I have another remark to make:--A middle condition is best for artisans; they should have money enough to buy tools, and not enough to be independent of business.

And will not the same condition be best for our citizens?
If they are poor, they will be mean; if rich, luxurious and lazy; and in neither case contented.
'But then how will our poor city be able to go to war against an enemy who has money ?' There may be a difficulty in fighting against one enemy; against two there will be none.

In the first place, the contest will be carried on by trained warriors against well-to-do citizens: and is not a regular athlete an easy match for two stout opponents at least?
Suppose also, that before engaging we send ambassadors to one of the two cities, saying, 'Silver and gold we have not; do you help us and take our share of the spoil;'-- who would fight against the lean, wiry dogs, when they might join with them in preying upon the fatted sheep?
'But if many states join their resources, shall we not be in danger ?' I am amused to hear you use the word 'state' of any but our own State.

They are 'states,' but not 'a state'-- many in one.

For in every state there are two hostile nations, rich and poor, which you may set one against the other.