A few problems with Plato’s “Republic” (and his ideal state)

“You know also that the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken.”

– Plato’s “Republic” (written around 375 BC), Book II – spoken through the character of “Socrates,” whose depiction in “The Republic” probably does not represent the actual views of the historical Socrates (although his depiction in some other Plato dialogues may really do so)

I recently finished reading Plato’s “Republic” in the original Greek …

My first encounter with the ideas of Plato was in an intro to philosophy class in 2005. I became particularly interested in his work “The Republic,” and later read the work in English translation during the winter of 2006-2007. At that time, it was for my own amusement, and I read it all the way through in English. Later, the book was assigned for an intro to ethics class in 2009 (which was also a philosophy class). But this time, it was for an accelerated summer class, so I was forced to limit myself to just the assigned parts of it. I figured that if I had read the work all the way through long before this, then I didn’t need to read the entire work this time around. Later on, I learned the Ancient Greek language. Thus, I was brave enough to want to tackle the entirety of “The Republic” in the original. Now, I have finally finished doing so – a task that took me roughly four years. (Specifically, I read it from February 2019 through February 2023.)

Plato

A review of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (book)

“Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions. I readily discovered the prodigious influence which this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society … I speedily perceived that the influence of this fact extends far beyond the political character and the laws of the country, and that it has no less empire over civil society than over the Government; it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests the ordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it does not produce. The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more I perceived that the equality of conditions is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived, and the central point at which all my observations constantly terminated.”

– Opening lines of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (1835), Book 1, Introductory Chapter

I recently finished reading this work in its original French …

I recently finished reading Alexis de Tocqueville’s “De la démocratie en Amérique” (“Democracy in America”) in the original French. The work took me over three years to finish. Specifically, I read the work from March 2019 to July 2022. I would first read a paragraph out loud in French, then out loud in English, and then out loud in French again before moving on to the next paragraph. In this way, I got through the entire work one paragraph at a time. After doing so, I have much to say about it – some of it positive, and some of it negative. But first, let me give some comments on how (and why) the book was written, and how it was informed by Tocqueville’s travels to the United States.

Alexis de Tocqueville

A few problems with Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “The Social Contract” (1762), opening lines of Book I, Chapter I

I first read this work in English translation for a history class …

In the spring semester of 2007, my history professor of that time assigned my class to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique” (“The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”). This assignment was for a Western Civilization class that I was then taking. At that time, I read it in English translation, which would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time that I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book for this history class in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… but more than a decade later, I read it in the original French for my own amusement

When I started this project, I had just finished reading another Rousseau work in its original French. This work was Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”). I wanted to read this other work first, since it was written some seven or eight years before “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique.” The full English title of the work that I'm reviewing here is “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right.” But for simplicity's sake, I will just refer to it here as “The Social Contract.” I started this work in July 2018, and finished it some six months later in December 2018. Thus, I have now read this entire work in its original French. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau, on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)

“I admit that, provided the subjects remained always in submission, the prince's interest would indeed be that it should be powerful, in order that its power, being his own, might make him formidable to his neighbours; but, this interest being merely secondary and subordinate, and strength being incompatible with submission, princes naturally give the preference always to the principle that is more to their immediate advantage. This is what Samuel put strongly before the Hebrews, and what Macchiavelli has clearly shown. He professed to teach kings; but it was the people he really taught. His Prince is the book of Republicans.[footnote]”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (1762), Book III, Chapter VI

Rousseau said that Machiavelli's “The Prince” is “the book of Republicans” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau commented on this work in 1762. Rousseau argued that it was “the book of Republicans.[footnote]” (Source: “The Social Contract,” Book III, Chapter VI). In this context, “Republicans” seems to mean “those who support a republic.” Was this meant as positive praise or negative criticism? It appears that this was indeed meant as praise, as we can see by examining Rousseau's definition of a “republic” (as I shall do below).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… and said that “every legitimate government is republican”

Elsewhere in “The Social Contract,” Rousseau had written: “I therefore give the name 'Republic' to every State that is governed by laws, no matter what the form of its administration may be: for only in such a case does the public interest govern, and the res publica rank as a reality. Every legitimate government is republican;[footnote] what government is I will explain later on.” (Source: Book II, Chapter VI) In the footnote to this paragraph, Rousseau actually said that “I understand by this word republic, not merely an aristocracy or a democracy, but generally any government directed by the general will, which is the law. To be legitimate, the government must be, not one with the Sovereign, but its minister. In such a case even a monarchy is a Republic.” (Source: Footnote to Book II, Chapter VI) Thus, for Rousseau, “even a monarchy is a Republic,” and “every legitimate government is republican.” Thus, referring to “The Prince” as “the book of Republicans” seems to be meant as positive praise.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later in life

Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality” is long on detail, but short on evidence …

“The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men” (1754), first paragraph of “Second Part”

I first read this work in English translation …

In the spring of 2007, I voluntarily read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”) in English translation. This would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

But more than a decade later, I read it in the original French, too

But I had been laboring for some three years on another French work, which was “in line” ahead of it, so to speak. This other work was Montesquieu's “De l'esprit des lois” (“The Spirit of Laws”), which I describe here. In 2018, I finally finished this work by Montesquieu, and could thus finally start on Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes.” This book is known by many titles in English, including “Discourse on Inequality” and “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” (both abbreviated versions of the full title). For simplicity's sake, I will use these abbreviated versions of this English title for the most part. I started this work in January 2018, and finished it some six months later in June 2018. Thus, I have read this entire work in its original French, including Rousseau's notes at the end. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

How to prevent tyranny: Separation of powers and checks & balances

"The political liberty of the [citizen] is a tranquillity of mind, arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another."

- Baron de Montesquieu's "De l'esprit des lois" ("The Spirit of Laws") [published 1748], Book XI, Chapter 6

Montesquieu had some important ideas about how to prevent tyranny (and they're still relevant today)

The U. S. Declaration of Independence owed much to the work of John Locke, the English political philosopher. But the political scientist Donald Lutz said that "If there was one man read and reacted to by American political writers of all factions during all the stages of the founding era, it was probably not Locke but Montesquieu." (Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, March 1984, p. 190) This is not to deny the importance of Locke, as he was also an enormous influence on the Founding Fathers (see my blog post for evidence of this). Nonetheless, Montesquieu is definitely the author that had the greatest influence on both sides of the ratification debates, and perhaps even on the finished product of the United States Constitution itself. He's almost like a Founding Grandfather of the United States, his influence is so strong. This is why I recently finished reading his most famous work "De l'esprit des lois" ("The Spirit of Laws") in the original French. He was a Frenchman, who wrote his most famous work in 1748 - a book written over a quarter of a century before the American Revolution. This book was one of the most important influences on the Founding Fathers.

Baron de Montesquieu

How to prevent bad government: Keep any one group from getting too much power

Montesquieu is probably best known today for his important theory of a separation of powers in government. Put briefly, this theory is the idea that bad government is best prevented by keeping any one group from getting too much power over the others. James Madison referenced this danger in the Federalist Papers by saying that "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." (Source: Federalist No. 47) Hence, the need for a system of government that divides up these powers as much as possible. This is something that the United States Constitution does by dividing up this power into three branches of government - the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary branch judges and interprets the laws, with as little overlap between these three kinds of power as possible. (More on that in a separate post - for now, I will confine myself to talking about the specifics of the theory, at least in basic form.)

So what exactly are the “Federalist Papers,” anyway?

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

- Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

Frequently Asked Questions about the “Federalist Papers”

Actually, John Locke DID influence the U. S. Declaration of Independence

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 (first paragraph)

Some have claimed that John Locke didn't have much influence on the Founding Fathers ...

John Locke once wrote an eloquent defense of private property, which liberals enchanted with socialist ideas have long resented. Perhaps because of this, there have been some who have claimed that he did not really have much influence on the Founding Fathers of the United States, who are still quite popular in my American homeland.

John Locke

... so it might be helpful to correct the record

Because of this, it seems like it would be worthwhile now to correct the record; and give the evidence that Mr. Locke - along with others, like Algernon Sidney - did indeed have an influence on the Founding Fathers. Most notably, Locke had a great influence on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence; and it can be shown that some of the language within it (not to mention the ideas) are a direct borrowing from John Locke.

Thomas Jefferson

Specifically, he influenced the Declaration of Independence, as these quotes will show ...

I will now present the quotes from the Declaration of Independence (which are well-known), followed by the quotes from John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" (which are lesser-known). These will help to show that not only are the ideas the same, but in some cases, the language is as well.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

How the Constitution was almost not ratified

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

- Article 7 of the United States Constitution

The Constitutional Convention

Our national debate over the Constitution is as old as the Constitution itself, with origins to be found in the events of the Constitutional Convention, where its particulars were first debated by the men present at the convention. The framers of the Constitution disagreed with each other vehemently on exactly what the document should say and do, and how it should say and do it. Moreover, a number of the men present at the convention refused to even sign the document after the debates at the convention. As many of them well knew, though, the national debate over what they had written was just beginning. With the strict secrecy of the convention's proceedings at the time that it was still going on, the nation didn't know what was in the document until after the finished product of the convention was presented to the nation. Many of them weren't all that happy over the things they found in it, to put it mildly.

A replica of Independence Hall, which is not surrounded by
high-rise buildings (that don't belong in the period) the way the real one is today

Why did so many people suspect the Constitution was "dangerous"?

Part of this may have been that they got all their surprises about the document at virtually the same time. They had not been witness to the deals and compromises that had taken place so gradually during the events of the convention. A gradual revelation of the document's contents thus was simply not possible after the nation's curiosity had been whetted by the "secrecy rule." (Which is not a criticism of the "secrecy rule," I should make clear; but it was only natural for the people to wonder about it. Many of them assumed that the convention had something to hide in this regard, after the secret proceedings had been continuing for some four months without news.) The supporters of the Constitution all knew that they faced an uphill battle when they presented the final document to the people. This uphill battle is today known as the debates over ratification (or the ratification debates) - arguably the most important debates in the nation's history, because of the sheer number of issues that it affected, then and now. If I might point this out, it affected the very same democratic process by which all future political issues would be debated in America - and by extension, in a number of other places as well.

Newspaper advertisement for the Federalist Papers, 1787 (a part of the ratification debates)

A review of “A More Perfect Union: America Becomes A Nation”

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

- Preamble to the United States Constitution, written in 1787

It created the oldest Constitution that is still being used today, but which was a radical departure from virtually everything that came before it. It created a new form of government, but it was only authorized to modify the one that already existed - not to replace it. And it has been celebrated as the best form of government ever devised by man, but was not seen as anything close to ideal by any of the men who were there.

The Constitutional Convention

Why a Constitutional Convention was necessary

The event was the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in 1787 to improve upon the existing system of government. The government of that time was more like the United Nations than the modern United States. This was because all of the states remained sovereign, acting more like independent nations than portions of a whole. The federal government had no power to regulate trade, no executive branch to enforce laws, and no power to tax - with the latter flaw being the most crippling one. I'm not saying taxes can't be too high (or aren't too high now), but a government must have the power to tax to be able to perform its needful functions. Unfortunately, the government of that time simply was not able to do so. Thus, it was not able to pay the massive debts accumulated during the Revolution; and the massive war debts of the federal government were in risk of default. Thus, a stronger central government was required than the completely toothless one of that time. Thus, a Constitutional Convention was sorely needed.

Interior of Independence Hall

The philosophers that influenced our Founding Fathers

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of War, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

- Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" (1651), Part I, Chapter XIII, section entitled "The incommodites of such a war" (with spelling modernized)

The Founding Fathers never tried to "reinvent the wheel"

The Constitution was not created in a vacuum - it did not "appear out of nowhere" in 1787 as if there had never been anything before it that was worthwhile. We may sometimes think that we have to credit the Founding Fathers with every good idea that ever arose in politics, as if it would be an insult to them not to do so. But the fact is that there were other smart people before they arrived on the scene; and the Founding Fathers had the "intellectual humility," if you will - not to mention the scholarship - to recognize the wisdom of these prior ages. Indeed, it is a testament to their genius that they listened to these prior philosophers carefully and with an open mind. Our heartfelt respect for our Founding Fathers does not mean that we have to discount everything else that has ever happened. If the Founding Fathers, after all, did not dismiss or ignore these prior philosophers, it would seem that there is no reason for us to do so (if I may be so bold). Even the greatest minds of our country's founding felt the need to listen to other opinions from other ages, and avoid wasting time in a fruitless effort to "reinvent the wheel."

Alexander Hamilton

They used the good ideas of those that came before, and then added their own improvements

Indeed, the Founding Fathers of the United States were - almost without exception - a smart bunch. Many were quite brilliant, and some were very original thinkers. But like any group of smart men, they used the good ideas of those that came before them; often improving on them, the way an inventor improves on previous technology. The list of philosophers that influenced the Founding Fathers is a long one; as they were influenced even by the ones they disagreed with, and many were quite familiar with the "wisdom of the ages." But besides the French philosopher Montesquieu, and the English jurist William Blackstone, the two philosophers that influenced them the most may have been Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: the two that I will focus on here. (For more about Montesquieu's ideas, click here; and for more about Blackstone's ideas, click here. I'll focus this post instead on Hobbes and Locke.) There was much about Thomas Hobbes that our Founding Fathers disagreed with; but there were some important ideas original to him that they agreed with, and that influenced their thinking in the most profound of ways.

Why Adam Smith is still relevant today

" ... every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

- Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," Book IV, Chapter II

People still talk about Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" to this day

People still talk to this day about an economics book that was published in 1776. And though the year I'm talking about is rightfully associated with America, this book was actually published by someone in the mother country that we were then at war with. Adam Smith (the author of this book) was a Scotsman, which meant that he was also British.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

Historical note: Adam Smith sympathized with the American Revolution

But his views about the American Revolution were actually fairly sympathetic to the Patriot side. He favored giving the American colonies either representation in Parliament, or independence from the mother country. (For evidence of this, see this blog post.) Because I discussed this subject at length in my other blog post referenced above, I will not go into it further here. Instead, I will now launch into my discussion of his political and economic ideas, and how they apply to our world today.

Adam Smith

A few problems with “The Communist Manifesto”

"A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter ... Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself."

- Opening lines of "The Communist Manifesto" (1848)

I was recently told that I should write a blog post about why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were wrong - arguing not on values as I did in another post (though there is a place for that as well), but on facts and theories, challenging their dubious factual and theoretical claims.

Karl Marx

Friedrich Engels

In discussing problems with Marxism, where does one start?

To someone who's read and understood their book "The Communist Manifesto," that might seem easy - and in some ways, it is. But in trying to debunk it, I had one big problem: where to start. Despite "The Communist Manifesto" being a tiny book (which I read through in a day), it sometimes seems when I'm reading the book like its two authors were having a competition to see who could cram more fallacies into a small amount of space. And they both won.

Marx and Engels

Discussion of Marxist fallacies is practically a genre in its own right ...

I intend this blog post to be a short one, so I will only be able to summarize this book's problems. But if you're after a more thorough treatment of its fallacies, this is practically a genre in its own right, so there are lots of works to choose from.