Category Archives: FYS

This course is for my first year seminar on utopias and dystopias.

Dialogue between Plato and More

Posted on by

Plato and More meet to discuss the idea of democracy as a form of government.

 

Plato: A democracy being a proper form of government – you cannot be serious Thomas.

 

More: Yes I am quite serious. It will allow for the country to prosper and for the citizens to elect officials and create a society full of happiness.

 

P: Democracy is a joke and does not work. Look at the state and Greece and Athens right now. Does it really look like democracy is working?

 

M: The democracy that Greece has is not a true democracy and is severely corrupted. A true democracy would never be run the way Greece is.

 

P: Thomas even if you create a democracy it will fail because over time it will become corrupted.

 

M: You really need to have more faith in the members of society. You make them seem so selfish and greedy. If a proper society is created individuals will want what is best for the overall community and not just what is best for them.

 

P: You are way too idealistic. Society needs rulers who have been trained their entire life. These individuals will be taken at a young age and learn what it takes to rule and how to rule a society. These individuals will be called philosopher kings and they surely will not have their minds corrupted by this idea of democracy.

 

M: That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard Plato you make people seem like they are sheep and need a shepherd to lead them. Your perception of man disgusts me. You must have more faith in people. People will work together so that they can have an overall better way of life. Democracy is a just form of government because not only is it “a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system”(dictionary.com) but it is the way to forming a utopia.

 

P: You must have lost your mind. This is truly the most bizarre thing I have heard. I don’t understand why you have such a difficult time understanding that democracy will never work. Democracy leads to chaos because it creates class separation in which the classes will eventually clash and the poor will revolt against the individuals in power. In addition, democracy makes society veer further and further away from a utopia.

 

M: If you were truly educated as you brag that you are, Plato, than you would know from reading my book Utopia that a society is most happy when the government is not involved and citizens feel that they aren’t being ruled. Your idea of the philosopher king is creating an elitist society where only the strongest and smartest can rule. These individuals cannot relate to the common man and will not know how to rule common people because these “philosopher kings” have an unrealistic perception of society and expect more from people than they really can do.

 

P: Thomas you have made a very good point. I want to sleep on this new concept that you have made me think about. Want to meet tomorrow for lunch to discuss further?

 

M: Most certainly.

Discussion on Capitalism

Posted on by

Marx: We are gathered here today to discuss our current economic, political, and social situation.

Smith: Politics? Social situation? I’m only here to talk about economics….

Marx: Well Smith when you improve the lives of citizens, and arrange politics so that it will benefit the people, economics will also improve.

Smith: Marx I’d have to disagree. You must first improve the economy in order to improve the lives of citizens.

Marx: But Smith the history of all societies has always been a struggle between classes: the struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor! It’s more complicated than simply economics.

Simon: Do you not see the interconnection between the oppressed and the oppressor, and how they are both to blame?

Marx: No! I blame the bourgeois for all the struggles of the proletariat!

Simon: But do you not see that it is the competition which is at fault? Competition makes everyone each other’s enemies.

Marx: Are you defending the bourgeois?

Simon: It’s not that I am defending them, but I am saying that all are hurt by the division of labor. You seem to believe that all bourgeois are successful. It is very easy for one to fall from their position as bourgeois into the proletariat class. Only the people who create the cheapest and highest of quality will succeed. Not only does this create suffering for that person, but it also wastes resources. All the machines in their factory will go to waste because of the high specification. Most importantly competition takes away humanity by creating a population who are hostile to each other.

Smith: How does it make everyone each others’ enemy? Working together, especially with division of labor creates higher efficiency because you aren’t switching from one task to another, and leads to further innovation.

Simon: They are enemies because in order to succeed in a capitalist economy one must destroy another person. It leads to people deriving satisfaction from others misery.

Marx: Smith you also have to think about the effects of overproduction when division of labor leads to too much efficiency.

Smith: I do not believe that there is such a thing as being excessively productive….That’s simply counterintuitive.

Marx: But when you produce too much it will lead to a surplus.

Smith: Yes a surplus that may be used to benefit the workers! They will be able to trade or increase technology with these surpluses.

Marx: Overproduction is an epidemic!

Simon: When you produce more than can be consumed you will end up with underconsumption which will lead to lower wages for the workers, and a lower quality of life.

Smith: How does this happen simply from dividing labor, and making everything more efficient?

Marx: You must see that when you take away specialization you make it so any citizen can accomplish all jobs. Now not only do you have a surplus of goods, but also a surplus of workers. Since jobs are so simplified, many people are capable of doing them, and there are no longer specialized jobs. This leads to a giant surplus of workers which allows employers to keep lowering wages. As Simon believes that competition leads to a lack of humanity, I believe that the division of labor takes away human qualities by making laborers nothing more than an extension of the machine.

Smith: But people have always worked, why now would they be so affected by their jobs?

Marx: All of the proletariat’s energy is focused on finding work, and working enough hours to be able to feed his family. This takes away his ability to maintain family values, to the point that he must send his children to work.

Simon: But do you see how the division of labor can be harmful to both classes?

Marx: The only way the bourgeois are harmed is in the revolution by the proletariat. I am organizing today who is with me?

Smith: I’m no activist. Publishing literature is enough for me.

Simon: Me too, Marx is too much of a rebel for my liking. I’m more for writing about my ideas, not taking action, but I wish you luck.

Locked Out

Posted on by

[Karl Marx sits in the hallway of his dorm room.  Claud de Rouvroy, who goes by “Simon”, trips over Marx’s outstretched feet.]

 

K: [quickly pulls his feet back] Ooh, sorry, man!

S: [getting up] Don’t worry about it… er, what are you doing?

K: I’m locked out of my room… Adam’s MIA. Have you seen him?

S: [dropping his bag and sitting down] Nah, not since Econ this morning. I’m kind of glad, though… it got a little intense today.

K: Ha, yeah, he was getting really defensive in the class discussion.  Tonight will probably be a little awkward.

S: Well yeah, the Industrial Revolution and communism/capitalism conversations always rile people up… we were totally right, though.

K: [excitedly] Oh, I know! What was he even saying?

S: I don’t know… division of labor… laissez-faire…

K: That industry was toxic, though. He agreed with that.

S: [shaking his head] No no, he disagreed.  He thought the industrial boom was great for society. He kept talking about all the jobs and merchandise it created.

K: Well yeah, but at the expense of the workers.  The free market in the UK led to the Industrial revolution, which led to a huge gap between the rich and poor.

S: I think what Adam was trying to say was that when labor got competitive, wages went down, because everyone wanted whatever job they could ge-

K: Right, which is bad for the working class.  Low wages mean more members of a family are forced to work.  They devote so much of their time to work that hardly pays off- literally, because wages still drop.  And then on top of that, they were expendable. Anyone could learn to do their job, and they could be replaced immediately.  How does that help the working class?

S: Well it doesn’t, but he did mention afterward that on the other hand, when employers got competitive, wages went up.  Like a fluctuating cycle.  I think Adam was sort of saying that it could benefit the eco-

K: [scoffs] How?

S: [he takes a moment to see if Karl is going to continue] -…benefit the economy by stabilizing it.  The whole “division of labor” idea.  Everyone gets really good at one thing, does it really well, and production increases exponentially.  This creates a booming economy, and benefits all the citizens. [He pauses, frowning.] That’s where I really disagree, though.  What good is having a booming economy if the workers can never enjoy it?  Society doesn’t really improve if the rich, business-owning class is the only one that reaps the benefits.

K: Right, and that’s when Adam agreed that the working, proletariat citizens would realize they were being oppressed and revolt against the powerful bourgeoisie.  That would lead to a proletarian-controlled society that would then develop into a truly just Communist society, where everyone puts in equal work and receives equal resources.

S: Er… no. That’s when Adam started his spiel on how the proletariat individual doesn’t matter as much as the country as a whole.  If the country is being moved along by the progressive inventions of the working class, then it is a success.

K: [glaring] That’s what you think?

S: No! You asked what Adam thought! I’m agreeing with you.  The success of a nation can’t just be defined by its levels of production… especially if high production results in low quality of life for the vast majority of its citizens.

K: [throwing his hands up in frustration] Adam doesn’t get it!

S: [he nods, inspired by Karl’s enthusiasm] How can he understand the poor? He doesn’t even get financial aid! What does he know about hard work?

K: [He pauses, furrowing his brow] Simon, isn’t your dad an investment banker?

[Both boys are silent for a moment. No eye contact is made. Just as Simon is about to speak, a portly woman hastily rounds the corner.]

DPS Agent: [out of breath] I got a call for a lockout.

 

 

Two Old Friends Are Reacquainted

Posted on by

Thomas More and Plato, two old friends, run into one another at a Starbucks one day.

Plato: Is that—It can’t be… Thomas More?! Long time no see! How long has it been? Five years?

More: Plato! Wow good so see you, how have you been?

P: Not so good actually.  My teacher, Socrates was unjustly executed for his teachings, or as they put it “corrupting of young minds.”

M: Yeah man I heard about that. I’m so sorry. Why don’t you sit down? I’d love to catch up.

P: Sure, I’d love to! So, what are your views on democracy?

M: Very good question. I was just thinking about democracy. I, for one, think a representative democracy, with elected public officials is the way to go.  I believe that whenever an issue arises, the elected official should consult with his electors on how to proceed.

P: Hahahah oh Thomas, you always were so naïve. Haven’t you considered the implications of democracy?

M: Such as?

P: For one, with democracy comes corrupt, wealthy politicians who can practically buy their way into office.  A perfect society would function best with leaders who are educated from birth and know what is best for their country. The idea that all men are created equal is absurd. Some men are smarter and more apt than others, and clearly those should be the ones with authority.

M: But what about the majority of society and what they think? The people are the only ones who can determine who is apt to rule them, because they are the ones being ruled.  Also, how can you be so sure that everyone will be willing to fulfill their duties and contribute to society when they are not given proper representation?

P: Because everyone will work in the role best suited for him.  There is no reason to be unhappy when everyone contributes to and therefore, lives in a just and equal society.  Besides, with a democracy there is a huge imbalanced gap between the rich and the poor.  The rich people will rule and will want private property.  In democracies, people only value individual liberties and honor.  Everyone will be greedy!  There is absolutely nothing good about democracy ever.

M: Listen, I know your friend Socrates was executed and all, but get over it. There are positives to democracy that you’re completely overlooking.

(Short pause where Plato is taken aback by More’s inconsiderate and hurtful comment)

M: I’m sorry. That was uncalled for.  I was just trying to say that I don’t think you should let one event cloud your opinion. My point is, rulers who are elected by the people are bound to do what is right for the people. Not to mention, a man of the people is likely to better understand the people.

P: Hm, I guess we will never agree on this matter, best just to let it go, enjoy our coffee, and perhaps discuss less litigious subjects.

M: Yes I suppose you’re right. So, tell me, what are your views on education?

St. Simon and Smith vie for the job

Posted on by

The year is 2012, and St. Simon and Adam Smith appear in the corporate headquarters of a multi-national corporation known for its sleek computers and cell phones. Both are interviewing for the position of Chief Executive Officer. The two men acknowledge each other and sit in a terse silence while waiting to be called in to their interviews. Smith turns on CNN to lessen the tension.

St. Simon: Ha! Look at that. The employees in our China plant are revolting again. Good going on that one, Smith!

Smith: Not my problem, Simon. Capitalist systems aren’t responsible for the conditions within factories – all they ensure is one damn fine profit. Go cry to the HR department.

St. Simon: Typical Smith. Hey, you still doing that erroneous thing where you equate the accumulation of capital ensures the happiness of society?

Smith: The job of the workforce is to supply goods to the great masses of people who want them! Capitalism simply delivers the product that everyone wants in an efficient way. A capitalist society fosters the unity and cooperation of its citizens in the work force.

Simon: Pft! Capitalism divides industrialists who are driven by competition and creates separate classes of laborers and owners. It encourages egoism and degrades happiness to the triumph of one man over another.

Smith: You are mistaken. Capitalism allows wealth to trickle down to the workers, who in turn can purchase whatever they may have occasion for, cycling money back into the economy.

St. Simon: Right! That stuff didn’t work under Reagan and it won’t work here. Your stance degrades all matters of the human experience to the what a man’s got in the bank. The division of labor neglects to acknowledge the inherent worth of man, and instead reduces his role in society to that of a cog in a machine. The practice is dehumanizing and makes men a mere means to an end – the end being the accumulation of wealth in the pockets of the few at the expense of the masses. And on top of this, the industrialist becomes a worshiper of capital, a slave to material goods.

Smith: You’ve always been a bleeding heart. Without capitalism, the only thing that can be sure to be distributed equally is unhappiness and squalor. Our assembly lines increase the dexterity of the workers. By dividing labor we ensure the cooperation of laborers and increase morale. Our increased production bolsters lets more people buy our overpriced products, putting money into their economies and into my bank account. And hey, at least our workers people have jobs! If we pulled production out of China, there would be nothing for them. We’re doing a public service.

St. Simon: The division of labor eliminates the need for specialization or expertise. Any idiot can perform the job of one of our factory workers, and this makes him a slave to his employer, for he knows he can be replaced at any moment. And the division alienates the laborer from the product he is creating! You think any of the guys down on the assembly line have ever actually been able to afford what they spend all day producing? That’s the biggest hole in your logic Smith: though you speak of social unity, and the harmonization of supply and demand, the divide between the laborers and the factory owners creates a social disorder that negates any potential good that could come of the system of capitalism.

Smith: Hang on… why the hell are you even here, anyway?

Simon: I plan on nabbing the CEO position and driving this place into the ground.

Smith: Good luck with that. Hey, I heard that guy Marx from accounting has a crush on you. 

Marx’s First Day On the Job

Posted on by

Karl Marx arrives for his first day of work in a factory, only to find that Adam Smith happens to own the factory.

Marx: You’re kidding me, right?

Smith: Sorry?

Marx: I’m taking on this factory job to, you know, unite with the proletariat and stuff, and I get landed with Adam Smith as my boss. This is just too perfect.

Smith: Um…

Marx: Well, I spend every flipping day inciting workers to unite against the bourgeoisie, and actually see that they are part of one big, sad, oppressed class. And now here I am, standing across from the man that basically let the whole bourgeoisie class feel guiltless about stripping the proletariat of their humanity.

Smith: Oh, so you think I’m the reason the bourgeoisie doesn’t feel guilty about the so-called oppression of the proletariat? Actually, wasn’t it you who said that the class situation of the bourgeoisie makes them think the way they do about the world? If you really believed your own theory, you would believe it was impossible for me to have influenced their attitudes towards capitalism.

Marx: You know who I am, then? You’ve read my stuff? Aren’t we proletarians just one big, nameless commodity to you? Come on, admit it.

Smith: I would hardly call you a proletarian.

Marx: Whatever. Let’s tour the factory. Oh, do you see this assembly line? Know what it does?

Smith: Sure. Every worker’s job is reduced to a simple, small task, to the extent that their skills increase tenfold at that one, single task. Not to mention, they aren’t wasting time switching between jobs. The assembly line increases efficiency.

Marx: And you think that’s a good thing?

Smith: Certainly. Just look around the world. The most efficient industries produce the best products and generate the most revenue. Simply put, the quality of their citizens’ lives are just better.

Marx: Come on now, which citizens’ lives are you referring to? Our society only ever looks through the lens of the bourgeoisie. If we were to look through the eyes of the proletariat, we would see that the oversimplification of labor drives wages down, which in turn forces more members of each family to enter the work force. And then, what do you know, the larger work force creates more competition for jobs, which in turn further lowers wages. So tell me, who has this high quality of life to which you are referring?

Smith: Um, the country does. The country is improving and moving along. I never said anything about the quality of life of the proletariat. Anyway, wouldn’t you agree that before the division of labor, everyone was saddled with more work? In unindustrialized countries, people many different types of work, whereas here, one only needs to do one type.

Marx: Well, at least in those countries, everyone is still connected to the product of their work. No bourgeoisie is exploiting them, either; they don’t have to undersell their labor to anyone.

Smith: So you’re proposing that we go back to caveman times?

Marx: No, I’m proposing that the proletariat take control the means of production, rather than continuing to suffer under the bourgeoisie.

Smith: You make it sound so easy. Don’t you see that everyone is selfish? They’re not going to give themselves up to the cause, or let any property be “public property” like you imagine. Selfishness, by contrast, is what makes capitalism work; it’s what causes entrepreneurs to rush into good industries, and drop out when they have negative profit margins. Selfishness creates that balance between supply and demand.

Marx: Haven’t you read St. Simon? At least he thinks of how the people will suffer before balance is achieved. Anyway, I’ve got to go. I’m finally here among the proletariat, and they still haven’t achieved class-consciousness. I’ve got work to do.

Smith: Sure thing. And I’m going to go increase the efficiency of my factory. After all, I’m after profit.

Marx: Sounds amoral, man, but you’ll be powerless one day.

 

Smith: Good luck with that.

 

 

Marx and Smith

Posted on by

Sam Wittmer

 

Two men sit at the bar, each contemplating his respective drink.  Across from the two, in a booth on the other side of the dark room, a group of factory workers sits down.  It is the end of their day; the workers are tired men, wearing rags and clearly exhausted, but nonetheless making jokes and laughing.

Karl Marx:  This is truly a sad sight.  I know the pain that those ironworkers and smelters must be feeling.

Adam Smith: Why do you say that?  Surely they have jobs and are able to provide for their families.

M:  Ah, but you must see that these men are a broken people.  They are the proletariat of London.  They face constant exploitation from the bourgeoisie, who care for nothing but producing more and more.  The modern Bourgeois, forged in the wreckage of feudal society, now oppress these wage-laborers and treat their personal worth as simply an exchange value.

S:  Well, that is very strange of you to believe.  I think of it as somewhat of a—how do I put this? —Oh, I know—an invisible hand! This new division of labor that we now see greatly stabilizes the economy and increases production and advances technology.  With each one of those factory workers creating a single part of a product, they are able to produce faster, greater quantity and greater quality of products.  Thus, we must allow as much production as the markets will allow.

M:  But this division of labor has made the workingman expendable, and his masters view him as having a low exchange value.  The reason for this is that division of labor creates workers who are easily replaced by others, therefore the factory owners may pay their workers only enough to keep them alive—in this way they survive only to produce more for the bourgeois owners, and have no humanity.

S:  Let me continue on the invisible hand controlling the markets in relation to this previous statement.  Those workers will not work if they are not being given fair compensation.  This is also how the economy works—people will not buy a product if it is not a fair price.  Producers must be fair in their trade, for the market will not allow it to be otherwise.

M:  The people in fact do not have a choice of how they live.  Their sole property is their own physical labor, and this they sell to the bourgeoisie and become commodities.  The proletariat will overthrow these chains of capitalism because conditions will simply be too terrible to bear.  The proletarian revolution will bring about a Communist society where all property is held by the state with centralized production.  All will earn the same.

S:  If all people are to make the same and also have no personal property, then for what will they work?  Innovation will come to a standstill, as incentive is no longer present.  Furthermore, why do you think that these people will be able to get along?  No one will be in charge if they are all equal.

M:  They will in fact all be the proletariat and have an abundance of goods.  When there is no want of food and shelter, there will be no strife.  History is the history of class warfare—the tale of one group oppressing another.  This revolution will effectively eliminate the need for class struggle because there will be no classes.  As for order, it will be a democracy controlled by the people.

Plato: (lurking in a dark corner of the bar) But lead to tyranny, Democracy must!

S:  Who was that?

M:  I do not know but I believe it is our cue to leave.

S:  Indeed.  Well I believe I will see you again next Friday, Karl?

M: Ah, of course Adam, I do enjoy our conversations.

They exit.

 

 

 

Plato vs. More

Posted on by

Lehrer: Good evening, gentlemen. Your first topic tonight is Democracy. Plato, you go first.

Plato: Thank you, Jim. I am not and have never been a supporter of Democracy. Democracy is the result of the poor overthrowing the rich and killing or driving them out. Afterwards positions will be handed out to everyone and their cousin with no thought as to whom is fit for which job. There is complete freedom for the people. This freedom to say and do as they please will result in the population being extremely diverse, with no one filling his or her role. Soon the people get a taste for freedom and start living a life of excess. Finally the people will want even more freedom and overthrow their democratic government. The leader of the coup will be made a tyrant.

More: Plato, where is your faith in humanity? Do you not trust the citizens to be able to run their own state?

Plato: The only people fit to rule must have been trained for years in order to handle such power.

Lehrer: More, what do you think?

More: Well, in Utopia the cities are run by rulers that are elected by a group of politicians who are chosen by the people. The leaders require no training because I trust them to act in the people’s best interest.

Plato: That is why your system will never work.

More: I do not require the rulers to be trained because then it becomes a small number of educated people holding control over many, which is an oligarchy. I seem to recall you saying in Republic that an Oligarchy is bad because it results in the poor staging a revolution and forming a democracy.

Plato: That is why you must keep firm control on them.

More: If you do not allow the people their freedom then they will rise against you just as surely as if you give them too much.

Plato: That is why you must have a Philosopher- King to keep them in hand. If the people are not ruled completely they will overthrow the government.

More: That is where you are wrong. The people are More capable than you give them credit for.

Plato: We shall see whose government is overthrown first.

More: Indeed.

On Capitalism: Smith vs. St.Simon

Posted on by

(St. Simon [St S] from 1817 time-travels back to 1776 and conveniently sits next to Adam Smith [AS]  in a bar)

AS: Hello good sir, I am Adam Smith from Scotland. From where do you hail?

St S: Good day to you, I am called Claude Henri de Rouvroy but most commonly Henri de Saint-Simon of France.

AS: It is nice to meet you. Say, what are your thoughts regarding this glorious rise of industry and capitalism in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom?

St S: Glorious? It is the foremost poison of our society that exists today. This shortsighted drive for progress and profit will lead to the destruction of the economy itself!

AS: I respectfully disagree. Capitalism will be catalyst to a new era of progress from industrialism! A revolution, if you will.

St S: This revolution of which you speak may seem appealing, but you must consider the long-term results of it.

AS: The long-term results? Of course there will be long-term results! The consequence of this progress is nation-wide wealth and success on a scale only imagined in dreams!

St S: I completely disagree. How do you define this success of nations? Keep in mind the personal consequences of industry in addition to the social consequences to not only the business owners, but of families and the unemployed.

AS:  Would you not concur that the success and reputation of a nation is derived from two things: its skill with regard to labour, and of the number of citizens thus employed? Moreover, are not the recent innovations towards the de-specialization of professions the source of great production and new opportunities to work, and consequently wealth for the nation?

St S: The wealth of a particular nation need not be based solely on its productions. This individual egotism, this laissez-faire, laissez-passer mentality in industry leaves out consideration for the workers and those who are run out of business because of competition. One can hardly consider a nation holistically wealthy when the select few benefit from the toils and despairs of many.

AS: I offer a counterpoint that these successful few spur production and opportunities for labour for the good of the nation. Through the division of labour, with one labourer being skilled in a single aspect of production, the production efficiency and quality of goods will increase exponentially. As a result, the quality of life of even the poorest of families will become incomparably better over the majority of families in savage nations that suffer from poverty.

St S: I would hardly consider the cycle of all available workers rushing into the each successive industry with the promise of success efficient. It is a waste of resources; this action leads to deficiencies in the other industries while leaving countless men who have lost their jobs to your so-called innovations in industry with only the promise of future success to satiate their hunger.

AS: Your views are troubling, and they are only detrimental to the marvelous industrial revolution on which we are on the precipice.

St S: It seems we are of opposite beliefs then, and it appears that we will not be able to come a mutual understanding. I bid you farewell, but with a few parting words: remember my words in 30 years, perhaps you will see the errors in your beliefs.

Dialogue on democracy between Plato and More on a friday night over a drink.

Posted on by

Robert Ekblom

Professor Qualls

Utopias/Dystopias Seminar

 

Dialogue on democracy between Plato and More on a friday night over a drink.

 

M(ore): What is your opinion on social freedom and individual role in society?

P(lato): I believe in three classes. There will be those who rule, the warriors, and the masses. The masses will work, and will not involve themselves with ruling or responsibilities of the society, and a select group will take on the responsibility of leading the society for the good of the whole.

M: I don’t agree with your position.

P: Please, elaborate.

M: Should the masses not have a voice? A chance to raise the issues they feel are important?

P: The rulers will address the important issues, for the good of the society, without the masses rising. If people have the power of voice, that is all they need to overthrow rulers.

M: Should an able leader not take into consideration what their subjects feel or think?

P: An able leader should not need to consolidate with their subjects. An able leader knows the needs of their subjects, and does not need them to repeat their concerns.

M: I disagree. No leader can know all the wishes or concerns of their subjects.

P: So what you suggest is that the people have the option of voicing their concerns and having a role in governing the society?

M: Precisely.

P: If they have this power, can they not attempt to overthrow those in power? Can they not decide they are never content with the decisions of the rulers? Does the power you suggest not permit uprising?

M: The rulers and those in power will make decisions for the good of everyone in the society. The difference between our proposed states is that the masses in mine are able to voice the concerns that the rulers might overlook.

P: I can understand your point of overlooking issues; however, I would be concerned giving the freedom and power nevertheless. It is the responsibility of the rulers to govern the state as they see fit. The decisions the rulers make should be the final verdict, for the good of the whole. Once you permit the masses to address their concerns, you permit the masses to govern. Hypothetically, an issue arises and the masses raise the issue to those with responsibility. Should the ruler not be able to rectify the issue, the masses would begin to question their leadership, and consequently, chaos will pursue.

M: Only prosperity would pursue by allowing the masses to speak. The masses would see no reason to rise against their leaders if they are part of constructing their society. With the people having the ability to work alongside their leaders, and help in building their ideal community, the people would not rise up, solely because they would themselves be to blame for any mistakes. However, clearly we do not, and will not, see eye to eye on this matter. We should agree to disagree.

P: Agreed. How’s the wife?