…therefore in order that rulers may be willing to rule, they must be paid in one of three modes of payment, money, or honor, or a penalty for refusing.
What do you mean, Socrates? said Glaucon. The first two modes of payment are intelligible enough, but what the penalty is I do not understand, or how a penalty can be a payment.
You mean that you do not understand the nature of this payment which to the best men is the great inducement to rule?
Of course you know that ambition and avarice are held to be, as indeed they are, a disgrace?
Very true.
And for this reason, I said, money and honor have no attraction for them; good men do not wish to be openly demanding payment for governing and so to get the name of hirelings, nor by secretly helping themselves out of the public revenues to get the name of thieves. And not being ambitious they do not care about honor. Wherefore necessity must be laid upon them, and they must be induced to serve from the fear of punishment.
And this, as I imagine, is the reason why the forwardness to take office, instead of waiting to be compelled, has been deemed dishonorable. Now the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot help–not under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the task of ruling to anyone who is better than themselves, or indeed as good. For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contention as to obtain office is at present; then we should have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects; and everyone who knew this would choose rather to receive a benefit from another than to have the trouble of conferring one. So far am I from agreeing with Thrasymachus that justice is the interest of the stronger.
– Plato. The Republic. Thanks to Jackie for making me think of this.
Suppose we ignore the ‘penalty’ of the miserable damned republic?
Whence Plato’s ambition then?
Theres a big sign at the entrance to the classical exhibit in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. Included in the discussion of ancient Greek contribution to Western Civilization, is the statement that the Sophists were the world’s first Social Scientists.
Amazing how little some things have changed.
“He had squatted for hours in the courtyards of the philosophers, listening to the arguments of theologians and teachers, and come away in a haze of bewilderment, sure of only one thing, and that, that they were all touched in the head.”
Conan, Tower of the Elephant, Robert E. Howard
Plato did not just denounce the (straw man) idea that justice is just “the interest of the stronger” (of course if T. had seriously held that view he would not have debated with Socrates – he would have just smashed Socrates over the head).
Plato (via his mouth piece Socrates – who may or may no have the opinions of the real Socrates) also denounced the traditional view of justice – that it is to each his own (expressed in various saying that were ancient even in Plato’s day).
Instead (if we are to take him seriously) “justice” is somehow connected to the hell holes he describes in “The Republic” and “The Laws”.
Still to take the quote you give for a little while.
There is a way (and a way known in Athens) to make sure that people come into office neither out of the desire for money, fame or power itself.
Choose them by lot.
For example, instead of a Paliament or Congress being elected it would be chosen at random.
Sure a few mad people would get in (they already do), but the avarage member might do a better job than people who have to be obsessed with vote gathering.
As William F. Buckley said.
“I would rather be ruled by the first hundred names in the Boston telephone directory than by the people they elect”.
People elect politicians whose opinions are wildly different from their own. Indeed most voters have little idea what the opinions of the candidates are – voting is largely determined by the image of the candidate.
Just as people do not know how much government spends (either in money terms or as a percentage of the economy) on this or that when they reply to questions about whether it should spend more.
One vote (out of millions) does not tend to make any difference, so it is not rational for a voter to educate himself about any political issue (governnment spending, taxation – anything).
If this same ordinary person found himself one of a “Grand Jury” style assembly it would make sense for him to study the matters at hand.
The process by which someone becomes a member of a “legislature” (the endless political meetings, the election campaigns and so on) makes it very unlikely that most of the people so elected (from any political party) will not be the sort of people who are interested in thinking about policy (they will be people interested in other things – such as their own image and advancement).
Paul, does not the selection by lot idea, sort the believers in democracy from the rest?
It scares the living shit out of our “professional” politicians-
That’s for sure!
Indeed, RAB. That’s why they abolished the (unpaid) hereditary Peers’ voting rights: it may not be quite the same as selecting them by lot, but in its final form it was the closest any modern Western nation has come to it.
Seriously, Sam, I believe great good would come of it if the situation in Lords was reversed and only hereditary peers for at least four generations could vote. It is good for more than purely the random nature of it. Serving under those terms has the peers first, on their best behavior because they would be forfeiting voting for at least four generations and probably for all time, and second, because they will by nature think in multi-generational context as opposed to the lower house which thinks for at best one election cycle at a time.
The ancient Athenians not only voted for folks by lot – the voted to Ostracize folks by lot. Enough lots and the Ostracizee is banned from politics, and the Polis, for 10 years.
I want that.
Mid,
Peers on their “best behaviour”! You clearly know little of the colourful history of our ruling classes. I don’t go with the heriditary principle at all. But… I don’t see anything wrong in principle with the idea of selecting folk at random. We seem to trust a random assortment of just 12 people to decide the guilt or innocence of somebody with potentially very serious consequences and we talk incessantly about opinion polls so why not?
There is just one problem. What if I get selected and I don’t want to do it? Do I have a get-out?
If yes, then I would predict a lot of folk would decline, meaning we’d still get the sort of busybodies we get now.
If no, then we’d have a lot of people who would be conscripted against their will and would quite simply act the goat.
In truth we just have too much government however it’s organised. We can see this in education more than anything. The Department for Education keeps pissing on teachers from a great height. You wouldn’t believe the madcap schemes they keep tinkering with. It’s all bollocks of course (and very expensive for offal at that) but still they beaver away. I would disband the whole shabby thing (at gun-point) and replace it with a single statement:
“A good teacher is someone with sufficienct presence to keep the kids in order, sufficient empathy to understand the little buggers, sufficienct personality to interest them and finally (though not the least) knowledge of their subject”.
That is it. Socrates himself (though permanently pissed) knew it, Matthew Arnold knew it, now you know it.
I chose education purely because both my parents are/were teachers and I’ve done a bit myself. My teaching has been fortunately at university and home tutoring where I could essentialy just do what the hell I wanted. That was fun and contrasted with the grimnacious reality which is modern UK state schools.
Do not get me started on transport.
*Apart from one especially arsey Russian who told me that “Russian mathematical logic is different from English…” Or the assorted Chinese who always said they understood everything even if they didn’t. I thought teaching math for GMAT for a bunch of internationals would be easy. Christ almighty, was I wrong. I should’ve been warned by the fact that they were in England for a year primarily to improve their English. I was but a callow youth back then.
Nick,
There needs to be some way of ending the peerage, probably administered by the monarch, not the lower house. I certainly suspect there is and it is neglected.
A draft is a bad idea for precisely the reasons you give. It’s probably one reason tort is so screwed up.
Lords could just say “I don’t want to vote anymore”. I chaired a (all volunteer) board where we had a lot of non-voting members. I placed very high attendance and performance requirements on those who wanted to vote. Some couldn’t meet them but still had a contribution to make. I could switch their voting privileges on and off with their mutual consent and it only effected quorum calculations. They remained otherwise participating board members in good standing. However, bad behavior got them sc’ed permanently.
David Roberts and others – yes.
Nick M.
On the Lords – of course some Lords are going to be scum bags (although “ruling classes” is not right – even in the 1700’s the Lords could not count on a majority in the House of Commons and without such a majority there is no “ruling”), but most are O.K.
In fact I can not think of anything that the majority of the Lords have been wrong about in the last hundred years. Although if one goes back further I can – for example the Corn Laws in 1846.
However, of course, selected by lot means that the majority of people selected would be just “ordinary folks”.
Would they serve?
The vast majority yes.
Are you saying that you do NOT want a say in (for example) how high taxes are?
Does not sound like a “busy body” question to me.
Yes, let there be an end to the politicians – “ear marks” and all (I bet RAB can make a pun or something out of “ear marks” – although he may not choose to).
Er… Pressure pressure!
Is that a flea in your ear Marks
Or are you just pissed to see me?
I like the lot idea. Especially for the Lords.
Personally, I would have left the Lords as they were pre getting rid of the heriditaries.
Yes I know how undemocratic etc etc it was, but it worked and it worked well.
The Lords had a whole different attitude to Legislation than the Commons and a longer view on things timewise.
Having both summoned and served on a Jury, I had the opinion , as did many of my fellow Civil Servants, when summoning them, that the pool we ended up with was second rate, and rather stupid.
Having now sat on a Jury I can happily say that is not true. We may have been a disperate group of varying backgrounds and abilities, but we concentrated very hard on the matter in hand and came to the right verdict.
I believe a Legislatory body so composed would do much the same.
When you give ordinary people responsibility, they take it.
Something the Professional Pols have long forgotten!