A Re-post from several years ago

In honor of Jefferson on this Independence Day,,

Link to original here.

So, in apology to Socrates, Plato and Diogenes of Synope, here goes.
Please note, this is expurgated for quicker reading I am working on a
fuller peice along the same dialogue(s) but more indepth than shown
here

Opening scene, Diogenes is sitting along his tub petting one of his many dogs when Lucretius arrives and addresses him.

L: Diogenes, why are you sitting here with these flea bitten mutts when there is a debate between the candidates at the forum?

D: Honestly, there isn’t any debate between the Narcissistic that I feel I need to hear. Why do you feel such a need?

L: The candidates for the new emperor have much to say about how our
government should be ran, and many of the social issues that are causing
strife, and what they plan on doing to fix them. These are important
topics.

D: maybe you didn’t understand what I said, Perhaps I should try a
different approach. Why is it that you feel the need for a leader? Are
you not a morally upright person, capable of thinking for yourself?
Are you not able to determine right from wrong without someone else to
decide for you?

L: well of course I am, I know its wrong to hurt others either
physically or materially. What has that to do with why you won’t go to
the debates?

D: please stick to the question. Since you are able to determine right
from wrong, why do you choose to have someone else tell you what is
right and wrong? As you said, you are capable of that yourself, are
you uncertain that your decisions are sound?

L: It’s not my decisions I question but the decisions of others that I don’t trust.

D: So we have a conundrum here. You trust your thoughts, but not those
of others, but you are encouraging the debate of others to make
decisions for you? Am I correct in that surmise?

L: What? No! I know I can make the right decisions when I need to.
But someone has to be in charge to make sure that everyone follows the
same rules. You’re putting words in my mouth.

D: I am just trying to understand your choices here. I am seeing
dichotomy in your thoughts and I don’t think you can see them. Help me
understand what I am missing. So. You don’t trust others in their
choices, but you think that putting someone in charge over everyone will
make them better at choosing correctly, is that right?

L: That may be a little simplistic, but in essence, yes, you surmise correctly.

D: and in choosing that someone, you have to rely on the decisions of others as well, Correct?

L: Well, yes, that is what democracy is all about, majority decisions for all.

D: but you have already stated you don’t trust the decisions of
others. Do you not see the contradiction here? I am just trying to
understand.

L: Someone has to be in charge or the ensuing chaos would be terrible.
Blood in the streets, rape and pillaging, hordes of barbarians would be
preferable to what would happen if there weren’t someone in charge.

D: I see, but you still haven’t resolved the contradiction. If you
don’t trust the decisions of others, how can you be satisfied with
majority rules? Furthermore, If you don’t fall into the category of
that majority, and are not inclined towards their decision, now do you
resolve to fix that dilemma?

L: Alright, this is going in a direction I wasn’t planning on, but you
seem sincere. Someone has to be in charge of the country of there will
be bigger problems than what we have. I may not like the decisions of
the majority, but I am but one person. I will accept if my candidate
does not win, because in another four years, I can try again to get the
person I do like. You have to accept the role of authority because
that is just how it is.

D: so, you don’t solve the dilemma, you just wait until the next cycle and hope you can get what you want?

L: Yes.

D: In the meantime, you accept whatever decisions are made and follow those decisions? Correct?

L: Yes, I may not like them, but that is how this works.

D: earlier, you stated that you knew it was wrong to hurt others either physically or materially, Correct?

L; (with just a hint of caution in his voice) Yes.

D: And you will abide by the decisions of whomever is in charge, even if you didn’t choose that person. Correct?

L: Yes.

D: so if the person in charge says that everyone should break the index finger of the person to their left, would you do this?

L: NO! That’s ludicrous! No leader would do that!

D: but you said you would abide by their decisions, are you now saying
otherwise? It is obvious that you hold a moral conviction by your
reaction, yet you have stated that you would allow your morals to be
subject to the decisions of others.

L: you’re putting words in my mouth again, I never said such a thing.

D: Actually, you did state this by saying that you would abide by the
decisions of the new emperor, even if you didn’t choose him. Are you
now saying you won’t abide my his decisions if you didn’t choose him? I
only want to understand your conviction in the need of a leader.

L: Maybe there are decisions that our leaders make, that I don’t like.
Maybe there are times where I don’t like those in charge, but we must
have them, or everything will get worse than it is.

D: How so?

L: well, if we don’t have leaders to guide the country; If people relied
only on themselves to make decisions, nothing would ever get
accomplished. We would be running hither and fro like a herd of
lemmings rushing for the sea.

D: Ah, Lemmings. They do quite well for themselves until they are
rushing towards the sea. It seems to me, that one of them must take
charge at that point and lead them towards destruction. Its the
individuals that choose otherwise that remain behind to build their
population back up. So, where do you suppose that leaves the individual
in reference to Government, that you claim we must have?

Are you one of the individuals, or are you part of the government?

L: we are all part of the government. Government of the people by the people for the people. That is what a democracy is.

D: Still the question remains, Why does an individual need government,
if the government does not represent that individual? How is it that
one must conform for the sake of many, even against his moral code, and
all at the behest of one person? I am still confused on this.

L: Its part and parcel of our constitution. That is the law of the
land. A contract amongst the people to obey, for the peace and
prosperity of all.

D: even if that “law of the land” contradicts a persons moral code?

L: Yes. Though it isn’t always so obtuse, such as you are being right now.

D: I apologize if I am offending you, but I really wish to understand
this concept. As it stands right now, I am not seeing anything useful
to me, and what I am seeing is contradicting and delusional.

L: Delusional? I wouldn’t go that far. Yes, there are some contradictions, but the benefit outweighs that contradiction.

D: You mentioned the Constitution, and you stated it was a contract
amongst the people. I have a hard time with that concept, help me if
you will. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties,
correct?

L: yes, any number of person or groups can enter into an contract with another.

D: In contracts, there are persons mentioned as responsible to the execution thereof, correct?

L: Yes

D: and the contract always states whom those person are, so that they are held liable incase of breach, correct?

L: (with trepidation) Yes.

D: so where in this constitution am I mentioned?

L: you are a person of this country and that makes you part of that contract.

D: but I am not mentioned by name, nor have I signed such, showing my
agreement with such. How am I liable for completion or breach of this
contract that you mention?

L: Well, the founders signed it, making it a legal contract between all the people.

D: So, if I go down to the wharf, make a contract with the lenders
stating that you will pay them back, and sign my name on it, you will
still be liable for breach or completion: Is that correct?

L: No! You can’t sign your name on something I am liable for, nor can
you make me liable for something I had nothing to do with!

D: Another contradiction. Do you not see the fallacy of your thinking
when it comes to this thing you call government? Or am I just not
seeing the whole picture, Please help me to understand.

L: I don’t understand what you mean by “another contradiction. We are
talking about the Constitution, not some contract with lenders or
realtors.

D: But that is the contradiction. You stated that the Constitution is
a contract between the Government and the People, but at no time have I
been addressed to sign that contract, nor is there such an entity of
Government that can sign its name to that contract. How am I liable
for such a contract, when there is no alternate party to complete or
breach said contract. And how am I liable because someone else signed
his name to said work?

L: Well you were born here and that makes you a part of the people, and
that means you are part of that contract. You are liable to the people
around you, as they are liable to you.

D: So, by simple birth, I am now part of a contract, with many many
others, whom I don’t know, nor will likely ever know, and I am liable to
such, all on the signature of someone else, that I neither know, nor
have met, nor can meet as they are long dead. Explain to me how that
situation can make me liable to anything other than my own needs, which I
don’t need a contract for, as that is a simple case of self interest.

L: Put in such a manner, I can’t explain it. Such thinking is
dangerous. If everyone thought in such a manner, the whole of
Government would fall apart and where would we be?

D: Ah, A question I can answer. We would be sitting here talking about
many things, same as we are now. Only we wouldn’t be trying to figure
out how something that doesn’t truly exist, effects so many.

(and on that note, Lucretius begins scratching one of Diogenes’ dogs
behind the ear, shaking his head at how hard it is to get his point
across to such as Diogenes.)