Beuk VIII

Socrates - Glaucon

An' so, Glaucon, we've come tae the conclusion that in the perfect state wives an' weans are tae be shared; an' that aw education an' the things tae dae wi' war an' peace are aa shared an aw, an' the best philosophers an' the bravest warriors are tae be their kings?

That wis agreed, replied Glaucon.

Aye, I said; an' we've forby agreed that the leaders, whan they're appyntit themselves, will tak their sodjers an' put them in hoosies that are like the ones we were describin', that are shared bi aw an' contain naethin' private or belongin' tae individuals; an' aboot their stuff, ye mind whit we agreed?

Aye, I mind that nae yin wis tae hae any o' the ordinary things fowk awn; they were tae be warrior athletes an' guardians, receivin' frae the ither fowk in the city, instead o' annual payment, only their keep, an' they were tae look efter themsels an' the hail state.

Richt, I said; an' noo that this part o' oor job is finished, lat's try an' find the bit whan we went aff on a wee tangent, sae we can get back on the richt track.

There's nae bother gettin' back; ye implied, then as noo, that ye had finished describin' the state: ye said that sic a state wis guid, an' that the man wis guid who wis like it, although, as it appears noo, ye had even mair excellent things tae tell aboot baith the state an' the man. An' ye said further, that if this wis the true form, then the ithers were wrang; an' o' the wrang forms, ye said, as I mind, that there were fower main anes, an' that their weaknesses, an' the weaknesses o' the fowk that matched them, were worth considerin'. Whin we had seen aw the different sorts o' fowk, an' finally agreed on wha wis the best an' wha wis the worst o' them, we were tae consider whether the best wisnae an aw the happiest, an' the worst the maist miserable. I asked ye whit were the fower forms o' government that ye spoke o', an' then Polemarchus an' Adeimantus put in their twopence worth; an' ye stairtit again, an' here we are noo.

Yir memory is spot on, I said.

Then, like a wrestler, he replied, ye need tae put yersel back in the same position; an' let me ask the same questions, an' gie me the same answer that ye were juist gaun tae gie me then.

Aye, if I can, I will, I said.

I wid especially like tae hear whit were the fower constitutions ye were speakin' o'.

That question's easy tae answer: the fower governments o' whilk I spoke, as far as they hae distinct names, are, first, those o' Crete an' Sparta, that are generally weel-likit; whit is kent as oligarchy comes next; this isnae as weel-liked, an' is a form o' government that's full o' problems: thirdly, democracy, that naturally follows oligarchy, although it's quite different: an' last comes tyranny, big an' famous, that differs frae them aw, an' is the fowerth an' warst disorder o' a state. I dinnae ken, dae ye? o' any ither government that can be said tae hae a distinct character. There are lordships an' principalities that are bought an' selt, an' some ither wey o' governin' in between. But these are difficult tae categorise an' can be foond amang Greeks an' barbarians alike.

Aye, he replied, we certainly hear o' mony strange forms o' government that exist amang them.

Did ye ken, I said, that governments change as the dispositions o' men change, an' that there maun be as mony o' the one as there are o' the ither? For we cannae suppose that States are made o' oak an' rock, an' no oot o' the human natures that are in them, an' that in a wey turn the scale an' influence ither things?

Aye, he said, the States are as the men are; they come oot o' human characters.

Then if the constitutions o' States are five, the dispositions o' individual minds will an aw be five?

Absolutely, that's whit we should dae.

We've already described the fella wha reflects the aristocracy, an' wha we richtly call juist an' guid.

We hae.

Noo then, let's gang on an' describe the inferior sort o' characters, the ones wha are argumentative an' ambitious, wha are like the Spartan government; an' then the oligarchical, democratical, an' tyrannical types. Let's put the maist juist man right next tae the maist unjust yin, an' whan we see them we'll be able tae compare hoo happy or miserable the life o' someone who lives a life o' pure justice or pure injustice is. Then oor enquiry will be finished. An' we'll ken whether we should chase efter injustice, like Thrasymachus says we should, or if we should choose justice, as the argument seems tae be sayin'.

Certainly, he replied, we must dae as you say.

Shuid we stick wi' oor auld plan, the yin we came up wi' tae try an' mak things clear, o' lookin' at the state first an' then gaun on tae the individual, an' start wi' the government o' honour? I dinnae ken o' any ither name for sic a government than timocracy, or maybe timarchy. We can compare this tae the same kind o' character in a single person; an' then, efter that, consider the oligarchical man; an' then again we'll turn oor attention tae democracy an' the democratical man; an' last o' aw, we'll go an' gie a look at the city o' tyranny, an' ance mair hae a look intae the tyrant's soul, an' try tae come tae a satisfactory decision.

That wey o' lookin' at it an' decidin' things will be awthocht suitable.

First then, I said, let's look intae hoo timocracy (the government o' honour) comes aboot oot o' aristocracy (the government o' the best). Clearly, aw chyanges in government come aboot whan the fowk who are actually in charge split up; a government that's united, even if it's wee, cannae be moved.

Very true, he said.

In whit wey then will oor city change, an' hoo will the twa classes o' helpers an' rulers disagree amang themsels or wi' each ither? Shuid we, in the same wey as Homer, pray tae the Muses tae tell us 'hoo discord first arose'? Shuid we imagine them, juist for a laugh, tae play an' joke wi' us like we were weans, an' speak tae us in a posh an' serious voice, pretendin' they're bein' deid serious?

Hoo would they speak tae us?

Aye, we can tak it their answer is richt.

Weel then, o' course it is, I said. How could the Muses lee?

Whit dae the Muses say niest?

Here's how it goes: A city set up this wey is unlikely tae be shaken. But, since everything that has a beginnin' also has an end, even a government like yours winna last forever, but will eventually crumble. And this is hoo it'll crumble: In plants that grow in the grund, as well as creatures that move aboot on it, there comes a time when they cannae produce any mair, whether it be nae mair bairns or nae mair fruit. This happens when a certain cycle is complete, which is short for some things and lang for ithers. But even wi' all the wisdom and learnin' o' yer rulers, they winna be able tae figure oot the cycles o' human fertility. These laws cannae be discovered bi even the cleverest minds, and they'll end up havin' weans whan they shouldnae. Noo, something that's created by the gods has a lifespan that can be expressed as a perfect nummer, but human lifespans are different. They're based on a nummer that involves squarin' and cubin' things [i.e. multiplyin' them by themsels twice and three times] which creates three intervals and fower terms that are either similar or different, growin' and shrinkin' numbers, that somehow mak aw the bits fit thegither. (Aye, this bit's definitely a tourie!  It's a passage heavy on maths and geometry that even in English is hard to grasp. Here's a try at conveyin' the general idea: The text talks about combinin' numbers and shapes in a specific way. Apparently, this results in two special kinda patterns. One is like a square, but a hundred times bigger. The other is long and thin, made up of a hundred smaller squares arranged in a certain way. There's a lot about perfect numbers and stuff here that's quite tricky. The main point seems to be that if the leaders don't understand these complex calculations, they'll mess up when it comes to havin' bairns. - Editor) This nummer [referring to the complex mathematical formula] is supposed to represent a special shape that controls whit bairns will be good and whit bairns will be bad. If yer leaders dinnae understand how births work and marry folk off at the wrong time, then the weans they have will be neither strong nor lucky. Even if they choose the best people to be guardians, these folk won't be good enough to replace their fathers. When they come to power, they'll forget about us Muses first by neglectin' music. This neglect will quickly spread to gym class as well, and so the young men of your city will become less well-rounded. In the next generation, even worse leaders will be chosen because they've lost the ability to see the true nature of the different classes of people in your society. These classes are like the metals Hesiod talked about – gold, silver, brass and iron. When the wrong people are mixed together, like iron with silver or brass with gold, you get inequality, unfairness and a right mess. This, according to the Muses, is always the root cause of arguments and wars, no matter where they happen. That's their answer to us.

Aye, and we can tak it their answer is richt.

Weel then, o' course it is, I said. How could the Muses lee (lie)?

Whit dae the Muses say niest (What do the Muses say next)?

Whin arguments an' ambition arose, then the twa classes were drawn different ways: the ambitious and greedy types (the iron and brass anes) gaed efter gatherin' siller and land and big hooses and gold and silver; but the ones wha were naturally wise and just (the gowd and silver races), no wantin' siller but havin' true value inside them, aimed tae be guid fowk and live the wey things uised tae be done. There wis a battle atween them, and finally they agreed tae divide up their land and hooses amang individual fowk. They enslaved their previous friends and the fowk wha used tae look efter them, wha they had kept free afore, and made them subservient and servants. And they themsels went off tae fight and keep an ee on the ithers.

I believe that you've gotten the richt idea aboot whit caused the chynge (change).

An' the new government that comes oot o' this will be a mix o' oligarchy and aristocracy?

Absolutely.

That's whit'll happen, an' efter the chynge has been made, how will they gang on? Clearly, the new state, bein' a mix o' oligarchy and the perfect state, will partly follow yin (one) an' partly the ither, and will an aw hae some things that are unique tae it.

True, he said.

In the honour gien tae rulers, in the warrior class no bein' involved in fermin', crafts, or tred in general, in havin' common meals, an' in payin' attention tae gymnastics an' sodjer trainin' - in aw these respects this state will resemble the previous yin (one).

True.

But whaur it differs is in their fear o' lettin' philosophers be in charge, because proper philosophers are hard tae find these days. Instead, they turn towards fiery an' less complex characters, mair suited for war than peace. They value military tricks and bein' constantly at war - this is whit makes this state truly different.

Aye.

Aye, I said; an' chiels o' this ilk will be greedy for siller, like fowk wha bide in oligarchies; they'll crave gowd an' siller like a sickness, st stashin' it awa in secret places, wi' their ain private hoards an' treasuries tae hide it aw. They'll big braw castles, like neests for their treasures, an' spend a fortune on their wives or ony ither lass they tak a fancy tae.

Aye, that's absolutely true, says he.

Thir leaders are greedy acause there's nae proper gate for them tae get the siller they crave. They steal ither fowk's wealth tae satisfy their desires, like wee laddies rinnin' awa' frae the law, their faither. They were never schooled in proper self-control, only force. They steered clear o' the true Muse, the yin that gangs haund-in-haund wi' reason an' philosophy, an' valued joustin' mair than music.

There's nae doot, says he, this government ye describe is a mix o' guid an' ill.

Aye, there's definitely a wheen o' baith, I said, but there's yin thing that stands oot mair nor onything else - a drouth for competition an' pooer. An' that's aw doun tae the strang emotions an' fiery spirits that are so common.

Absolutely, he said.

That's the basic idea o' this state, a sketch rather than the full picture. We dinnae need a' the details, juist enough tae see the difference atween the maist just an' the maist unjust governments. Tae gang through every single type o' state an' every kind o' person wid tak a lifetime.

True enough, he replied.

So, what like o' fella wid fit this government? Hoo did he come tae be, an' what's he like?

Aye, that's the sort o' chiel that fits a timocracy (a government run by sodjers).

I reckon sae tae, said Adeimantus. Their competitive spirit is certainly like Glaucon's.

Maybe a wee bit, I said, but there's ither gates they're different.

Hoo's that?

Weel, they sud be mair confident an' less cultured, yet still appreciate the finer things. They're guid listeners but no that keen on talkin' themsels. This can mak them a bit rough wi' their servants, unlike someone wha's weel-edicated, wha thinks themsels ower grand for that. But they'll be braw tae free fowk an' real guid at followin' orders. They crave pooer an' respect, thinkin' they deserve tae be leaders no acause they're great speakers or onything like that, but acause they're sodjers an' hae focht bravely. They luve trainin' for war an' huntin' as well.

Aye, that's the kind o' person that gangs wi' a timocracy.

Aye, thir fowk micht look doun on riches when they're young, but as they get a bit aulder, they get mair an' mair drawn tae them. That's acause there's a wee bit o' greed in their nature, an' they havena fully dedicated themsels tae bein' virtuous. They've tint their best protection.

Aye, wha wis that than? spiered Adeimantus.

Philosophy, I said, mushed up wi' music. Whin thir things are pairt o' somedy, it's the only wey they can bide virtuous their hale life.

A guid point, he said.

Sae that's a young timocrat, an' they're juist like the timocratic state itsel.

Juist sae.

Here's hoo they come aboot: Oftentimes, they're the younger sons o' serious fathers wha live in a city wi' puir leadership. The fathers steer clear o' positions o' pooer an' cannae be bothered wi' lawsuits or onything like that. They wid rather gie up their richts than cause a fuss.

But hoo dis the son turn oot this wey?

The son starts tae develop his character whin he hears his mither naggin' that her husband has nae role in the government. Because o' that, she feels she disnae get the respect she deserves compared tae ither weemen. She an aa sees her husband no carin' much aboot siller, an' instead o' fechtin' an' arguin' in court or meetings, he juist accepts whitsoever happens. She sees he's aye focused on himsel an' disnae pay much attention tae her. This annoys her, an' she tells her son that his faither's only half a man an' far ower easygoin'. She wid likely fire in a hale wheen o' ither greivances aboot her ain treatment, like mithers often dae.

Aye, that's richt, Adeimantus said, thir mithers are a richt nag an' their gripes are aboot as subtle as a brick tae the heid.

An' ye ken, I said, that even the auld servants, the yins supposed tae be leal tae the faimily, will sometimes hae a wee blether wi' the son ahin his parents' backs, sayin' the same things. If they see somedy wha owes his faither siller or wrangs him in ony wey, an' the faither disnae tak them tae court, they'll tell the young lad that whin he grows up he should get his revenge on thir fowk an' be a tougher man than his faither. A' the young fella needs tae dae is step ootside an' he'll hear an' see the same thing: fowk wha juist mind their ain business in the city are seen as simpletons an' get nae respect, while the busybodies wha stick their noses in everything get aw the praise. Sae the young man, hearin' an' seein' aw this – his faither's words on yin hand, an' a closer look at his wey o' life, then comparin' him tae ithers – gets pulled in twa different directions. While his faither is tryin' tae cultivate the logical pairt o' his saul, everyane else is encouragin' his emotions an' desires. The lad's no naturally bad, but acause o' the company he keeps, he eventually ends up somewhere in the middle, giein' up control o' himsel tae this middle grund o' argumentativeness an' passion. He becomes arrogant an' ambitious.

Sounds like ye've nailed his backstory perfectly, I said.

Sae noo we've got the second type o' government an' the second type o' person, hae we no?

Aye, that's richt.

Niest, let's tak a look at anither fella who, as the playwrite Aeschylus said,

Is set over against another State; or rather, as oor plan requires, let's start wi' the State itsel.

Absolutely.

I reckon oligarchy comes niest in line.

An' whit wey o' government is an oligarchy?

It's a government whaur everything's decidit based on hoo much wealth ye hae. The rich fowk hae aw the pooer, an' the puir fowk hae nane.

I see whit ye mean, he replied.

Shoudnae I start bi describin' hoo a timocracy chynges intae an oligarchy?

Aye, that's richt.

Weel, I said, it disnae tak a genius tae see hoo yin turns intae the ither.

Hoo dis that happen?

Whin a wheen o' fowk start hoardin' a massive amount o' gowd for themsels, it ruins the timocracy. They come up wi' aw sorts o' gates tae spend their siller that are against the law. Whit dae they or their wives care aboot the rules?

Absolutely.

An' then whin yin person sees anither gettin' rich, they try tae keep up wi' them. This maks a lot mair citizens obsessed wi' makin' money.

That maks sense.

An' the mair they focus on makin' a fortune, the less they care aboot bein' virtuous. It's like pittin' riches an' virtue on opposite sides o' a steelyard – the mair yin goes up, the ither goes doun.

True.

An' the mair the state respects rich fowk an' riches, the less respect there is for virtue an' virtuous fowk.

Och, that's clear.

An' whit fowk respect, they try tae be guid at. Whit they dinnae respect, they neglect.

That's obvious.

Sae in the end, instead o' lovin' competition an' glory, fowk become obsessed wi' trade an' siller. They respect an' admire the rich fowk, makin' them the leaders, an' dishonorin' the puir.

That's exactly whit happens.

The niest step is a law that says ye need a certain amount o' siller tae be a citizen. This amount can vary dependin' on hoo strict the oligarchy is. They winnae lat onyone wha disnae hae enough gowd hae ony say in the government. They'll use force or threats tae mak thir chynges tae the law.

Absolutely true.

An' that, generally speakin', is hoo oligarchies come tae be.

Aye, that's richt, but whit are the features o' this kin o' government, an' whit are the flaws we were talkin' aboot?

First o' aw, I said, think aboot the hale idea o' property bein' a requirement. Imagine if we chose ship captains based on hoo much wealth they had, an' refused tae lat a puir man steer the ship even if he was a better sailor?

They'd crash the ship, widnae they?

Aye, an' widnae the same be true for governin' onything?

Makes sense tae me.

Except maybe a city? Or wid ye include a city?

Och, a city's the maist important example o' aw, since runnin' a city is the biggest an' maist difficult job there is.

So that wid be the first major flaw o' an oligarchy, then?

Clearly.

An' here's anither big problem, just as bad as the first yin.

Whit's that?

The inevitable division. This kin o' state isn't really yin state, it's twa. There's the state o' the puir fowk, an' the state o' the rich fowk. They bide in the same place but they're aye plottin' against ilk ither.

That's definitely juist as bad, if no waur.

Anither shameful feature is that, for the same reason, they cannae properly fecht a war. Aither they airm aw the common fowk, an' then they're mair feart o' them than the enemy. Or, if they dinnae ca' on them tae fecht, then they're truly oligarchs – there's only a fiew o' them tae rule an' a fiew tae fecht. An' at the same time, their love o' siller maks them unwilling tae pay taxes.

Och that's a disgrace!

An' as we were sayin' afore, unner a government like this, the same fowk hae far ower mony jobs – they're fermers, tradesfolk, warriors, aw at the same time. Dis that soun richt?

Not at aw.

There's anither problem, maybe the waurst yin o' aw, an' it's the first kin o' trouble an oligarchy can face.

Whit kin o' trouble?

Weel, somedy micht sell everything they ain, an' anither person micht buy it aw up. But then the first person is still stuck livin' in the city, even though they're nae langer really a pairt o' it. They're no a tradefolk, a craftsperson, a horseman, or a sodjer ony mair – they're juist a puir, helpless saul.

Aye, that's anither problem that first shows up in this kin o' state.

An' oligarchies definitely dinnae stop it frae happenin' – they hae baith the super rich an' the utterly puir.

True.

But think aboot it again: Back whan this fella wis rich an' spendin' aw his siller, wis he ony mair uiss tae the state as a citizen? Or did he juist seem like a member o' the rulin' class, even though he wisnae really a ruler or a subject, juist a waster?

Like ye say, he seemed like a ruler, but wis really juist a spendthrift.

Sae could we say he's like a drone in a hoose, the same wey a drone bee is a pest in a hive? Yin plagues the city, the ither plagues the honeycomb.

Exactly, Socrates.

An' ye ken, Adeimantus, God made aw the fleein' drones withoot stingers, but some o' the walkin' drones he made withoot stingers an' some wi' nasty yins. The yins withoot stingers are the fowk wha end up as puir auld codgers. The yins wi' stingers are whaur aw the criminals come frae, as they say.

Absolutely richt, he said.

Sae that means whenever ye see a wheen o' puir fowk in a state, somewhere nearby there maun be a hidden den o' thieves, pickpockets, temple robbers, an' aw sorts o' ither criminals.

Makes sense.

Weel, I said, an' widnae ye say there's a lot o' puir fowk in oligarchies?

Aye, nearly everyone except the rulers is puir.

An' could we safely say that there's an aa a lot o' criminals in thir places, scoundrels wi' nasty stingers that the authorities keep in check wi' force?

Certainly, we could say that.

The reason thir kin o' fowk exist is acause o' a lack o' education, bad upbringing, an' a government that's rotten tae the core.

True.

Sae that's the basic structure an' the problems o' an oligarchy. There's likely a hale lot o' ither problems as weel.

Very likely.

Sae then, oligarchy, or the government whaur the rulers are picked acause they're rich, that's done for noo. Let's move on tae the kin o' fella that fits this state.

Sounds braw.

Disnae the timocratic fella chynge intae the oligarchic type in this wey?

Hoo dis that happen?

Weel, the son o' a timocratic chiel starts aff bi tryin' tae be juist like his faither an' follow in his fitbaurs. But then yin day he sees his faither suddenly stummer an' fa' agin the state, like a ship hittin' a hidden reef. A'thing his faither has is tint. Maybe he wis a general or some ither heich official who gets put on trial acause o' lees some niffer made up. They micht kill him, or chuck him oot o' the city, or tak awa his richts as a citizen an' aw his bits an' bobs.

Absolutely, that's likely tae happen.

An' the son has seen aw this happen an' kens it weel. He's ruined, an' this fleg has teached him tae chuck ambition an' passion richt aff the throne o' his heart. Bein' brocht low bi puirtith, he throws himsel intae makin' siller. Throu tightfisted savin' an' hard graft, he biggs himsel a fortune. Isnae it likely that sic a fella wid pit greed an' desire on the toom throne an' lat it rule him like a michty king, wearin' a fancy croon, gowd chains, an' a swurd?

Absolutely true, he replied.

An' yince he's made reason an' spirit sit doun obediently on either side o' their new king, an' taught them tae ken their place, he forces yin pairt o' him tae only think aboot hoo tae turn wee bits o' siller intae bigger yins. He winnae alloo the ither pairt tae admire or worship onything but riches an' rich fowk, or tae be ambitious aboot onything mair nor gettin' wealthy an' hoo tae dae it.

Out o' aw the chynges somedy can gang throu, he said, there's nane faster or mair certain than an ambitious young fella turnin' intae a greedy yin.

An' the greedy fella, I said, is that the oligarchical youth?

Aye, he said. At least the person he cam frae is like the state that oligarchy cam frae.

Sae then, let's consider if there's ony similarity atween them.

Sounds braw.

First, then, they're the same in the value they pit on wealth, arenae they?

Certainly.

They're an aa the same in their stingy, hard-workin' nature. The man anerly spends siller on whit he absolutely needs, an' keeps everythin' else in check acause he thinks it's a weste.

True.

He's a bit o' a scunner wha saves every penny an' biggs himsel a nest egg. An' thir are the kin o' fowk that maist fowk praise. Isnae he a true reflection o' the state he represents?

He seems that wey tae me. At least baith him an' the state value siller highly.

Ye can see he's no a refined fella, I said.

I widnae imagine sae, he said. If he had ony education, he wid never hae pit a blin greed-monster in charge o' his hale show, or gien it the maist important role.

Excellent point! I said. But consider this: Because he lacks ony real education, widnae ye an aa agree there maun be lazy desires in him, like the yins a puir person or a rogue micht hae? Thir desires are juist kept unner ticht control by his hale wey o' life.

True.

Dis ye ken whaur ye wid need tae luik if ye widnae want tae see his rogueish tendencies come oot?

Whaur wid that be?

Ye shoud see him whan he has a braw opportunity tae act dishonestly, like if he wis the guardian o' an orphan's siller.

Aye, that maks sense.

Then it'll be clear eneuch that in his uisual dealins, the yins that mak him seem honest, he's jist forcin' his bad desires doun wi' a kind o' fake virtue. He's no actually shawin' them they're wrang, or tammin' them wi' reason. He's juist controllin' them acause o' fleg an' acause he disnae want tae lose his possessions.

For sure.

Aye, indeed, my friend, but ye'll fin' that the natural desires o' a lazy scunnerheid still exist in him aw the same, especially whan it comes tae spendin' something that isn't his ain.

Aye, an' they'll be strang in him too.

Sae the man will be at war wi' himsel. He'll be like twa different fowk, no yin. But generally, his better desires will win oot ower the waur yins.

True.

Acause o' aw this, he micht be mair respectit than maist fowk. But the true virtue o' a saul that's unitit an' harmonious will be far awa frae him an' will never come near.

I wid expect sae.

An' surely, on a personal level, the miser will be a puir competitor in the state for ony prize o' victory, or onything else that wid bring him honour. He winnae spend his siller competin' for glory. He's ower feart o' wakin' up his expensive desires an' invitin' them tae jine in the fecht. In true oligarchic fashion, he fechts wi' only a wee pairt o' his resoorces, an' the result is usually that he tynes the prize but keeps his siller.

Absolutely true.

Then there's nae doot that the miser an' siller-hoarder is the perfect example o' somedy frae an oligarchic state, is there?

There can be nae doot aboot it.

Niest comes democracy; we still need tae consider hoo an' why it arises, an' then we'll examine the ways o' the democratic man an' put him on trial.

That's oor plan, he said.

Weel, I said, an' hoo dis oligarchy turn intae a democracy? Dis it happen like this? The hale point o' this kin o' state is tae become as rich as possible, a never-endin' desire, richt?

What then?

The rulers ken their pooer comes frae their wealth, sae they winnae mak ony laws tae stop young spendthrifts frae bein' extravagant. In fact, they benefit frae thir young lads' ruin; they lend them siller wi' interest, buy up their property on the cheap, an' sae mak themsels even wealthier an' mair important.

For sure.

There's nae doot that a love o' wealth an' a spirit o' moderation can't baith exist tae a lairge extent in the citizens o' the same state. Yin or the ither will huv tae be ignored.

That's pretty clear.

An' in oligarchies, acause everyone's become so careless an' extravagant, there are often guid families who've been reduced tae beggars.

Aye, that happens aften.

An' they still bide in the city; they're there, ready tae cause trouble an' fully airmed wi' anger. Some o' them are in debt, some hae lost their citizenship richts, an' some are in baith situations. They hate an' plot against the yins wha tuik their property, an' against everyone else, an' they're desperate for revolution.

That's true.

On the ither han', the businessmen, aw hunched ower an' pretendin' no tae even see the fowk they've already ruined, stick their stinger – that is, their siller – intae somedy else wha's no watchin' oot for them. They get back the original amount mony times ower, multiplied like a faimly wi' a wheen o' weans. An' sae they mak the state fatter wi' lazy scunners an' puir fowk.

Aye, he said, there's defo a wheen o' them – that's for sure.

The problem juist gets waur an' waur like a fire birnin' oot o' control. An' the rulers winnae pit it oot, either bi makin' laws that stop fowk frae spendin' their ain siller ony wey they like, or bi ony ither wey.

Whit ither wey is there?

There's yin ither option, the neist best thing really, an' it has the advantage o' forcin' the citizens tae tak responsibility for themsels. We could mak a general rule that everyone taks a risk whanever they mak a deal wi' somedy else, an' there widnae be as much o' this shameful siller-makin', an' the problems we were talkin' aboot wid be a lot less severe in the state.

Aye, that wid defo help a lot.

Richt noo, the rulers, acause o' the reasons I juist mentioned, treat their fowk badly. An' them an' their supporters, especially the young lads in the upper class, are uised tae livin' a life o' luxury an' idleness, baith physically an' mentally. They dinnae dae onything an' cannae resist pleasure or pain.

Absolutely true.

They only care aboot makin' siller themsels, an' they dinnae care ony mair aboot bein' virtuous than a puir person dis.

Aye, exactly the same.

That's the state o' affairs they're aw in. An' aften the rulers an' their fowk micht end up in the same place, maybe on a pilgrimage or a military campaign, as fellae sodjers or sailors. Aye, an' they micht see hoo each ither behaves richt in the moment o' danger – acause whan there's danger, there's nae fleg that the puir will be looked doon on bi the rich. An' very likely the skinny, sunburnt puir man micht be fechtin' in battle richt next tae a rich fella wha's never seen the sun an' has a gut fatter wi' fancy food. Whin he sees this rich bloke puffin' an' pantin' an' completely useless, hoo can he avoid thinkin' that fellas like him are only rich acause nae yin has the guts tae tak it aw awa frae them? An' then whan they meet up in private, widnae fowk be sayin' tae ilk ither "Our warriors arenae muckle use, are they?"

Aye, he said, I'm gey aware that that's exactly whit they say.

An', juist like a sick body that can get even waur wi' juist a wee touch frae the ootside, an' sometimes even get sick aw on its ain for nae reason – in the same wey, whanever a state is weak, it's an aa likely tae get sick. There micht no be a big reason for it, but maybe yin side will bring in their oligarchic allies frae the ootside, an' the ither side will bring in their democratic allies. An' then the state gets sick an' fechts wi' itsel. It micht even tear itsel apart, even if there's nae ootside enemy.

Absolutely, that maks sense.

An' then democracy comes aboot efter the puir fowk hae beat their enemies, killin' some an' chuckin' some oot, while giein' the rest an equal skair o' freedom an' pouer. An' this is the kin o' government whaur the leaders are usually chusen bi lottery.

Aye, he said, that's the nature o' democracy, whithever the revolution happened bi force or if the rich fowk were juist ower feart an' backed doon.

An' noo, whit kin o' life dae the fowk in a democracy live, an' whit's their government like? Because the kin o' government they hae will shape the kin o' fowk they are.

Clearly, he said.

First o' aw, arenae they free? An' isnae the hale city fu' o' freedom an' frankness – a body can say an' dae whit they want?

That's whit they say, he replied.

An' whaur there's freedom, then a body can clearly order their ain life whitsoever wey they see fit?

Clearly.

Then in this kin o' state there will be the greatest variety o' different fowk?

There will be for sure.

This kin o' state seems like it micht be the fairest o' them aw then, like a braw stitched cloak wi' every kin o' flower sewn ontae it. An' juist like wimmen an' weans think loads o' different colours are the best thing ever, there are a lot o' fowk wha will think this state, aw spanglit wi' different kin o' fowk an' personalities, is the fairest state there is.

Aye.

Aye, my friend, an' there's nae better place tae luik for a wey tae govern a fowk.

Why's that?

Because o' aw the freedom they hae there – they hae a hale smorgasbord o' different constitutions tae choose frae. An' somedy wha wants tae set up a state, like we've been doin', can gang tae a democracy like they wid gang tae a market whaur they sell aw sorts o' things, an' pick oot the kin o' government that suits them best. Then, yince they've made their choice, they can use it tae bigg their ain state.

He'll defo hae plenty o' options tae choose frae.

An' there's nae need, I said, for ye tae be pairt o' the government in this state, even if ye hae the ability, or tae be governed bi somedy else if ye dinnae want tae be. Ye dinnae even hae tae gang tae war whan everyone else dis, or be at peace whan they are, if ye're no in the mood. An' there's nae law that says ye cannae haud office or be a judge if ye fancy it – ye can dae whit ye like. Isnae this wey o' life absolutely delightful, at least for noo?

For noo, aye.

An' isnae their kindness tae criminals sometimes quite charming? Huv ye no noticed hoo, in a democracy, mony fowk wha've been sentenced tae deid or exile jist carry on as normal an' walk aboot freely? The posh fowk jist strut aboot like heroes, an' nae yin even notices or cares.

Aye, he replied, there's plenty o' them that dae that.

See too, I said, the forgiein' spirit o' democracy, an' the "dinnae care" attitude aboot wee things, an' hoo it disregards aw the braw principles we solemnly declared whan we first biggit the city – like whan we said that, except for some very special fowk, there'll never be a guid man wha hasnae been roon' beautiful things since he wis a bairn, an' learned tae appreciate an' study them. Democracy juist tramples aw these grand ideas o' oors unner fit, never even thinkin' aboot the things that mak a guid statesman, an' promotin' whaever chiel claims tae be the fowk's friend.

Aye, it is a noble spirit, that's for sure.

Thir an' ither siccar likes are whit mak democracy whit it is – a charmin' form o' government, fu' o' variety an' disorder, an' giein' a kind o' equality tae everyone, whether they deserve it or no.

We ken it weel.

‍