2 There is always the possibility of conflict between two rulers where one
is not subject to the other's control; such conflict may come about either
through their own fault or the fault of their subjects (the point is
self-evident); therefore there must be judgment between them.
3 And since neither can judge the other (since neither is under the
other's control, and an equal has no power over an equal) there must be a
third party of wider jurisdiction who rules over both of them by right.
4 And this person will either be the monarch or not. If he is, then our
point is proved; if he is not, he in his turn will have an equal who is
outside the sphere of his jurisdiction, and then it will once again be
necessary to have recourse to a third party.
5 And so either this procedure will continue ad infinitum, which is not
possible, or else we must come to a first and supreme judge, whose judgment
resolves all disputes either directly or indirectly; and this man will be
the monarch or emperor. Thus monarchy is necessary to the world.
6 And Aristotle saw the force of this argument when he said: "Things do
not wish to be badly ordered; a plurality of reigns is bad; therefore let
there be one ruler."
