  This is even if it is only to talk and share companionship.  There is an inborne and deeply spiritual need to have society and to share news.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: On Payments

They are certainly fairly found fault who take the money in advance and then do nothing of what they said they woud do, their promises having been so far beyond their ability; for such men do not perform what they agreed, The sophists, however, are perhaps obliged to take this course, because no one would give a sixpence for their knowledge.  These then, I say, are fairly found fault with, because they do not what they have already taken money for doing.

This sounds like most politicians to me, alway taking first, and making grand promises that he can never deliver.  And then he always blame his failures on the other party, the DC Crowd, even the voters themselves.
What people don't know, is that most politicians never mean to keep their campaign promises.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Honor and Property

This is plainly the principle acted upon in political communities: he receives no honor who gives no good to the common stock: for the property of the public is given to him who does good to the public, and honour is the property of the public; it is not possible both to make money out of the public and receive honour likewise; because no on will put up with the less in every respect: so to him who suffers loss as regards money, they award honour, but money to him who can be paid by gifts since as has been stated before, the observing due proportion equalises and preserves friendships.

The keyword here is give, as in a voluntary contribution.  However, in today's world, voluntary is a dirty word, as the government, by force, takes what it wants from you.  Politicians take money from everyone and give it to people who are useless drags on society.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Friendships

Quarrels arise also in those friendships in which the parties are unequal because each party thinks himself entitled to the greater share, and of course, when this happens, the friendship is broken u.  The man who is better thinks that having the greater share pertains to him of right, for that more is always awarded to the good man: and similarly the man who is more profitable to another than that other to him: "One who is useless," they say, "ought not to share equally,for it comes to a tax, and not a friendship, unless the fruits of the friendship are reaped in proportion the works done."  Their notion being, that s in money, partnership they who contribute more receive more so should it be in friendship likewise.  On the other hand, the needy man and the less virtuous advance the opposite claim.  They urge that "it is the very business of a good friend to help those who are in need, else what is the use of having a good for powerful friend if one is not to reap  the advantage at all?"

Unfortunately, the government seems to think in the same way, except that they take by force, (Taxes, seizures, outright theft,) rather than let the people give what they want to who they want.  Then the government keeps 75 percent of the take for administrative fees.

 

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Family Life

Between Husband and Wife the relation takes the form of aristocracy, because he rules by right and in such points only the husband should, and give to the wife all that befits her to have.

That's right, I try to give my wife everything she needs.  However, I don't always give her what she wants.  But then, I don't always get what I want either.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Communities and Friendships

Furthermore, friendship seems to be the bond of social communities and legislators seem to be more anxious to secure it than justice even.

If the Aforementioned are how communities are supposed to form, then todays legislators, in an effort to stay employed  have set us one against the other.  This has the effect of making us strangers to one another, where we are strangers, we don't watch out for each other.

I see it every day in our communities where children form gangs and go to war with each other, and where the law enforcement officers don't have the equipment to protect themselves, and the magistrates and city officials mudsling at each other.

This isn't how communities are supposed to work, we are all to be neighbors and help each other when needed.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Communities

Again, it seems to be implanted in us by Nature: As, for instance, in the parent towards the offspring and the offspring, towards the parent, and in those of the same tribe towards one another, and specially men of the same nation; for which reason we commend those men who love their fellows: and one may see in the course of travel how close of kin and how friendly man is to man.

This is seems, is how communities and countries were supposed to be.  Where man take care of his neighbors voluntarily, there are communities.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Practical Wisdom in Politics

Again, that is thought to be practical wisdom in the most proper sense which has for its object the interest of the individual: and this usually appropriates the common name: the others are called respectively Domestic Management, Legislation, Executive Government divided into two branches, Deliberative and Judicial.  Now, of course, knowledge for one's self is one kind of knowledge, but it admits of many shades of difference: and it is a common notion that the man who knows and busies himself about his own concerns merely is the man of practical wisdom, while they who extend their solicitude to society at large are considered meddlesome.

I am guessing that in Aristotle's time, these people used to be chosen because of their wisdom, however, today our legislators have knowledge of management, and get chosen only because they are either the lesser of two evils, or because they trick a dumb downed populace to vote for them.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Government, Masters, Workmen

Of practical wisdom exerted upon a community that which I would call the Supreme is the faculty of Legislation; the subordinate, which is concerned with the details, generally has the common name politics, and its functions are action and deliberation (for the particular enactment is a matter of action, being the ultimate issue of this branch of practical wisdom, and therefore people commonly say, that these men alone are really engaged in government, because they alone act, filling the same place relatively to legislators, that workmen do to a master.)

It should be noted that the "Master" that Aristotle speaks of, is the body of people that chose them to serve.  From people who served with the greatest with the greatest of intentions, we have devolved to self serving idiots that care only about money and being re-elected.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Domestic Management and Government

For this reason we think Pericles and men of that stamp to be practically wise, because they can see what is good for themselves and for men in general, and we also think those to be such who are skilled in domestic management or civil government.

 For the last 20 years or so, I've noticed that we seem to have gone from skilled domestic management or skilled civil government to people who have no skills in either branch.  Because if this were true, we wouldn't have budget shortfalls, and individual states wouldn't need to depend upon the federal government for anything. 
Since our so-called domestic managers have actually never worked in any other field than politics, they've never had to manage their money, or worry about a paycheck.  If they had, they'd know how to balance a budget, and/or cut programs that don't and have never worked.

Maybe what we need are people who've actually worked for a living, to be our representatives, and we should make them live in the area where they are elected, and not in DC.  That might do some good.

On #Aristotle's Ethicas: Democrats, Liberals, etc

The Necessity of this equality of ratios is shown by the common phrase "according to rate," for all agree that the just in distributions ought to be according to some rate: but what that rate is to be, all do not agree; the democrats are for freedom, the oligarchs for wealth, other for nobleness of birth, and the aristocratic party for virtue.


It's amazing what time has changed.  Aristocrats have grown selfish, the democrats no longer hold to freedom or self determination, all the parties want to hold on to power by enslaving the people they represent.
If you stop to think about it, when the government pays someone not to work, they are enslaving that person for their vote.  If that person doesn't vote for them, they don't get paid. 
It's been said that when the people who live off of the government can vote, they will always vote to rob the treasury.  Honestly, when was the last time that you heard a welfare recipient say, "I don't need a raise," and when was the last time you heard a democrat say, "We don't need to raise taxes," or, "Since we are in a recession, I don't need a raise in my salary."

It's only when a man stands on his own two feet and works hard for his money, that he realizes that the government take more than it needs to take, and for stupid reasons.