In Socrates' anonymous thought experiment about a city, as described by Plato, none of the social classes has as much intrigue as that of the guards . Appointed by Socrates as either militaristic defenders or rulers from birth, depending on which subsect the individual guardian belongs to, they nevertheless enjoy less freedom and material satisfaction than those they protect. However, this implies that Socrates believes that justice arises at least in part from servitude and personal denial of conventional comfort, although the forced nature of both raises serious questions about the true veracity of the guardians' just nature. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The most remarkable facet of the guardian establishment put forward by Socrates is their Smurfian, proto-communist social structure. The strict limitations and mandates placed on guardians are also the most apparent structural anomaly, at least when viewed through the prism of our own culture and society. Socrates' first statement is that no guardian "should own private property unless it is necessary." By denying the guardian class their natural right to property, Socrates likely forces them to derive satisfaction from a seemingly viable source of internal self-satisfaction which, in turn, derives its "power" from knowing that the city is protected. Denial of ownership also depersonalizes individual guardians, which in turn defuses or mitigates any potential uprising. For, without material possessions, their primary loyalty cannot waver to the state, and the protection of private property is replaced by the protection of the state status quo, because the former is practically non-existent. And since property rights can truly be considered the cornerstone of human rights themselves, Socrates not only denies them private property, but he dehumanizes them by transforming them into a faceless mass designated to watch over the city. Thus, it can be argued that by denying property, Socrates made each individual guardian an expendable entity whose sole purpose is to preserve the sanctity of the state and propagate to achieve the same goals. As a natural extension of the denial of private property to guardians, Socrates then demands that no individual may have “a habitation or storehouse into which all who wish cannot enter.” This is, of course, a further reinforcement of Socrates' proto-communist social structure, designed specifically for the guards. However, with this new clarification on exactly how much private property guardians are permitted to consider "their own," Socrates also cements the concept that guardians must be true servants of the state, to the point that 'they must sacrifice themselves. the basic human rights that they themselves protect, even if it is the protection of the rights of citizens rather than of themselves. This is probably Socrates' idea of ​​the ideal and ultimate politician, one who sacrifices himself for the state and all its citizens. We can therefore only assume that Socrates would be disappointed with the current situation in relation to the relative level of comfort enjoyed by our politicians, or modern-day gatekeepers, compared to citizens or commoners (consistent with the ideal city/current American society comparison). ). Although this only takes into account the ruling subsect of guardians, the military could arguably be considered more in line with Socrates' code of guardianship. One ofSocrates' final mandates could also be considered the most esoteric, while also being the most difficult to accept. This is also a multi-faceted project, although it revolves around the propagation of the guardian class. In a complex and painstakingly detailed plan, laden with Freudian implications, Socrates establishes that not only are women to be considered equal to men, but all wives and children are to be "common" to all other guardians. The concept put forward by Socrates, that men and women are capable of carrying out the duties required of guardians with equal efficiency and effectiveness, was, unsurprisingly, found to be the most controversial by those to whom he addressed the 'era. However, rather than immediately objecting to female equality on the basis of their physical or mental abilities, Socrates' philosophical compatriots primarily dispute the implication that women, being equal, will then be permitted (or rather required) to exercising naked with men, as was apparently the custom at the time (Plato 86). Detractors continue this reasoning, specifying that it is not necessarily naked exercise that they are contesting, but rather the observation of naked exercise by women of “advanced age” (Plato 86). Socrates, to his credit, quickly dismisses this argument as frivolous and superficial, and says that "the wives of our guardians must undress for their exercises, inasmuch as they will put on virtue instead of robes." The objections continue and mainly concern more conventional claims against gender equality, but these are also astutely rejected by Socrates. As a follow-up, Socrates then proposes that all wives and children be held “in common” by the entire community of guardians. The most logistically difficult facet of this plan is the joint wives aspect, and Socrates therefore proposes that marriages should not be determined by the individuals involved, but rather it is in the best interest of the city that “the best of both sexes be brought”. together as often as possible. " To this end, Socrates establishes that "certain festivals" will take place, during which predetermined matings of the "best" guardians will take place, in order to ensure purity and excellence in the guardian class, the least excellent of guardians being otherwise prohibited from sexual interaction. While the opinions of Socrates' entourage at these ceremonies primarily concerned questions of logistics, it is easy, looking at the proposition through a modern lens, to see how Socrates' concept of the coupling of excellence only could be used to endorse a eugenics-like program whereby "undesirables" are slowly eliminated from the gene pool via the process of predetermined sexual intercourse. One of the last commandments of Socrates concerning the living conditions of the guardian class is that the children born from the couplings organized during the festivals will be considered as the children of the entire community, without any child knowing the identity of his or her parents. parents, and vice versa. (Plato 92). This draws a curious parallel with modernity, particularly with Hillary Rodham Clinton's book It Takes a Village, in which the former First Lady offers a more metaphorical version of holding all children together, which certainly raises questions about other lifestyles “enjoyed” by the guardians Mrs. Clinton might marry. However, almost worryingly, Socrates is very specific in the logistical process of keeping children together, going from allowing only "imperfect children"..