Here the populace inflict punishments at their pleasure, and act, and seize, and keep possession, and distribute property, without let or hinderance.

Can you deny, my Laelius, that this is a fair definition of a democracy, where the people are all in all, and where the people constitute the State?
_Laelius._ There is no political constitution to which I more absolutely deny the name of a _commonwealth_ than that in which all things lie in the power of the multitude.

If a commonwealth, which implies the welfare of the entire community, could not exist in Agrigentum, Syracuse, or Athens when tyrants reigned over them--if it could not exist in Rome when under the oligarchy of the decemvirs--neither do I see how this sacred name of commonwealth can be applied to a democracy and the sway of the mob; because, in the first place, my Scipio, I build on your own admirable definition, that there can be no community, properly so called, unless it be regulated by a combination of rights.
And, by this definition, it appears that a multitude of men may be just as tyrannical as a single despot; and it is so much the worse, since no monster can be more barbarous than the mob, which assumes the name and appearance of the people.

Nor is it at all reasonable, since the laws place the property of madmen in the hands of their sane relations, that we should do the [very reverse in politics, and throw the property of the sane into the hands of the mad multitude][346] * * * XXXIV.

* * * [It is far more rational] to assert that a wise and virtuous aristocratical government deserves the title of a commonwealth, as it approaches to the nature of a kingdom.
And much more so in my opinion, said Mummius.