Aristotle starts with the acceptance of the fact that every human being is a social being and then continues by defining the structure of the little town (κώμη) and that of town (πόλη). The main argument is that: Altough the opinion of every individual could be wrong, the total combined opinion of the many people is always better than the opinion of a single, even wise man. Thus, Aristotle promoted the existence of the middle class, as a best ratio between oligarchy of the rich and ochlocracy of the poor.

Demetris, thanks for your answer. I think we are talking about powers in a different sense. I mean the causal powers that Aristotle (and others) have posited as 'causing' perception, etc.

I think the simple meaning of power can be derived from Aristotle analysis and his logic in different circumstances between individuals and rulers . 

Asaad, can you provide an example of what you mean?

Power (or being-in-potency or potency, as it is more typically called by Aristotelians) has real being, but stands between nothingness and being-in-act. For example, a match has the potency to light on fire if struck.

The potencies a thing has are grounded in its actualities. It is because of what a match actually is, and its actual characteristics, that it has the potential to light on fire if struck.

The purpose of the theory of act and potency is to overcome Parmenides' argument that change is impossible. Parmenides held that change must entail being coming to be from nothing, but this cannot occur because from nothing nothing comes. Aristotle concedes that something cannot come from what is strictly nothing. So, to overcome the paradox, he posits a kind of being that is real, albeit occupying a status between the actual and non-being. Change involves one kind of being (act) coming from another kind of being (potency).

I suppose I did not really define potency, but is this a helpful description?

Hi Marcus, yes, what you say is very succinct and helpful. I appreciate your comments. What you say confirms my understanding of powers but when these become power ontologies I find the concept a little more difficult. 

HI paul

hope these help :

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cewitt/Site/My_Philosophical_Life_files/Aristotelian%20Powers.pdf

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/32375/Causation_without_glue_-_Aristotle_on_causal_powers.pdf

"In a nutshell, causation is the fulfil- ment of an agent’s causal powers in what is acted upon. The realization of the agent’s power occurs in dependence on coming in contact with a passive power, on which the active power operates''

I think your reading of individual power is very different to Aristotle's metaphysical powers.