Samizdata

…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.

“I tried a ‘fairtrade’ wine. It was Ochre Mountain Sauvignon Blanc FAIRTRADE, Chile 2006, and was utterly appalling. It was nasty, sharp and acidic, with nothing at all behind it. It was filthy stuff, and I was careful not to get any of it on my hands. Whoever made it has achieved the difficult feat of making a bad Chilean wine. I suppose they think the ‘fairtrade’ tag will sell it anyway. Fortunately I didn’t waste £12.95 on a bottle. I had a glass at £3.65. The five friends with me were so intrigued by my description of its awfulness that they all took a taste, and that got rid of it pretty quickly.”

– Madsen Pirie