For thousands of years, man has been plagued with the desire to discover which is the best form of government, and which type of political life man should lead. An individual’s response to this question is heavily dependent upon his view of the nature of man, and how much power he believes a government should be bestowed with.

I believe that there exist two types of man in this world. One type is person who is naturally good, with tendencies towards evil. The other, naturally evil, with tendencies towards good. There is no way to determine to which type a particular person belongs, and a person may switch from one type to another throughout his lifetime. The popularity of one of these types over the other can be determined by looking at society. This being the case, there is no set form of government which has an absolute superiority to any other. If, for instance, at one point in history, more people were basically evil, a strong monarchy would fit best. If more people were basically good, a more democratic form of government would be preferable. Unfortunately, this distinction cannot be made with any high degree of accuracy. This being the case, the best form of government, without regard to the most common type of man would be a strong monarchy, almost to the degree of a Hobbsean Sovereign, but having it control only the executive branch of the government. To find this person one would look to Plato in his description of the Philosopher-King. Though too ideal to be put into practice, a "best-fit" approach should be used in finding this ruler. The judicial branch should be handled by a small group of highly learned philosophers, showing expertise in their knowledge of the laws and customs. The legislative branch would be controlled through a direct-democratic system. Therefore, the laws of the time would reflect the wishes of the people, and the carrying out of those wishes would be entrusted to a person, or a very small group of people who would have the power to carry those wishes out.

In dealing with Hegel’s idea of the thesis-antithesis clash, I believe that he was incorrect in assuming that a clash of this nature happened only a few times throughout history. A thesis is simply an idea, and an antithesis, a contradicting idea. Essentially, every day there are clashes in ideas, which may include multiple antitheses to a single thesis, and every day, new theses are being created. Violence would only occur in major clashes. History is progressive to a degree, but between any two points close in history, one cannot be sure that each day was better than the last. History does not have a final destination, and therefore, perfection can never be achieved.

The ultimate goal of man is determined by one’s type. If an individual is basically good, their goal is perfection. If an individual is basically evil, their goal is happiness through materialism and the gratification of desires. The state of nature would only exist for a short period of time. This would be because those who are basically good would fear for their safety and attempt to group together with those like themselves. These groups would grow to include both types, and develop ultimately into city-states.

A social contract would exist for a group of basically good men, for they would realize that a strong executive officer would best protect them. The other group would not, for their disposition would almost certainly set them against any authority that could force a curve to their tendencies. Only with the consent of the majority would a revolution be justified. Such being the case, revolutions need not be bloody; a law could be passed, as in Rousseau’s political philosophy. I also agree with Rousseau in his belief that the majority is infallible. I agree with Aristotle’s idea of distributive justice, and therefore a capitalist economic system would most benefit society. However, the monarch in power would have ultimate say over the particular issues of the economy.

In conclusion, I believe a direct democratic legislative fused with a monarchy would most benefit society, and through this government, there would exist a maximum degree of both freedom and protection. This would lead to the fulfillment of the common good of society.

1