Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) Bentham was a British political reformer

Leonard Peikoff's The Duel Between Plato and Aristotle, in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

collectivism vs. individualism - FREEDOM KEYS

Because I say that the city is for the good of the citizens, does thatmean that people don't belong to any city?... On the contrary! I said thatfor Plato, man is a political, a social animal (one more steal of Aristotle),and that he must live in a city, but that this doesn't mean he mustbecome a "cell" within a body-city that would be the only thingthat counts. If the city, as I said times and again in my post, is forthe good of man, it means man can only reach his good within a city! AndI say, in another post, that Hippias is presented as the paradigm of the"injust man" precisely because he wants to play alone, doingall he needs by himself...

More comments on democracy from the Founders:"

A second powerful image in III.4 is Aristotle's comparison of the state to a ship. Just as the different sailors on boat work together to preserve the boat, so too the different citizens perform different jobs to preserve the state. Plato often compares the ruler to a ship captain, but here Aristotle emphasizes that though sailors work together to preserve the ship, they each have different tasks to perform, and for each task there is a distinct virtue. Thus, for the pilot to be a good sailor requires a skill different from that required by the rower or lookout. Likewise, the tasks of citizenship are manifold. Indeed, they will vary among different states. Strikingly, Aristotle presumes that all work together:

Is that what I said? If so, I misrepresented my thought. I knew I walkedon a thin edge! I was not talking about "rights of man", butabout goals, saying that the city was for the good of its citizens, notthe other way around. I know perfectly well that Plato would accept somesort of lies on the part of the leaders, or deportation of criminals, thathe was not in favor of "freedom of speech", and the like. AndI know that trying to make people happy against their will is the firststep toward fascism. And I think he was well aware of how hard that iswithout giving way to tyranny. But I still think that this is what he wastrying to do, trying precisely to find the narrow path for doing that withoutfalling into tyranny (and he says himself somewhere in the that the shortest path, but not necessarily the best, would be agood tyrant).