The Argument for Good Government

The Argument for Good Government

As an American citizen I already have biased views relative to what makes a good government. Furthermore, as someone who would be classified as a Liberal, my thoughts on what make good government would vary widely from a mouth breathing conservative drone like Rush Limbaugh. Yet, I am tasked to analyze the political views of three historically relevant philosophers, Confucius, Aristotle and Plato, and from this derive some sort of vision of what I think constitutes an ideal government. Fortunately, I discovered a very modern and humanistic approach to government that can endure over time with the exception of some of Plato’s ideas about Socratic Philosophy. The objective of a good government, in general, is to serve society. If we observe Aristotle’s empirical methodology, Confucianism and Socratic philosophy, good government can be accomplished by maintaining a blend of three principle tenets: preservation of order, earning the respect of the people, and upholding justice via the search for truth.

Above all, government’s role is to preserve order in society. Plato and Aristotle make excellent points supporting this concept. Plato’s views really speak effectively to the failures of societal extremes like anarchy and tyranny while Aristotle’s ideas hit the mark addressing balance of power. So, first we must look at the two extremes of government. Society cannot thrive in the midst of chaos nor can it survive with a boot on its neck. There are no examples of anarchic mass societies in history, so that will give all the insight we need into its practicality. On the other hand, the most detestable aspects of government are when a society exists to serve the desires of a tyrant. Tyrannical regimes are doomed to fail or flounder under people like Saddam Hussein Muammar Gaddafi. As Plato asserted, even if democracy is given the opportunity it will “evolve into anarchy which will pave the way to tyranny” (Plato, 85). Pure democracy in this case is a government absolutely ruled by the people where “every man will arrange his manner of life to suit his pleasure.” (Plato, 86) Pure democracy in Plato’s eyes is not an ideal form of government and cautions his audience on the perceived virtues of liberty. Democracy promises to deliver liberty to citizens and as nice as it sounds in theory, Plato cautions against it. Liberty, according to Plato via Socratic Philosophy, will make society resist any type of control that is asserted onto them, “the citizens become so sensitive that they that they resent the slightest application of control and in their resolve to have no master.” (Plato, 86) In Plato’s mind, anarchy is sure to follow. Although Plato’s assertions are not based in fact, I will agree that a pure democratic system will eventually fall into chaos. If everyone is allowed to do what they like, “his life is subject to no order or restraint, and he has no wish to change and existence which he calls pleasant, free and happy.” (Plato, 86)

While I vehemently disagree with most of Plato’s views on a Philosopher King which I find elitist, presumptuous, factually vacant and devoid of diversity of thought, there were some elements of such as “the love of truth and hatred for falsehoods” (Plato, 82) found in Plato’s Socratic musings that were valid. Plato even said it himself that he “views a tyrant as a slave to his own passions” (Plato, 85). Whether you’re passionate about having all the wisdom in the world or lining your pockets with gold, according to Plato, this behavior is symptomatic of a tyrant. Plato was entirely too passionate and convinced of the riotousness of Socrates so his credibility here is tainted. Please allow me to digress.

The question remains, if not democracy then “where ought the sovereign power of the state to reside?” (Aristotle, 88) What is the best way to maintain order in society? Plato effectively illustrated the inherently entropic aspect of pure democracy but Aristotle poses that a government supported by the people is an ideal mechanism to preserve order. Socrates dared to make these pompous suppositions about society’s capabilities and conclude that a Philosopher King was more feasible than another type of government without a single shred of evidence, “…we have dared to assert, ought to be our rulers.” (Plato, 82) All Socrates had to support his statements was to have his eternal “Yes-Man” Cloucon nod his head in affirmation in a weak, simple minded attempt to validate what he was saying. Aristotle took an empirical approach and actually did some research by “studying the constitutions of 158 Greek states” (Aristotle, 87) and used this evidence as the basis for his argument before opening his big mouth.

Aristotle believed that effective government had to be balanced where power rested in the middle and the majority ruled, “The majority ought to be sovereign.” (Aristotle, 89) Aristotle valued diversity of thought and believed “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and “For where there are many people, each has some share of goodness and intelligence.” (Aristotle, 89) Plato, in contrast, believed that common people are “indulgent of pleasure” (Plato, 89) and ignorant or unwilling seekers of truth, “he will shut the gates of the citadel against the messengers of truth.” (Plato, 89) According to Aristotle, what Plato failed to realize is that when you combine society’s cumulative strengths they outweigh their individual weaknesses, “When these are brought together, they become as it were one multiple man with many pairs of feet and hands and many minds. So too in regard to character and powers of perception.” (Aristotle, 90) Furthermore, Aristotle concludes that order in society rests in the middle with the majority, “The middle class is also the steadiest element, the least eager for change.” (Aristotle, 90) This sentiment still holds true today in America where it’s a generally accepted idea that the government is largely influenced by the interests of the middle class. Order rests with the middle class. When leaders act against the middle class, the middle has the power in numbers to influence governmental change thereby restoring order.

In tyrannies, the tyrant acts irrationally and commands the respect of his subjects. The second