Question

Aristotle - Share your own views on Aristotle's break with Plato on the question of private property and wealth accumulation. Is Aristotle's argument persuasive and superior? Or was it weak, and even dangerous?

Answer 1

Aristotle's break with Plato on the matter of private property and wealth accumulation

Aristotle's belief on the matter of the private property and wealth accumulation was that external goods such as property and wealth could help an individual having a virtuous life. In opposition of the Plato believed that the property should be shared and communal, he argued that property should be as a general rule is private because everyone has a different interest and individual would not complain to each other and continue making progress because each individual would be attending to his own business.  
According to Plato, the rulers would live a simple and communal life without having any private property and even sharing their partners. He emphasizes there should be restrictions on the wealth and ownership of property.
Aristotle considered the property rights as an incentive mechanism, and they should be permitted to reward with their hardship. They should have permission and an inclination for applying themselves in numerous productive ways that is not possible in the case of collective or communal ownership. He argued that if the land was owned with the collaborative work and communally, there would exist an animosity and anger among the majority of participants.
Aristotle's argument on the matter of private property and wealth accommodation is persuasive as his arguments are for the wealth-getting activity that is obliviously as well as consciously persuade as a means for meeting the ends of the virtue and truth. The theory of the Plato is utopian and abstract whereas the Aristotle theory is practical, empirical and commonsensical