The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

possible: (1) the soil may be appropriated, but the
produce may be thrown for consumption into the common stock; and
this is the practice of some nations. Or (2), the soil may be
common, and may be cultivated in common, but the produce divided
among individuals for their private use; this is a form of common
property which is said to exist among certain barbarians. Or (3),
the soil and the produce may be alike common.
    When the husbandmen are not the owners, the case will be
different and easier to deal with; but when they till the ground
for themselves the question of ownership will give a world of
trouble. If they do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those
who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those
who labor little and receive or consume much. But indeed there is
always a difficulty in men living together and having all human
relations in common, but especially in their having common
property. The partnerships of fellow-travelers are an example to
the point; for they generally fall out over everyday matters and
quarrel about any trifle which turns up. So with servants: we are
most able to take offense at those with whom we most we most
frequently come into contact in daily life.
    These are only some of the disadvantages which attend the
community of property; the present arrangement, if improved as it
might be by good customs and laws, would be far better, and would
have the advantages of both systems. Property should be in a
certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when
everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one
another, and they will make more progress, because every one will
be attending to his own business. And yet by reason of goodness,
and in respect of use, ‘Friends,’ as the proverb says, ‘will have
all things common.’ Even now there are traces of such a principle,
showing that it is not impracticable, but, in well-ordered states,
exists already to a certain extent and may be carried further. For,
although every man has his own property, some things he will place
at the disposal of his friends, while of others he shares the use
with them. The Lacedaemonians, for example, use one another’s
slaves, and horses, and dogs, as if they were their own; and when
they lack provisions on a journey, they appropriate what they find
in the fields throughout the country. It is clearly better that
property should be private, but the use of it common; and the
special business of the legislator is to create in men this
benevolent disposition. Again, how immeasurably greater is the
pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the
love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in
vain, although selfishness is rightly censured; this, however, is
not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess, like the
miser’s love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and
other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest
pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or
companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private
property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the
state. The exhibition of two virtues, besides, is visibly
annihilated in such a state: first, temperance towards women (for
it is an honorable action to abstain from another’s wife for
temperance’ sake); secondly, liberality in the matter of property.
No one, when men have all things in common, will any longer set an
example of liberality or do any liberal action; for liberality
consists in the use which is made of property.
    Such legislation may have a specious appearance of benevolence;
men readily listen to it, and are easily induced to believe that in
some wonderful manner everybody will become everybody’s friend,
especially when some one is heard denouncing the evils now existing
in states, suits about contracts, convictions for perjury,
flatteries of rich men and the like, which are said to arise out of
the possession of private property. These evils, however, are due
to a very different cause—the wickedness of human nature. Indeed,
we see that there is much more quarrelling among those who have all
things in common, though there are not many of them when compared
with the vast numbers who have private property.
    Again, we ought to reckon, not only the evils from which the
citizens will be saved, but also the advantages which they will
lose. The life which they are to lead