Misappropriating Plato and history to Spread Negative Ideology

An internet exchange, annotated with posts, about misappropriating Plato.

A niece of mine posted this very popular quote promoting libertarian thought on the internet. The assumption on line is that this has specific real meaning today, which is anti-government/pro-gun. Not knowing my niece's intent, but concerned how the architects of the society we inherited are mis-appropriated for negative ideology, or as I see it, our society of trolls.

And so I went down the rabbit hole with them, and here is what happened:

My Comment:
True as this is... I honestly doubt Plato, a teacher and lover of humanity, was arguing against law, or for libertarian anarchy. Kind of makes this just one more way to use brilliant people in manipulative ways to prove silly points.

My Comment:
Evidence of how sad our public discourse has become, that the ideas that fill popular society promote less understanding rather than more. We are smarter than that. I promote the ability to further these thoughts, but do not ascribe to the ideas seemingly promoted.

Niece: Quotes are often misattributed, it's true, but this one seems pretty universally quoted as Plato. I don't think it's arguing against the law, but against too many laws. Or for anarachy at all.

Quotes are often misattributed mis-attributes my intent. I do not doubt Plato's words, but the meaning suggested with their misappropriation is a whole different issue. 

My Comment:
More to the point, it's presence here intends to borrow Plato's two quotes mashed together with (...) offered as one thought. That tactic is a big tell it is intended by it's author (who is no longer Plato, so original intent has long since sailed down the river) seeks to make a point, NOT that of the originator, Plato.

I grant the simplistic reality that locks are for honest people. But Plato never argued that a logical premise for society. Not Plato.

It is although, a great way to make hay and money off of well meaning Rubes who find value in repeating and contributing to such gimmickry. Trolls.

Today a lot off folks are fundraising by suggesting the equivalence of No More Locks. 
That's not smart, but there are millions of examples, and all of cable news. That's the Fox financial model. Fox sets the table, everybody debates their talking points, and (CNN variant) missing plane.

Plato is not in the room with the message posted. 
The libertarian concepts behind the art are those of its originator, signed onto by the poster. But how could I know without visiting the link behind the art? So I visited.

What I found first, a surprise to me, was a series of posters citing how silly this mash-up is; agreeing with my assumptions about the veracity of the message, and Plato's misappropriation.

One good and loving example:

• Maria: I've always said that the law is not for people who are conscious beings, it is for those that are not consciously awakened !
  

 Then the usual:

• Carl: Nice sentiment, unfortunately Plato was wrong. Studies show that when you remove accountability, people generally don't behave "good".
  
  Jack: Accountability and law are not the same thing. If you go rape someones daughter without the law you can be damn sure you are gonna be accountable for it. Truth is the law protects the bad people because they have more experience with it and know how to use it against the honest man who mistakenly believes his integrity will mean something to the judge.
  

First, I'm thinking, poor Plato! Next I'm thinking, I am not sure what those messages are, but they are not related to poor Plato. 

"Don't trust anyone, arm yourself" seems the message of the art, taken by it's posting adherents.
It's intent and use are to push that point, not discuss Plato. That amounts to a ruse to make a misleading point, that gives way to confusing rants about society. That is classic TROLL.

Then there are some posts which neither agree or disagree, on the surface, but convey vague menace:

• Big-Dave: Morally correct can be ethically wrong and ethically correct can be morally wrong... My rights stop were yours start. your rights stop were mine start... You tend to your rat killin' and I'll tend to mine!
  

I will only say, the essence of Big-Dave's meaning has everything to do with how one defines "their rats." I do not know Big-Dave or anything about him other than his thing about rats. 

But in the spectrum of popular others often referred to as rats or animals or vermin, especially for the libertarian movement, this kind of reaction is so typical as to be the expected. How is it not intentional? TROLLS.

In this way, hate is the most prolific fundraiser and message mover in America today. And even good people are being co-opted in it's service. Society By Troll.

That is how this whole troll society operates and everybody knows the rules.
My point, and I actually do have one, is that Plato does not speak for or to the libertarian movement people. 

And much of this imagery that permeates the web is used as promotional tools for the militia movement that lives on the libertarian fringe. It is frustrating to watch it proceed without public awareness. It needs to be understood as a tip of the sword for some ill feeling folks, that galvanizes the unaware without their understanding. Some good and well meaning folks who have more passion and anger than understanding and compassion, are very proud to count Plato wrongfully as their ideological brethren, in the pursuit of hate. And they don't know Plato.

HATE MONETIZED
It is a bad time in American history for dialogue and problem solving. Spreading distrust is a cottage industry. Fear-based hate speech is the coin of the day. The coarsening of dialogue was just in time for a biracial president, imagine that, and in the still open fear of 911. The stage was set to take the long successful "Southern Strategy" corporate. There were big spenders and easy targets.

It has been corporately co-opted by the entire cable news industry as a great new revenue source, funded by Dark Money. All of that has our society near the edge. 

Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is not an exercise of constitutionally protected speech. But the growth and spreading of such manipulative speech is troubling, in that the spreaders seem intent on misinforming, and motivating through misinforming, actions that undermine society. How long the shouts of FIRE, until what predictable violence? Not Plato!

PLATO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!
I have engaged this much for one reason: I am getting to the end of life, having just turned 60. I am white, employed and in most normal respects should be a Fox viewer. And I have watched some powerful stupid go down and never get publicly understood or redressed by both parties and every moneyed sector of our corrupted and corrupting corporations who have bought out justice. How else to explain the 5-4 perception that unlimited Dark Money does not even create the perception of corruption. When our politicians think we are too ...stupid to see the fix is in, they have cause, and history on their side. And When Money is Speech, Bribery is Legal. And that is just stupid!

I believe most people have good hearts and good minds. 
I offer my thoughts, only for consideration. I would hope to open occasional eyes. Changing minds or anything else are beyond my capacity.

But I do care. I strongly advise that! And look deep at what you promote. History has much to teach! Plato is complex.

• Craig: I think Plato would agree that we need law to codify what can and cannot be punished by the members of society. Example: Even a good person might feel entitled to punish someone for stealing their parking spot. Thankfully, that's not punishable by law.
  

Once again, Craig's analogy has nothing to do with Plato. 
And the truth of Craig's statement is in the author's own definition of what is 'entitled punishment.' Many conceivable 'punishments,' thought 'entitled' by one, might look like vandalism, threat, intimidation, assault, to another. And those self imposed punishments could be deemed out of line. Especially for self perceived parking violations, like not seeing you waiting there, or just beating you to the spot. As such, might very well be punishable by law.

Even a good person might feel entitled to punish someone for stealing their parking spot. Thankfully, that's not punishable by law. - Craig

There is no evidence Craig speaks for Plato. Or that his statement is a good working process to view the world. And no imagination is required to see the ambiguity of his analogy. People who know Craig would know. Me no know Craig. But... Plato? Not really. And if we are ever in the same parking lot, I hope I don't break your good person punishment rules!

To Know Plato, read his thoughts in context!
Plato had very strong feelings about what was good for society. His quotes, in full context, make his meaning quite clear. And no doubt there are some laws today which Plato clearly would not love. Should he live his conscience today, it seems from his words, Plato would run afoul of Pedophilia laws. Could that be the Art's real meaning>

Maybe that's it! The author and posters of the art are messaging pro pedophilia! I didn't see that coming!

PLATO QUOTE
I cannot say what greater good there is for a young boy than a gentle lover, or for a lover than a boy to love. There is a certain guidance each person needs for his whole life, if he is to live well; and nothing imparts this guidance as well as Love. What guidance do I mean? I mean a sense of shame at acting shamefully, and a sense of pride in acting well. Without these, nothing fine or great can be accomplished, in public or in private.

• Plato and John M. Cooper (Editor) and D.S. Hutchinson (Associate Editor). “Symposium.” Alexander Nehemas and Paul Woodruff (Translators) in: Plato Complete Works. Hackett Publishing Company. 1997. Hardcover, 1747 pages. Language, English, ISBN: 0872203492.

---