Tag: American Regime


The Gender-Neutral Society and Manliness

By Stefan Sandor

“A manliness, that seeks glory in risk and cannot abide the rational life of peace and security”

Given our overwhelming acceptance of gender-neutral society and the abolishment of sex differences I thought it best to give a defense of the quality of manliness rather than a defense of the gender-neutral society. Perhaps the catalyst that brought to light some of the problems with the gender-neutral society and its effects on manliness was the election of President Donald J. Trump.  On the one hand we have president Trump the embodiment of manliness and on the other hand Caitlyn Jenner the result of the gender-neutral society. Our society seems to be divided between the insistence on manliness typified in the election of President Trump and the abolition of sex epitomized by Caitlyn Jenner. What explains our current predicament? To answer this question we must first define and describe what manliness is, what are its negatives and its positives sides. We must describe the gender-neutral experiment occurring at the present moment and whether we can get rid of manliness all together. Nay, whether it is wise to get rid of manliness altogether.

What is Manliness?

The most profound philosophic analysis of manliness is given by a professor of Political Philosophy at Harvard University Harvey Mansfield in his book Manliness. In the book Mansfield defines manliness as “confidence in the face of risk.” Manliness is composed of a number of qualities or features thought to belong to men. As Mansfield states, “ these ingredients of manliness make manliness specifically male” (1). But in order to see what manliness is we must start with the phenomena that is accessible to most individuals, our common sense understanding of manliness. In order to do this it is best if we take the characteristics seen in most men and contrast them with characteristics seen in most women. By contrasting these qualities we will see the difference between the male and female sex more pronounced. Thus, some of the contrasting differences between men and women are the following.

Men are more aggressive, women are caring. Men are promiscuous in sex, women faithful and have less adventurous sex drives. Similarly, are the beliefs that men are assertive, women sensitive, men are hard, women soft, men are direct and women are indirect, men are risk-seekers and women are risk-averse, men are detached, women are sympathetic, men boast off, women are modest. It is also said that men are abstract and idealistic while women are empirical and realistic. Arguably, men use their reasoning skills to yearn for that which is beyond the immediate, they try to abstract from the present situation in order to reach for something more distant, while women use reason to deal with the present situation and make the best of it. According to Mansfield this is why men are more resolute because they reject the immediate, and women are more perceptive because they are more reluctant to ignore what they see before them. Thus, it seems that men and women have both reason and emotion but use them differently and for different purposes.

The contrasting features mentioned above can be lumped into two categories, aggressive and nurturing. It can be suggested that men are by nature more aggressive than women and women are by nature more nurturing than men. Men being more aggressive are more self-centered. Aggression is selfish or self-centered. In being self-centered you need to be free or make yourself free from the environment in which you find yourself. For example whereas girls, being contextual, look at what surrounds them, infant boys, being more single-minded, orient themselves to objects. Similarly  boys have better mechanical skills and ability than girls. For this reason one needs to be able to abstract oneself , one needs to think abstractly, to see things as they might be in different contexts or without a context. This is the connection Mansfield makes between aggression and abstraction. Aggression and abstraction are two forms of being single-minded.

“A manly man is an individual who separates himself from the crowd, set himself apart from the herd, who holds the world to be essentially a theater for heroism.”

Manliness is rooted in aggression but it is not mere aggression. It is aggression that develops an assertion, it takes up a cause. According to Mansfield, the quality of manliness is seen when an individual uses his power to assert something, to assert the value or worth of something, to make an assertion or protestation on behalf of someone or something. It is not mere aggression or pushiness, but rather a claim on your attention. This is why the very essence of the male animal is to strut and display himself, and the manly man parades himself and boasts. He has an important point to make! We can conclude that his aggression takes the form of an assertion of importance applicable both to himself and the cause he espouses. This is also seen in his ability to command which comes from his confidence and ability to impart some of his confidence on everyone else.

But manliness does not come without consequences. Manliness has fueled an enormous amount of human achievement and success and as well as a decent amount of pain and disaster. Not only is it a quality used for good but also a quality employed for evil. There is no doubt that this quality has caused much harm and violence in the world due to the fact that it is rooted in the most brute instincts of man, i.e. aggression. The lowest level of manliness, vulgar aggression, is the most dangerous level of manliness being purely self-serving. It is important to note that Mansfield examination of manliness also demonstrates that manliness can come in different levels, vulgar aggression, assertive manliness (manliness of gentlemen), and philosophical manliness. And it is the latter two levels of manliness that have been most beneficial to mankind with philosophical manliness as the highest form of manliness.

In sum, a manly man is an individual who separates himself from the crowd, set himself apart from the herd, who holds the world to be essentially a theater for heroism. Life to the manly man is more than just survival of his individual being. He finds his survival only in his honor. As Mansfield states, “ Manliness is not so much what all males share, or what most males share with a few females, as what a few males have superlatively”(2). The rest of men merely show traces of these few. Manliness is what the Greeks called thumos (a quality of spiritedness), the catalyst that induces individuals, more specifically manly men, to risk their lives to save lives.  Manliness in short is confidence (and competence) in the face of risk and the ability to command.

(Examples of manliness see: Hemingway’s The Old Man and The Sea, Homer’s Iliad, more specific Achilles and Odysseus, also individuals like, Nietzsche, Hemingway,  Clint Eastwood and John Wayne, and the like).

The gender-neutral society
The gender-neutral society regards manliness as a stereotype in the deepest sense.”

The gender-neutral society simply stated is the idea that there needs to be a leveling of all sex differences and especially those that have prejudiced one sex over the other in order to bring about a truly equal society. History is replete with women getting the short end of the stick. And the quality that has caused most of the damage has been manliness, toxic masculinity, a quality of the male sex. But such a quality, manliness, does not really exist, it is only a stereotype taught to us by our patriarchal tradition, and serving the interests of that tradition in which women are held to be unequal to men. We have lived with it up to now but there is no necessity, there is nothing in nature, requiring us to continue living under a delusion that so drastically limits our freedom of choice. The gender-neutral society regards manliness as a stereotype in the deepest sense. By deepest sense they mean to say in the pejorative sense. In other words society makes a distinction between men and women that it need not have made, one that is wrongly and unjustly imposed. Proponents of gender neutrality are eager to support public policies devised and designed to eliminate any sex/gender distinction, e.g. gender-neutral bathrooms (public restrooms made accessible without distinguishing the sex of the person using them). For a society to be equally open in all aspects to both genders, there must not, strictly speaking, be any quality pertaining to one of them that gives it an advantage or a disadvantage in life’s occupations. But is this really so, does society’s impress create the form, as if molding a block of clay, or does it work upon, or form, a modal made by nature, as if dressing a doll.

The gender-neutral parenting movement is an attempt of the gender-neutral project to bring about the leveling of all sex difference in society. It is an approach to parenting that attempts to parent in ways that do not reinforce the “stereotypes” and preconceived notions that have traditionally defined gender roles. For example boys are encouraged to dress in traditional girls outfits and girls in boys outfits (3). The toy industry is another example where the gender-neutral society has attempted to change the landscape. The influx of gender-neutral flooding the market, compelling companies and stores to stop catering certain types of toys to specific sexes (4).

However, much of the movement is aimed at enervating manliness. This is clearly seen on campuses where universities are encouraged to purge male students of toxic masculinity. Examples abound on campuses hosting training sessions, group meetings, lectures and other programs to effectively cleanse what the gender-neutral society contends is an unhealthy masculinity in young men. For example University of North Carolina and Duke University both launched programs specifically designed  for male students to explore “violent masculinity” and “healthier masculinity” and discuss issues like gender fluidity (5).

Common sense seems to contradict the gender-neutral society assumption that gender is fluid. As state earlier, common sense and human experience seems to suggest that men are more aggressive and women more nurturing, that men tend to be risk-seekers while women risk-averse. The first thing one sees with one’s eyes when encountering a human being is his or her sex. The gender-neutral society would want us to suspend such judgements for the sake of equality. The gender-neutral society asks us to maintain contact with the bodily shapes we see with our eyes while refusing to draw conclusion from them. But such a spectacular acrobatic cognitive feat seems impossible for most humans. Rational beings, even. The male’s assertiveness, his “willful will”, and the female’s nurturing desire, are not empty concepts, airy, bodiless wishes with nothing behind them. It has been found that they have a basis in the hormonal difference between men and women; men have much too much testosterone (6).

Does science disprove the common sense understanding of manliness, and can manliness be eliminated?

In the case of manliness, the sciences on the whole confirm common sense; they generally repeat the common-sense view that the sexes differ: men are more aggressive, women are more caring. Psychologist Eleanor Maccoby in her book The Two Sexes shows how biologically influenced propensities of girls and boys which differ to a certain degree can nevertheless lead to quite large differences in behavior between the sexes. She points out that in regards to toy preferences, children first select spontaneously the kind of toy they prefer, and then, after they become aware that it is the kind of toy boys or girls prefer, they apply the stereotype consciously (7). It seems that the thesis maintained by the GNS, that stereotypes concerning sex differences are human convention, products of culture and society, is disputed by Maccoby’s findings. Her findings seems to suggest the common sense view that some stereotypes concerning sex differences are the consequence of biological differences, not the causes of sex differences or the differences in behavior boys and girls display regarding sex roles.

“Sex roles and ultimate gender preferences to a certain degree are a result of biological behavior”

A similar landmark study conducted in 2002 by Gerianne Alexander and Melissa Hines, published in Evolution and Human Behaviour, rocked the scientific community. According to the study the researchers offered gender specific toys to 44 males and 44 females vervet monkeys. Each monkey was given a ball and a police car (masculine toys), and a cooking pot and soft ball (feminine toys), and a picture book and a stuffed dog (neutral toy). Preference was then determined by the duration of time a monkey spent with each toy. What the data revealed was astonishing. The male monkeys preferred the masculine toys while the female monkeys preferred feminine toys (8). One might ask, “Monkeys aren’t humans, why is this relevant?” Well the radical feminist view represented by the gender-neutral society claims that gender socialization, or the practice of parents offering “gender specific” toys to children is a direct correlation to gender roles or the ultimate preferences in a given society. The study seems to suggest the opposite, i.e. that sex roles and ultimate gender preferences to a certain degree are a result of biological behavior. The same ground-breaking empirical data was later replicated by other studies and published in the Hormones and Behavior (9).

Brain studies also show a significant difference between the physical brain composition between the sexes. These brain patterns play a significant role in biological preferences and behaviors that seems to point to more developed cerebral spatial abilities for men and better verbal-fluency skills for women (10). Other studies have shown that testosterone levels are linked to rough-and-tumble play. The higher testosterone levels, the more likely the child was to exhibit male-like behavior, i.e. aggression (11).

What these studies show is that there is some biological determinacy in gender behavior. Manliness, in contradistinction to the assumption that the quality of manliness is a product of human convention, seems more and more to be a result of nature and a consequence of biological behavior. The proponents of the gender-neutral society must ask themselves, why do differences among the sexes still persist? What explains those differences? The gender-neutral society does its best to destroy them but at best only succeeds in minimizing them or in suppressing overt reliance on them. Thus, it would seem, in contradistinction to the gender-neutral society claim, human convention did not cause the difference. They must be traced to a deeper cause, to something that is unchangeable, i.e. to nature.

“So long as nature is unconquerable and risk ineliminable manliness will be needed.”

  Manliness, a quality of the soul seen mostly in men but not exclusively in men since “formidable women” do exist, is confidence (and competence) in the face of risk and the ability to command. As stated above, this quality seems to be a permanent aspect of the human condition. Abolishing sex difference by removing the principal source of irrational insistence is not the answer to facilitating the management of human beings. The proponents of the gender-neutral society begin with man and women but never return to man and women as wholes. Men have better spatial abilities than women and are also more aggressive and violent. Are these two connected? They never try to connect or even consider that these two might be connected. Moreover, is the quality of manliness a necessary condition for human flourishing, and can it be eliminated? So long as nature is unconquerable and risk ineliminable manliness will be needed. Manliness is a necessary quality for human flourishing.

The gender-neutral society battle with manliness will not succeed, there is far too much fraternizing with the enemy. Men and women love each other too much, and especially their differences, for the gender-neutral society to succeed. A better approach is to find a way to employee manliness for the betterment of human progress and to reduce its not so great propensities. Repressing the sex differences will not transcend the sex differences. Respecting the sex differences is more in accord with nature. But nature does not prescribe exactly how she is to be respected. Thus, it is important that men listen to women because neither sex has a monopoly over what is correct and right rather both see and act from a justifiable point of view. Perhaps the best advice is for our society to frankly and unapologetically acknowledge the differences between men and women, without engaging in legal discrimination.


(1). Mansfield, Harvey C. Manliness, 23.

(2). Mansfield, Harvey C. Manliness, 38.

(3). Watkins, Olivia. “Development of the authentic self: An exploration of gender neutral parenting.” School of Education and Childhood 1 (2016): 21.

(4)Hughes, Thea, and Christia Spears Brown. “Should toys be gender neutral?.” (2016).



(5). https://studentwellness.unc.edu/our-services/violence-prevention/unc-mens-project

(6) Lamminmäki A, Hines M, Kuiri-Hänninen T, Kilpeläinen L, Dunkel L, and Sankilampi U. 2012. Testosterone measured in infancy predicts subsequent sex-typed behavior in boys and in girls. Horm Behav. 61(4):611-6

(7). Maccoby, Eleanor E. The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998. Print.

(8). Alexander G and Hines M. 2002. Sex differences in response to children’s toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus) Evolution and Human Behavior 23(6): 467-479.    See also

Williams CL and Pleil KE. 2008. Toy story: Why do monkey and human males prefer trucks? Comment on “Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children by Hassett, Siebert and Wallen.” Horm Behav 54(3): 335-358.


(9). Alexander GM and Saenz J. 2012. Early androgens, activity levels and toy choices of children in the second year of life. Horm Behav. 2012 Sep;62(4):500-4 – See also

Lutchmaya S and Baron-Cohen S. 2002. Human sex differences in social and non-social looking preferences, at 12 months of age. Infant Behavior and Development 25(3): 319-325.  See also

Auyeaung B, Baron-Cohen S, Ashwin E, Knickmeyer R, et al. 2009. Fetal testosterone predicts sexually differentiated childhood behavior in girls and boys. Psychological Science 20(2): 144-148.

(10). Eagly, “Science and Politics of Comparing Women and Men,” 147; Halpern, Sex Differences, 59-97; Geary, Male, Female, 218-21, 289, 312: Jorm, Anthony F.; Anstey, Kaarin J.; Christensen, Helen; Rodgers, Bryan (2004). “Gender differences in cognitive abilities: The mediating role of health state and health habits”. Intelligence. 32: 7–23.  See also

Wai, Jonathan; Cacchio, Megan; Putallaz, Martha; Makel, Matthew C. (2010). “Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30year examination”. Intelligence. 38 (4): 412–423.

(11). Auyeaung B, Baron-Cohen S, Ashwin E, Knickmeyer R, et al. 2009. Fetal testosterone predicts sexually differentiated childhood behavior in girls and boys. Psychological Science 20(2): 144-148.

On Democracy

The following excerpt comes from the brilliant work of C.S. Lewis entitled Screwtape Proposes a Toast.  I hope the article will illuminate some of the problems of Democracy. At the bottom of the article is an appendix that will clarify some of the terms and ideas within the C.S. Lewis article. Enjoy!-


Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, you remember, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn’t know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side) we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state….

Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose…. [T]hey should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won’t. It will never occur to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle’s question: whether “democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.

You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal…. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.

The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you…. No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.

And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority…. “They’ve no business to be different. It’s undemocratic.” Now, this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it — make it respectable and even laudable — by the incantatory use of the word democratic.

Under the influence of this incantation those who are in any or every way inferior can labour more wholeheartedly and successfully than ever before to pull down everyone else to their own level. But that is not all. Under the same influence, those who come, or could come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from fear of being undemocratic…. They might (horror of horrors!) become individuals….

Meanwhile, as a delightful by-product, the few (fewer every day) who will not be made Normal or Regular and Like Folks and Integrated increasingly become in reality the prigs and cranks which the rabble would in any case have believed them to be. For suspicion often creates what it expects…. As a result we now have an intelligentsia which, though very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell.

But that is a mere by-product. What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence – moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how “democracy” (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods?…

Once you have grasped the tendency, you can easily predict its future developments; especially as we ourselves will play our part in the developing. The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils – for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences – must be disguised. This can be done at various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in their spare time…. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have – I believe the English already use the phrase – “parity of esteem”…. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma…by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career…. In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.

Of course, this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I’m as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they. As an English politician remarked not long ago, “A democracy does not want great men.” We, in Hell, would welcome the disappearance of democracy in the strict sense of that word, the political arrangement so called. Like all forms of government, it often works to our advantage, but on the whole less often than other forms. And what we must realize is that “democracy” in the diabolical sense (I’m as good as you, Being Like Folks, Togetherness) is the fittest instrument we could possibly have for extirpating political democracies from the face of the earth.

For “democracy” or the “democratic spirit” (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and quick to snarl or whimper at the first sign of criticism. And that is what Hell wishes every democratic people to be. For when such a nation meets in conflict a nation where children have been made to work at school, where talent is placed in high posts, and where the ignorant mass are allowed no say at all in public affairs, only one result is possible….

It is our function to encourage the behaviour, the manners, the whole attitude of mind, which democracies naturally like and enjoy, because these are the very things which, if unchecked, will destroy democracy. You would almost wonder that even humans don’t see it themselves. Even if they don’t read Aristotle (that would be undemocratic) you would have thought the French Revolution would have taught them that the behaviour aristocrats naturally like is not the behaviour that preserves aristocracy. They might then have applied the same principle to all forms of government….

The overthrow of free peoples and the multiplication of slave states are for us a means (besides, of course, being fun); but the real end is the destruction of individuals. For only individuals can be saved or damned, can become sons of the Enemy or food for us. The ultimate value, for us, of any revolution, war, or famine lies in the individual anguish, treachery, hatred, rage, and despair which it may produce. I’m as good as you is a useful means for the destruction of democratic societies. But it has a far deeper value as an end in itself, as a state of mind which, necessarily excluding humility, charity, contentment, and all the pleasures of gratitude or admiration, turns a human being away from almost every road which might finally lead him to Heaven.


Progressivism– a political movement that was concerned with ideas of equality. It is the view that human perfection and complete freedom, i.e. in a society, can be achieved. This approach to building a society is rooted in German thought, via Hegel and Kant. Thus, the main tenets of Progressivism are the following: society is not built on absolute truths based in the individual itself or nature, but on posited (theorized/ man made) truths, and second it maintains that human perfection and complete freedom in a society can be achieved and only through total equality.

Rousseau– A French philosopher (1712-1778) who influenced or at least his ideologies played a great part in the French revolution. His philosophy was an amalgamation (mixture) of different views taken from different philosophers.

These philosophers viewed the world as a mechanistic system (as opposed to the classical view that the world is like an organic body governed by natural laws) that can be manipulated and forged to the preferences of Man (these views come from the philosophy of Descartes and that of Hobbes). Descartes changed how we thought about science from the Aristotelian claim that we perceived reality directly by our senses, and therefore qualities such as ‘red’ and ‘heat’ were categories of being really within objects. Descartes’ rejected this and replaced it with his mechanical theory of nature, i.e. positivism. Positivism, in short, is the notion that all knowledge (and therefore all intelligence) is based entirely on the data of experience, that the world is a world of facts, and that these facts follow the rules of pure logic and pure mathematics. Positivism is therefore an anti-metaphysical position, it takes the position that, in short, everything that is known is experience. According to Descartes we must think of knowledge in terms of how we can control the world, that we might know how to dominate the world and become the master and possessor of it. Related to Descartes philosophy is Hobbes conception of civil society. Hobbes argued that life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and the only way out this predicament, is to construct a civil society. Liberty, he considers it as impossible in politics. In the State as well as in nature might makes right. The natural state of man consists in the bellum omnium contra omnes (war of all against all). The State/ Government is the indispensable means of putting an end to this conflict. It protects the life and property of individuals at the cost of a passive and absolute obedience on their part.

What it commands is good, what it prohibits is bad. The State/Government’s will is the supreme law. More important, according to Descartes and Hobbes, is that the world is made of facts. The philosophies of Descartes and Hobbes established a rational, atomistic tradition in which all phenomena can be described as complicated combinations of simple elements (Descartes), these elements were formal in nature and related by purely syntactical operations, so reasoning could be reduced to complex calculations, pure mathematics (Hobbes) thus civil society is a mechanistic system in which the role of the government is to regulate the machine. Positivism allowed for the abandonment of nature (legality is separate from morality, this is important because it separates morality from laws, that is laws do not legislate morality, this view is detrimental to society because morality must be legislated in order for the citizens to be virtuous and good), as a result all law worth our consideration is positive law. This was the new radical conception of a regime adopted by the US government during the post-Civil war and through the New Deal era (1900-present), in contrast to natural law theory (held by the founding fathers) which maintains that to be legally valid a norm must conform to a body of natural law that is discernible by human reason.

Democracy and Oligarchy: The two main types of regimes that exist are democracy and oligarchy, that is, in Western societies. Democracy is the rule of the majority, since in every regime the majority has authority. An important aspect to keep in mind is that the majority will always be tyrannical since the minority will always suffer, furthermore they (majority) are easily swayed by Tyrants/Dictators (or majorities always act irrational since they mostly act on form passions). The distinction between democracy and oligarchy is that in democracy exists when the free and poor, being a majority, have authority to rule; oligarchy, when the wealthy (this should not be confused with noblemen who are those that govern in Aristocracy) and better born have authority and are few.

The middling element is basically what in modern terms would be considered the middle class. The middling element is logical, in the same manner as Aristotle believes virtue to be a mean between two extremes of vice. A large middle class is absolutely essential for a stable and well-run government because the middle class do not covet rule, are not envious, foster friendship because of their similarity, and can act as neutral arbitrators between the rich and the poor. Hemmed in between people above in which it dislikes and people below in which it fears, the middling element is more likely to listen to reason and to help maintain stability in the regime.

Behavior Democracy likes and Behavior that will preserve Democracies:

Behavior that democracies like in short is the desire to make everyone the same, no one ought to be different. Moreover, the aim of Democracy is comfortable self-preservation which results in a regime/society in which there is no encouragement offered for the exercise of higher human faculties. Furthermore, Democracy left to its own devices is actually prone to the establishment of tyranny.

The behavior that will preserver Democracies, i.e. that will deter them from becoming tyrannical is proper education in aristocratic virtues, which are values opposite of democratic values.