Aristotle’s further criticisms, of minor significance, on the suggestions of Phaleas and Plato for equality of possessions are as follows: They have taken no precautions to regulate population accordingly.[815] They set no proper limit between luxury and penury for individual possessions.[816] Plato’s system is not thoroughgoing, since it allows inequalities in personal property, a criticism also valid against his own proposals.[817] Phaleas failed to include personal property in his system of equality.[818] Such strictures seem to proceed from his pedantic desire to criticize inconsistency. However, he may have apprehended more clearly than did Plato the danger of the press of poverty that must eventually result from a system like that of the _Laws_.[819] Our author is also strong in his denial of either the wisdom or feasibility of the communism in the _Republic_.[820] He argues that Plato’s proposed family communism is based upon the false principle that a state must be composed of like elements,[821] and shows that it must fail to accomplish its end of harmony, for Plato’s “all” must mean all collectively.[822] But this must result, if realized, in a decrease of devotion,[823] and thus in a lack of the very harmony sought,[824] since one of the chief sources of attachment in the world is exclusive ownership.[825] He would deem such a measure, therefore, more fitting for the third class, since a weakening of their ties of affection might result in greater submission to the rulers,[826] another striking evidence of the gulf that separates the ideal of Greek political thought from the spirit of modern democracy. Moreover, he considers Plato’s assumption that a state, to be a unity, must be devoid of all private interests, to be gratuitous,[827] and argues that the common possession of anything is more likely to cause strife than harmony.[828] In his opinion, the present system of private property, if accompanied by a right moral tone and proper laws, combines the advantages of both common and individual ownership.[829] The tenure of property should therefore be private, but there should be a certain friendly community in its actual use.[830] Thus will be avoided the double evil of strife and neglect, which must result from dissatisfaction and lack of personal interest under communism.[831] He offers as a substitute for the Platonic doctrine, then, his own ideal of reciprocal equality (τὸ ἴσον τὸ ἀντιπεπονθός) as the real cement of society.[832] In any event, he asserts, the present evils do not result from private property, but from the depravity of human nature (μοχθηρίαν),[833] and the aim should be to improve this by moral and intellectual culture, rather than to attempt amelioration by the establishment of an entirely new system.[834] The latter method would result, even if successful, not only in escape from some of the present evils, but also in the loss of the present advantages of private tenure.[835]