DISTRIBUTION In the _Ethics_ passage discussed above,[775] Aristotle approaches a scientific theory of distribution. He observes that just distribution will be a mean between two extremes of unfairness.[776] Unlike some moderns, however, he realizes that this will not mean equal shares for all. There must be the same ratio between the persons, or services, and the things.[777] In the “mutual exchange of services,” the law must be proportional requital.[778] In other words, each should receive an equivalent to what he contributes.[779] Distribution must thus proceed according to a certain standard of worth or desert (κατ᾽ ἀξίαν τινά).[780] If the individuals are unequal, their shares cannot be equal, and it is a prolific source of dispute, whenever equals receive unequal shares, or unequals receive equal.[781] On the other hand, Aristotle recognizes that it is a difficult matter to determine this standard, by which just distribution is to proceed.[782] At this point, again, he shows clearly that his paramount interest in the problem is not economic. He names four possible standards—freedom, wealth, noble birth, and general excellence—all of which are distinctly political in their reference.[783] Though he insists on a fair distribution of wealth to the citizens, he can hardly be said to exhibit as much interest in the welfare of the common people as does Plato. He had not a very ideal conception of human nature in general. He would have thought it not only impracticable, but undesirable to give his doctrine of leisure any extensive application. As seen above, he includes all hired labor under false finance, and relegates all industry, including agriculture, to the slaves and strangers. The life of mechanic and commercial alike is to him ignoble.[784] He advises that measures be taken to hold the workers in submission and obedience.[785] His unfair criticism of Plato’s _Republic_, however, on the ground that it fails to emphasize sufficiently the welfare of the parts of the state, and that it does not distinguish clearly enough the status of the commons, reveals a spirit that does not entirely disregard the masses.[786] His demand that no citizen shall lack subsistence,[787] his provision of the _sussitia_ for all,[788] his insistence that, in the market, mere economic self-interest shall not rule,[789] and his emphasis on the importance of a strong middle class in the state,[790] all show that, in the interest of the perpetuity of the state at least, he had some regard for the economic well-being of all classes. It would be wrong to infer from his suggestions for the aid of the masses in a democracy, that he would offer similar advice for the ideal state. Moreover, his chief emphasis in the passage is upon the idea of Mill, that mere hand-to-mouth help of the poor is wasteful, and that what is needed is to aid them to become economically independent.[791] Nevertheless his suggestion does show