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