Here's an essay I wrote in 1994 for my English class at RCC. This was before I really knew anything about Libertarianism, but, as you will see, I was a Libertarian already, whether I knew it or not.
For those who don't know, Plato, circa 400 BC, wrote about his teacher, Socrates, who was arrested, tried, and executed for basically being smarter than everyone else. The actual charge was "leading men astray and corrupting the young." He wasn't really executed, i guess, but he was allowed to poison himself in lieu of execution. The trial, however, is a shining example of the problems with governmemt. Even worse is that even now, 2500 years later, these problems have yet to be solved.
Socrates and the State
The trial, and subsequent death, of Socrates illustrates a struggle in which we still find ourselves in today. There is a lesson in the Crito we still have not learned; that government, and the law enforced by it, is the servant of Man, and when government ceases to serve, it is the duty of Man to change or, in more extreme cases, to overthrow it. The government in Athens was primitive and didn’t have the benefit of thousands of years of experimentation that we enjoy today. But that is no excuse for being irrational. That the court found Socrates guilty shows how much respect that Law has for Truth. That Socrates chose to accept the ultimate penalty shows the grip the government had on the minds of its subjects.
Why did Socrates choose death? The answer is not to be found in the Crito. In the Apologia, after the prosecutors asked for the death penalty and Socrates is given the chance to counter-propose, instead of asking for banishment (which would have been accepted, it is implied), Socrates, knowing he will die for it, proposes instead that he be made an honorary citizen and celebrity. Inflamed, the court gives him death, and Socrates expresses contentment. A more appropriate question might be why did Socrates choose to stay rather than escape. Socrates chose to stay because the verdict of the court, though not based in fact, was that of a legitimate court of law, with which he had ultimate respect. How he could have respect for an entity that violated his Rights for speaking his mind is beyond my comprehension.
It might be appropriate here to examine the meaning of Rights. Rights exist whether they are respected or not. They belong, equal in amount and importance, to every Human Being as the wave belongs to the ocean. Rights cannot be taken away as they are not given. They can only be infringed upon. Infringement of ones Right to liberty is enslavement. Infringement of ones right to life is murder. And when ones Rights are violated, everyone’s Rights are violated, and the violator is guilty of a crime punishable by death. Did Socrates violate someone’s Rights? They say he made the worse argument the better. If it is better, then who said it was worse? Socrates was a doctor of Wisdom. When he detected faulty reasoning, he asked questions until the right answer was agreed to by all present. This made many angry, especially those in high position. Socrates challenged the status quo and they killed him for it. No rights were violated, no crimes committed. I suppose one could say he violated people’s right to remain ignorant of their folly, but, if one wished to remain ignorant, one shouldn’t be discussing philosophy with a philosopher, should they? The State was clearly in the wrong
Did Socrates break any Laws? What are laws, anyway? Are they to be obeyed at the expense of our Rights? By definition, Laws are instituted to safeguard our Rights. Law is like the telescope with which we might view the stars. The Law does not contain the Truth as the telescope does not contain the stars. When Rights seem to conflict with each other, Laws tell us how to remedy the situation. They do not work in every situation, though, and we must sometimes use the Reason of the wise among us to sort it out. Laws are clumsy and congestive, a necessary evil in a society of individuals. Any power Laws have is equal to the willingness of the People to obey. If a member of society breaks a Law and the People decide the Law is valid, the violator deserves punishment. So did Socrates break any Laws? This is not given as a reason in the trial. Clearly Socrates could not have broken any laws as he violated no Rights. It can only be that the State misused its authority to the detriment of the very people that granted it.
If Laws safeguard our Rights, then they are always good, right? Not so. We have today many laws on the books that restrict our Rights, as if that were possible. If these Laws violate the very definition of the word, can they be Laws at all? Do we obey such a “Law” just so we don’t "destroy the foundation of society?" This is a cancer inserted among the foundations of our society by ignorant or unscrupulous legislators that will eventually cause the collapse of everything we hold dear. By passing into Law something that violates our Rights, the State is bringing about the collapse and destruction of society. Are we not obligated to leave to our children a world conducive to growth and achievement? If our lives are to be worth anything, we must fight for truth wherever we see error. Had the State realized this, they would have held Socrates up as a hero and savior of Athens. Had Socrates understood this, he would have escaped and fought to save the city he holds so dear from those who pervert the truth.
Socrates, giving voice to the Laws, says, “…Since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny …that you are our child and slave?” (838). What? Did he just say "slave?" This error stems from the mistake of thinking that the State gives us our rights, and therefore we owe something back, such as fealty and obedience. Whatever power the State has, it was given by the People who gave it life. The parent nurtures the Child, not the State. The Sate is not our Daddy, or benevolent Mother. One must think of the State as a mean, hungry dog, tied up in the backyard, and expected to bite anyone that comes in range. The dog serves to guard the valuables of it’s owner, and the owner feeds it, but must use care that the dog doesn’t bite him. And anyone who doesn't wish to be bitten need only stay out of it's circle of influence. The State is our slave because it has no inalienable rights itself. We bring it into being and we can bring it to annihilation when it ceases to serve.
Had Socrates the capacity to recognize these points, he might have acted differently. The lesson we have to learn is, that which is inherently disrespectful is undeserving of respect. A government that harms its citizens must be destroyed and scattered to the four winds and remembered so that we may not make the same mistake again. Socrates would have made a great leader in the fight to change Athens for the benefit of the children. But he drank the hemlock and deprived the city of his wisdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment