The Classical Sense of Good Government Politics plays an ex

The Classical Sense of Good Government
   Good morning, and welcome to our introductory lectures to politics. For thousands of years, people have speculated about government; What is the purpose of government? How much government is good for us? And, perhaps most importantly, if we don’t like our government’s policies, how can we change or get rid of them? More than 2,000 years ago, people started to think about these questions. Today, we are going to look at some of the classical sense about good government. I’ll tell you something about three ancient political philosophers. They are Plato, Aristotle and stoicism represented by Machiavelli.
   The first figure on my list is Plato, a political philosopher living in the 400s 13. C. Some people think it is an irony that one of the first meaningful statements of good government was written by Plato because he held strong dislike of and contempt for politics. Plato did not believe that the free political freedom could produce useful results or solve disputes. He thought that in politics the decision-making process is frequently based less on reason than on what seems to be a good idea at the moment. Moreover, the problem with politics has much to do with what politics finally produces--namely uncertain and dangerous changes.
   Plato feared and hated changes because he was aware that other disciplines, such as mathematics, are quite orderly and predictable. The correct sum of two numbers added together never changes. The fact that such a discipline is changeless, orderly, and predictable led Plato to conclude that the same sort of view ought to be applied to human society. So he preferred a harmonious society that needs no change. In order to achieve this, people must define justice properly in their society. In Plato’s most famous work, The Republic, justice consisted of each citizen doing what he or she does best by natural talent.
   The second figure is Aristotle, who is said to be a student of Plato. Early in his most famous work, Politics, Aristotle wrote that; Every state is as we see a sort of partnership, and every partnership is formed with a view to some good since all the actions of all mankind are done with a view to what they think to be good.
   Of course, Aristotle believed that population in this kind of state was relatively homogeneous; he did not foresee the ethnic and cultural diversity of most modern states. But he did fully understand that any state has to be a reflection of common interests and is the natural outcome of human association.
   Aristotle viewed the polls, or city-state, as the highest stage of human social and political development, and it can allow its citizens to find and live the good life. For Aristotle, the polis is the only place where the good life is possible, the only place where the individual can make a good life for hat’ or himself. Aristotle believed that self-respecting people would not consider living anywhere else but within the confines of political society. In his eyes, human beings are basically a gregarious species "and so even when men have no need of assistance from each other they still desire to live together."
   Once one is within the confines of the state, the critical question is how the best quality of life can be achieved. Aristotle’s formula is avoiding extremes. In a healthy society, each of us should know how much is too much to be good for us. Neither coward nor rash people can rule a state successfully. It is those who are moderate who are actually best fit to govern and be governed. Besides, extremes of wealth and poverty, Aristotle believed are probably inevitable but should be kept minimal. He recommended a large and broadly based middle class as a recipe for political stability.
   So much for Plato and Aristotle. Next we need to move on to the third figure, Machiavelli. Aristotle’s lifetime coincided with the collapse of the city state system, because the city-states could not resist the strength of the empires. By the time the Roman Empire was fully established two to three centuries later, it was becoming obvious that political philosophy must take into account a huge political entity that included a heterogeneous population as large as tens of millions. At this time Stoicism came into being.
   Stoicism means accepting whatever the situation is like. Politically, this trend viewed the world as tom between virtue and vice, and considered the world a difficult and disorderly place where personal security and happiness was unusual eases. Stoicism held that social or political rank is arbitrary and temporary, and often even a matter of luck, therefore, one Should accept one’s status, whether high or low, and do the best one Could in the role one was assigned. The same principle applies to government and governing. If it is one’s destiny to govern, one should do so without complaint. But Stoicism did provide a prescription for proper governance; a ruler should reject all temptations to pursue or enhance personal glory and wealth. Rather, the purpose of rulership is to provide service for the benefit of the entire society.
   In the sixteenth century, Nicolo Machiavelli produced The Prince. Plato and Aristotle had suggested what they believed political society should be; Machiavelli explained how political science really is and how it actually functions. He argued that no capable leader could do well by being morally good. To secure his own leadership, for example, a prince shouldn’t hesitate to wipe out both his opponent and his opponent’s family, since children who are fond of their parents may seek revenge later.
   OK, to sum up, we’ve reviewed ideas from three important political philosophers in ancient times. Plato proposed happy and changeless society, Aristotle proposed happy city-states, and Machiavelli sadly persuade people to accept their situation. These varied ideas were just the beginning of the long exploration of the nature of politics. Next time, we’ll going on to look at some other political beliefs. Thank you.