much and earnest

The starting point of the investigation is this: whether it is more beneficial to be ruled by the best man or by the best laws. Those who think it beneficial to be ruled by a king hold that laws speak only of the universal, and do not prescribe with a view to actual circumstances. Consequently, it is foolish to rule in accordance with written prescriptions in any craft, and doctors in Egypt are rightly allowed to change the treatment after the fourth day (although, if they do so earlier, it is at their own risk). It is evident, for the same reason, therefore, that the best constitution is not one that follows written laws. All the same, the rulers should possess the universal reason as well. And something to which the passionate element is entirely unattached is better than something in which it is innate. This element is not present in the law, whereas every human soul necessarily possesses it.But perhaps it ought to be said, to oppose this, that a human being will deliberate better about particulars. In that case, it is clear that the ruler must be a legislator, and that laws must be established, but they must not have authority insofar as they deviate from what is best, though they should certainly have authority everywhere else. As to what the law cannot decide either at all or well, should the best person rule, or everyone? For as things stand now, people come together to hear cases, deliberate, and decide, and the decisions themselves all concern particulars. Taken individually, any one of these people is perhaps inferior to the best person. But a city-state consists of many people, just like a feast to which many contribute, and is better than one that is a unity and simple.

- Politics, III.15