Losing respect for Rand Paul

[vulcanlogician]

He probably wouldn't like it all that much (though some bits likre fucking over poor people would go well with him), I always got the impression that something akin to feudalism was his preferred government, from reading the Republic.

I've read scholarly commentary that agrees with your feudalism assessment. But I interpret Plato in a different way. He was an elitist, no doubt about that. But I don't think he endorsed feudalism at all. 

I say this for three reasons 1) his class of rulers (guardians) were forbidden from owning any kind of wealth or personal property; feudal lords were landowners. 2) He believed that no class of people in a city should be happy at the expense of another class. 3) If any class in Plato's ideal city resembles serfdom, it's the producer class. Producers are not allowed to have any political (decision-making) power in the city, yes, but at the same time, they are the only class allowed to have wealth and personal property. Under feudalism, the wealthy landowner is given absolute political power. In Plato's republic, the rulers are denied the right to hold wealth so that they will act on behalf of the entire city (instead of for their own personal interests).

In Plato's ideal society, Donald Trump is a pleb. In fact, it was Plato's greatest fear was that a wealthy soothsayer would seduce the uneducated masses, and wind up in charge of them. Andrew Sullivan wrote an article about it, which I find highly informative.

I know I'm a Plato nerd, and you probably weren't in the mood for a lecture about my personal take on the Republic. But I want to add one final point.  Plato believed that everyone should be provided with a free education by the government. (A radical idea in his time.) Based on their natural talents, students would become rulers, warriors, or producers. The rulers are selected because they have demonstrated adeptness concerning intellectual pursuits. They are an intellectual elite, not a wealthy elite. They are the so-called "philosopher kings"-- but as I already said, they are "kings" who are forbidden from owning wealth. (Also the term "philosopher" is something of a misnomer. By philosopher, Plato meant anyone who is dedicated to knowledge: scientists, mathematicians, and, of course, what we would call philosophers today all fall under the umbrella of "philosopher".) Feudal lords were often illiterate and uneducated, so the comparison fails in that regard.

Plato was not shy about his disdain for the "ignorant masses." But he didn't despise them because they were poor. He simply saw that many if not most people were uneducated and perfectly content to stay that way. In fact, in his estimation, most people hated learning and knowledge. Plato thought that people of this type should not be given political power because they would use this power unwisely. So while he was most certainly an elitist, I would hardly call him a capitalist, and there are many ways in which comparison with feudal lords doesn't quite gel.

[Pat Mustard]

I don;t see compromise for the sake of compromise as a virtue.  I'm not interested in being a part of the 3rd and a 1/2 Reich.

It's not compromise for the sake of compromise that I'm advocating -- indeed, the only thing I am advocating is getting rid of the "my way or the highway" attitude amongst regular people. Not that I think that'll actually happen. Too many people are emotionally invested in that sort of horseshit.

Sucks that I have to ride the same fucking bus that their arguing has at a standstill.

Compromise only works when both sides give up what doesn't work of their own ideologies in favour of what works of the other sides'.

For the lat forty years that is the opposite of what has happened in compromise terms. In reality all that has happened is that the left continually cedes on its own policies and positions (giving up everything that works in the process) moving to the right to stay close to the ever more far-right conservative movement. That's not compromise, that's craven cowardice.

[Brian37]

He probably wouldn't like it all that much (though some bits likre fucking over poor people would go well with him), I always got the impression that something akin to feudalism was his preferred government, from reading the Republic.

I've read scholarly commentary that agrees with your feudalism assessment. But I interpret Plato in a different way. He was an elitist, no doubt about that. But I don't think he endorsed feudalism at all. 

I say this for three reasons 1) his class of rulers (guardians) were forbidden from owning any kind of wealth or personal property; feudal lords were landowners. 2) He believed that no class of people in a city should be happy at the expense of another class. 3) If any class in Plato's ideal city resembles serfdom, it's the producer class. Producers are not allowed to have any political (decision-making) power in the city, yes, but at the same time, they are the only class allowed to have wealth and personal property. Under feudalism, the wealthy landowner is given absolute political power. In Plato's republic, the rulers are denied the right to hold wealth so that they will act on behalf of the entire city (instead of for their own personal interests).

In Plato's ideal society, Donald Trump is a pleb. In fact, it was Plato's greatest fear was that a wealthy soothsayer would seduce the uneducated masses, and wind up in charge of them. Andrew Sullivan wrote an article about it, which I find highly informative.

I know I'm a Plato nerd, and you probably weren't in the mood for a lecture about my personal take on the Republic. But I want to add one final point.  Plato believed that everyone should be provided with a free education by the government. (A radical idea in his time.) Based on their natural talents, students would become rulers, warriors, or producers. The rulers are selected because they have demonstrated adeptness concerning intellectual pursuits. They are an intellectual elite, not a wealthy elite. They are the so-called "philosopher kings"-- but as I already said, they are "kings" who are forbidden from owning wealth. (Also the term "philosopher" is something of a misnomer. By philosopher, Plato meant anyone who is dedicated to knowledge: scientists, mathematicians, and, of course, what we would call philosophers today all fall under the umbrella of "philosopher".) Feudal lords were often illiterate and uneducated, so the comparison fails in that regard.

Plato was not shy about his disdain for the "ignorant masses." But he didn't despise them because they were poor. He simply saw that many if not most people were uneducated and perfectly content to stay that way. In fact, in his estimation, most people hated learning and knowledge. Plato thought that people of this type should not be given political power because they would use this power unwisely. So while he was most certainly an elitist, I would hardly call him a capitalist, and there are many ways in which comparison with feudal lords doesn't quite gel.

You went into more detail than I was addressing. All I was talking about was his idea of valuing questioning. But again, in doing that he also came up with the idea of "essence" and as Dawkins said, and I agree, that took of among philosophers but ended up infecting politics and religion. Plato had no way of understanding what modern science was as far as methodology, control groups and peer review. 

But even today I would agree with Plato, even today there are humans whom are perfectly content being uneducated.

[vulcanlogician]

You went into more detail than I was addressing. All I was talking about was his idea of valuing questioning. But again, in doing that he also came up with the idea of "essence" and as Dawkins said, and I agree, that took of among philosophers but ended up infecting politics and religion. Plato had no way of understanding what modern science was as far as methodology, control groups and peer review. 

But even today I would agree with Plato, even today there are humans whom are perfectly content being uneducated.

Plato was just dead wrong about a lot of things. But then again, you and I aren't the types to consider any book "the source of inerrant truth" are we?

Part of getting the most out of Plato is realizing that his works are a basket of good ideas and bad ideas. You could write a 50 page paper on whether Plato's influence on western history was a good thing or not. Inasmuch as his bad ideas influenced history, he was a negative influence. But he had good ideas too.

[Pat Mustard]

He probably wouldn't like it all that much (though some bits likre fucking over poor people would go well with him), I always got the impression that something akin to feudalism was his preferred government, from reading the Republic.

I've read scholarly commentary that agrees with your feudalism assessment. But I interpret Plato in a different way. He was an elitist, no doubt about that. But I don't think he endorsed feudalism at all. 

I say this for three reasons 1) his class of rulers (guardians) were forbidden from owning any kind of wealth or personal property; feudal lords were landowners. 2) He believed that no class of people in a city should be happy at the expense of another class. 3) If any class in Plato's ideal city resembles serfdom, it's the producer class. Producers are not allowed to have any political (decision-making) power in the city, yes, but at the same time, they are the only class allowed to have wealth and personal property. Under feudalism, the wealthy landowner is given absolute political power. In Plato's republic, the rulers are denied the right to hold wealth so that they will act on behalf of the entire city (instead of for their own personal interests).

In Plato's ideal society, Donald Trump is a pleb. In fact, it was Plato's greatest fear was that a wealthy soothsayer would seduce the uneducated masses, and wind up in charge of them. Andrew Sullivan wrote an article about it, which I find highly informative.

I know I'm a Plato nerd, and you probably weren't in the mood for a lecture about my personal take on the Republic. But I want to add one final point.  Plato believed that everyone should be provided with a free education by the government. (A radical idea in his time.) Based on their natural talents, students would become rulers, warriors, or producers. The rulers are selected because they have demonstrated adeptness concerning intellectual pursuits. They are an intellectual elite, not a wealthy elite. They are the so-called "philosopher kings"-- but as I already said, they are "kings" who are forbidden from owning wealth. (Also the term "philosopher" is something of a misnomer. By philosopher, Plato meant anyone who is dedicated to knowledge: scientists, mathematicians, and, of course, what we would call philosophers today all fall under the umbrella of "philosopher".) Feudal lords were often illiterate and uneducated, so the comparison fails in that regard.

Plato was not shy about his disdain for the "ignorant masses." But he didn't despise them because they were poor. He simply saw that many if not most people were uneducated and perfectly content to stay that way. In fact, in his estimation, most people hated learning and knowledge. Plato thought that people of this type should not be given political power because they would use this power unwisely. So while he was most certainly an elitist, I would hardly call him a capitalist, and there are many ways in which comparison with feudal lords doesn't quite gel.

The problem with Plato's system is that any elitist system degenerates into a hereditary system very quickly. Yes the first set of rulers will be a true elite (for the sake of this argument) but what happens two or three generations down the line when their descendants, brought up in the luxury of the ruling class and turn out on testing not to be up to the standard?

Plato doesn't address this problem, he ignores it. He believes the self perpuating elite would voluntarily give up its position and privilege rather than what every elite has done through history and perpetuate their position they enjoy.

My opinion of the perfect illustration of the eventual outcome is the view given of the Inner Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

[Brian37]

You went into more detail than I was addressing. All I was talking about was his idea of valuing questioning. But again, in doing that he also came up with the idea of "essence" and as Dawkins said, and I agree, that took of among philosophers but ended up infecting politics and religion. Plato had no way of understanding what modern science was as far as methodology, control groups and peer review. 

But even today I would agree with Plato, even today there are humans whom are perfectly content being uneducated.

Plato was just dead wrong about a lot of things. But then again, you and I aren't the types to consider any book "the source of inerrant truth" are we?  

Part of getting the most out of Plato is realizing that his works are a basket of good ideas and bad ideas. You could write a 50 page paper on whether Plato's influence on western history was a good thing or not. Inasmuch as his bad ideas influenced history, he was a negative influence. But he had good ideas too.

When we talk of human history, it is always a mixed bag. The new Cosmos hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, in it's 13 part series, took time each episode going through worldwide human contributions, from ancient China, to ancient India, Europe and Northern Africa, and worldwide you can find multiple events where humans got close to questioning social norms only to have the powers get scared of that and squash it. 

In regards to Plato, I still love his value of questioning, but yea, he had no way of knowing what we no now. 

I do also even regards to modern science, still warn people not to blindly worship that either. Science is a tool, but scientists, are still humans. Even today, both friend and foe worldwide use scientific technology to spy on each other, make weapons to kill each other. Corporations have a horrible history of creating junk science to protect bad products. Big oil used lobbyists and junk science to keep lead in gas, and today still try to use fake science to keep oil burning and polluting.

Point being, humans as a species are always a mixed bag. Plato did contribute some valuable ideas but no, he was hardly right about everything.

---

It's not compromise for the sake of compromise that I'm advocating -- indeed, the only thing I am advocating is getting rid of the "my way or the highway" attitude amongst regular people. Not that I think that'll actually happen. Too many people are emotionally invested in that sort of horseshit.

Sucks that I have to ride the same fucking bus that their arguing has at a standstill.

Compromise only works when both sides give up what doesn't work of their own ideologies in favour of what works of the other sides'.

For the lat forty years that is the opposite of what has happened in compromise terms. In reality all that has happened is that the left continually cedes on its own policies and positions (giving up everything that works in the process) moving to the right to stay close to the ever more far-right conservative movement. That's not compromise, that's craven cowardice.

Dems gave up when Reagan successfully busted the air traffic control unions. But it isn't a matter of just blaming our politicians. It is hard to have any long term power as an average if voters don't partake. Dems as voters SUCK at showing up in off year local and state elections. When one looks at the AVERAGE balance of power of all three branches since Reagan, the GOP has controlled the bulk on average. SCOTUS has the most influence long term, and they have unfortunately been leaning to the economic right for far too long, and that has allowed the corporate bullying. 

I wouldn't call all our politicians Cowards, I see more of those on the GOP side considering they don't want to silence their orange snake. I would say it is more along the lines that because the GOP controls the bulk of state govs and governors offices nationwide, we are as a party stuck being controlled by the GOP narrative.

But there still is some hope. I do think the Occupy Movement did spark a fire for the 99%. I think there has been a push back since. I think the fact that 45 didn't outright win the pop vote and considering his STILL low poll numbers, he and the GOP are not in a good position right now.

I do see 45 sinking that party. I hope he does.

[shadow]

This is actually the whole reason I'm studying in Denmark - because I studied their society in a transportation geography class and thought it was brilliant. I'm not doing an econ degree, I'm majoring in Business and Environment because I've made it my goal in life to practically implement sustainability. So I study socialism and these systems extensively - it's the other half of my degree. I just don't have faith in NGOs and democracy because I've seen them fail at accomplishing these things that I value so much, and I don't want to be powerless, so I'm learning business too.

You're studying an economics degree lad, don't kid yourself. Anything with business in it is in the economics field.

No, don't tell me what my own major is. "Don't kid myself"... like I'm unaware of what classes I'm taking and what I'm learning???


You suffer from a need to stereotype. Don't. It is insulting and incorrect. A lot of students now take degrees that cross diverse faculties, and it's not a bad thing. It doesn't fit into your compartmentalized understanding of who is on your side and who isn't, so think laterally instead of writing any fiscally effective strategy off as 'economics'. Think for a second why a very good understanding of subjects like finance or corporate law might be helpful for anyone who wants to effect change in our current system.

[vulcanlogician]

The problem with Plato's system is that any elitist system degenerates into a hereditary system very quickly. Yes the first set of rulers will be a true elite (for the sake of this argument) but what happens two or three generations down the line when their descendants, brought up in the luxury of the ruling class and turn out on testing not to be up to the standard?

Plato doesn't address this problem, he ignores it.  He believes the self perpuating elite would voluntarily give up its position and privilege rather than what every elite has done through history and perpetuate their position they enjoy.

My opinion of the perfect illustration of the eventual outcome  is the view given of the Inner Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Oh yeah man, if you read Book II of the Republic, it's 1984 from the git-go. I'd rather live under Stalin than Plato. As a blueprint for a government, Plato's republic sucks. But I do think that examining the blueprint itself can disclose the value of leaders being guided by reason and knowledge. Plato is also anti-democracy. While I support democracy, I think Plato has provided some valuable insights as to its shortcomings. Those of us who live under democracy would be wise to pay attention to his criticisms.

But all-in-all, I have to agree with what you've said. The Republic is a solution that is worse than the problem it solves.