We have seen that Plato, in the _Laws_, while apparently granting private property in land, really denies this, since he makes the product of the land practically public property.[839] Aristotle, despite his strictures against communism, advocates a system of land tenure quite similar. His limitation of the freedom of donation or testament, purchase or sale; his demands that the lot shall never leave the family, that it shall always be handed down by legitimate succession, and that no citizen shall ever be allowed to hold more than one allotment, are all Platonic, and make him unquestionably an advocate of family, rather than of private ownership of land.[840] His collectivism is more direct than that of the _Laws_, since he makes part of the land entirely public, to defray the expense of worship and the common meals.[841] The assignment of lots to the citizens is on the same terms as in the _Laws_, with the exception that the owners are masters of the product of their lots.[842] Despite his criticism of Plato’s division of homesteads, he has the same plan.[843] As in the _Laws_, only citizens are landowners, and this includes only the governing and military classes,[844] while all husbandmen are to be public or private slaves.[845] Unlike Plato, however, Aristotle does not attempt to avoid undue inequalities in personal property.[846] He sets no maximum above which limit goods must be confiscated, nor does he, as Plato, establish a rigorous system of laws to hamper trade and to make money-making operations practically impossible. He recognizes that such regulations are not feasible, and his legislation is therefore more considerate of human nature, despite the fact that his hostility to the ideal of commercialism is even more pronounced than is that of Plato.[847]