More Plato

I. Government

“What is a government, but more importantly, why is it needed?”
“Is it not the foundation of all societies? Are we not born with needs, these needs therefore being satisfied through the use of a government?”
“As far as this can be true I am sure of only the common definition, its ability to be understood, and the farces that arise from its misinterpretation. We begin first with the what, the why coming at a later time. A government is commonly just a group of people trying to survive. Time permitting we will be able to further develop concepts of people, groups, and survival, but for now we must assume that they are relevant and real.”
“What, then, would history be?”
“History in this case would be the study of governments with respect to time, groups of people that look to survive for as long as they can. We cannot forget that impermanence, although prominent, is still dependent on time as well as impermanent in itself.”
“Time, in this case, being a measure of knowledge.”
“Precisely, knowledge that we create at the instant we create time. We divide it up logically to show the consistent forms of change, looking ever so closely for the truth that Plato talked about. This truth was transformed into the idea of logic, by Aristotle, and today permutations of various dialogues (such as science and religion) still aim to touch upon the very truth of their day.”
“To understand the present would be to understand the past: this is what we mean by truth?”
“By truth we might mean reality, an ever-changing phenomenon that is concurrent with our own ideas and values. These ideas are used to construct these higher profound theories, that eventually become accepted as truth, as there lies little else to do with them. Truth, further, can be thought up as the convergence of all things, in this case one thing: the universe. However we must be careful when assuming that the universe is a distant and unknowable object. We are as much in the center of it as it is in the center of us, and therefore cannot differentiate the universe from humanity. We are one in the same, continually trying to understand ourselves by separating each other from these concepts. Only then are we able to see them from another side, releasing ourselves from the cave and adding substance to our own shadows.”
“Government, in this sense, would just be one of the many ways to find truth? Knowledge, education, the very reason of existence would be to discover the root of it all, the root from which everything grows, thus realizing that we are all connected, that the logic that breaks us up is not meant for destruction, but rather for understanding. This understanding, however, must become itself through the use of a hierarchy. In other words, the breaking down of this concept as well as its build up would be the definition of this process.”
“Yes, but we must not forget that it might still be possible to go from universe to truth without breaking down subjects and studying them separately.”
“Of course, there is no reason to limit our senses. Why then, would we exact these governments?”
“To secure not our freedom, but our safety. The common good, the bulk of this group, is the reason why governments exist. This does not come without a cost, however, as we must give up some freedoms in nature in order to ensure the safety and well-being of others.”
“What would we give, and what would it be?”
“The common term is popular sovereignty, and Cesare Beccaria tells us that it can be defined as the smallest bit of freedom that each person inherently holds. The collection of all these pieces form this popular sovereignty, this right to rule, and is used as the reason and means to govern. This taste of freedom is not given voluntarily; neither is it taken. It is more clearly understood, as a person cannot be accepted in a government unless he or she believes in its ways.”
“This government, therefore, would have to give also in itself in order to function. How would it do this?”
“There are many theories and practices in place, but the greatest of these was given to us by Aristotle in his Politics. He states that there are three main forms of government; three main forms of power used to govern; three fundamental ways to divide up popular sovereignty. This first of this occurs when one person shares with only him or herself, a Monarchy. The second is when a small group within the society shares it amongst themselves, an Aristocracy. The third and final is when the entire population has all the power, a Democracy. He argues that if there is no checks and balances system in place, this is to say: if power and this freedom-turned-government are not regulated, ultimate harm will be done, chaos being born again out of the order created by humankind. This is shown by the three degenerations of each respective form of government. A Monarchy, given all the power to rule, would eventually turn in to a Tyranny. The given society would then naturally turn to an Aristocracy, and over time as this small group held all the power they too would become corrupt; an Oligarchy. The civilization’s final choice would be to give the power back to all its citizens, thus forming a Democracy. However, as we have seen with the rest, this would theoretically turn into a Despotism: complete Anarchy.”
“Yes, if everyone was returned the freedom given up there would be no government.”
“Exactly.”

II. Respublica

“How will we solve this problem? We must put a system in place to regulate and govern government itself, to keep it from becoming corrupt. We would need checks and balances, to ensure that the safety of the common good is still the highest and most important scope.”
“We call this form of government a republic, in which all three forms are used at the same time. Fluctuating power continues to govern itself, allowing for no branch to become more powerful than another. If this were to happen, says our Aristotle, the other two forms would gather their power and use it to defuse that which was leaning towards evil. This is not to say that a Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy cannot survive on their own. As we have seen in the course of history many different sects of derivatives of these types have been known to prosper for large amounts of time. However the kings of the past are no longer as prominent, and the most popular form of government as well as the most efficient would be the republic. This is notwithstanding the fact that it can be argued against.”
“This idea we have seen with the Romans, and it could be argued that both the French and American revolutions have roots in Aristotle’s teachings, as well as the practice of the Roman Republic that existed in between its two monarchies.”
“We can use history to further understand this concept of time, namely that it repeats, acting more like a circle or spiral than a solid straight line. And we see this strongest in the comparison of the past with itself, remembering that our ultimate goal is truth. This is but only one way that we go about dividing the universe and using our own concepts to distinguish the right from the wrong, another of Aristotle’s works. We should, however, continue down the road of making connections, namely those of the French, American, and Roman ideals.”
“I agree.”

III. French failure

“What shall we make of Desmoulins, Montesquieu, and Rousseau with respect to the French Revolution?”
“We can make a strong argument that their ideas were inspired by those of the Romans; that their revolution, government, and quick road towards anarchy and thus back to monarchy echo both Aristotle and Roman history. Up until that time the French had been governed by a King. The population, with the development of time, history, knowledge and its by-product: thinking, decided that an internal revolution was needed in order to overthrow the old government and form a new one. This new government was to look after the common good and be a republic, with well-outlined powers and balances of that power. A written constitution would be needed to outline these ideas and ensure that no one could manipulate them without the consent of all parties included.”
“What made this government fall in only ten short years?”
“After the victorious revolution of 1789 many constitutions were tried. Consciously more were written, as they were not able to perfectly outline the means by which the French society was going to govern itself as well as how it was going to be successful in doing it. However, there was a more important and fundamental mistake that befell the French population.”
“Would it include the inability of its citizens to accept and respect the aims of the common good?”
“Exactly. The French Revolution was able to change the role of its government from a King to a republic. We have already discussed what a republic is and how it functions and why it functions or should function. But the most important event is the acceptance of the population of itself, that the society is going to provide for the security and well being of its citizens, and this can only be done by conviction. However it was not realized fully, and due to this fact the French, tired of fighting with themselves, did what the Romans did: they bowed to an Emperor in hopes of regaining their security and livelihood. Are you starting to see how history, the study of time, has a way of using itself for understanding?”
“Indeed, the truth is clear.”

IV. American success

“What, therefore, did the American republic do in order to establish a consistent and polished government?”
“In short words: they found a way to eliminate the general population from holding any real power. They called this concept ‘representation’ and their reasons were this: the public does not know what is best for the common good (themselves) and so they need to elect officials that will be able to decide what is best for them. This is similar to how we differentiate ourselves from fundamental unknown (as well as known) concepts so that we can see the whole picture and be able to make an outline. Once this grouping and ranking of knowledge is set then and only then are we able to enter it. ‘Much like how the hiker cannot see the mountain unless he is far away from it, standing in the middle of the field. Only then can he appreciate its beauty and learn how to conquer it.’ This manipulation of our surroundings can best be described as the necessity of language.”
“This again would outline the principle that if the power is in the hands of one form of government created by that same population, that it would lead back into the chaos from which it was born.”
“Yes, destroying itself with itself.

VI. Entomology

“We can see now how definition and entomology has aided in the understanding of past traditions. The Roman Consul, the monarchical facet of its republic, has turned into the American President. The Roman Senate, being of aristocratic domain, has kept its name. The Roman Popular Assemblies have however been modified by this idea of representation, giving the democratic part of a republic the same name but with a different function: The American House of Representatives.”
“Aside from the change of Direct Democracy (formally simply Democracy) to Representative Democracy, the Roman model has proven true, aiding in the success of American government.”

VII. Conclusions

“As we have seen the scope of a government is to provide for the common good by using the individual freedoms borrowed from citizens. This idea is but just one used at attaining the essence of our beings: truth. It cannot be found in words, rather between them, through the use of dialogue, a word that I am sure will change or transform its meaning to include more creations and adaptations of the universe. We must not forget of the control of these concepts that we have, as well as our ability to be blinded by our own individual truths that we project outside of ourselves. The truth that we discuss is of everyone, and in a way can be a common good. This interconnectivity must continue to be appreciated for as long as we can understand it. If we can create and build we must comprehend destruction, using both to help ourselves learn more about each other. At the end it should be noted that both these ideas, although they seem opposite, are one in the same.”

There seems to be a common theme in the papers that I have been writing, so I hope you don't mind me sharing another one. I guess one of these days I'm actually going to have to tell you all what I do on a regular basis. But as for now its ideas on government. Feedback would be nice!

-Anthony