On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:54:22AM -0500, Bartning@aol.com wrote:

My two cents:

Actually, Plato thought democracy was a step below oligarchy in _The Republic_, one step above anarchy. Remember, his good friend Socrates, the main character in the book, was killed by a true democracy. He argues, as does Madison in the _Federalist Papers_, that pure democracy has very serious flaws. It should be "devolved" to democracy, though democracy also provides freedom and has its place, and we should remember Plato's republic also had "philosopher kings."

Plato's Republic was not essentially dissimilar to Soviet Communism; the main difference is that the Soviets at least payed lip service to democracy and the value of the working class. Russell on Plato:

It has always been correct to praise Plato, but not to understand him. This is the common fate of great men. My object is the opposite. I wish to understand him, but to treat him with as little reverence as if he were a contemporary English or American advocate of totalitarianism. [...]

But even if we suppose there is such a thing [in government] as "wisdom," is there any form of constitution which will give the government to the wise? It is clear that majorities, like general councils, may err, and in fact have erred. Aristocracies are not always wise; kings are often foolish; Popes, in spite of infallibility, have committed grievous errors. [...]

The problem of finding a collection of "wise" men and leaving the government to them is thus an insoluble one. That is the ultimate reason for democracy.

Please remember that (if we are to believe the dialogue) Socrates could have fled, but chose to drink the hemlock out of respect for the authority of Athenian government. Even where the state murders to censor critics, its dictates are not to be resisted. That is the mentality of Plato.

I won't touch on whether Athens was "true democracy."