In his Republic, Plato revives the character of Socrates with his views on how a just and virtuous city could arise. In describing his ideal city-state, a society governed by an aristocratic philosopher-king, Plato also takes note of the other four possible constitutions: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Despite living in a democracy, he theorizes that democracy is too flawed in its intrinsic development to be considered a perfect living environment. The government of the people depends on the collective greed of its citizens to establish laws, which implies that the entire city is governed by the third and most barbaric aspect of the soul, appetite. While Plato dismisses democracy as a breeding ground for mediocrity, there is no denying that the freedoms afforded by such a constitution allow for the creation of political forums that allow philosophers to outline their views on the ideal state. Plato's arguments labeling democratic citizens as lazy and luxurious gain strength through his explanation of the soul, but he severely underestimates the role of freedom in creating virtuous and happy people of an aristocracy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plato's main criticism of democracy lies in his definition of the ideal state as one in which the ruler governs only through reason, the soul of the city is properly organized, and the people are happy because each of them carries out his own craft to the best of one's ability. This is his aristocracy, the only constitution that fully allows for the education of a philosopher-king. A democracy evolves from an aristocracy, but slowly, and only after a timocracy has divided the city and an oligarchy has begun the transformation from rule of reason to rule of spirit and appetite. As the oligarchy is torn apart by corrupt factions and internal strife, the poor overthrow the money-loving rich who have become too lazy to defend their power. They establish a political structure in which leaders, elected by lot, abuse their power to become as rich as possible by taxing the poor. These new leaders therefore contribute to the degeneration of Plato's ideal character in two ways: they are themselves governed by the appetitive third of the soul, while they also increase poverty. People who are too poor to contribute to society have no value, which, according to Plato, is the worst of all possible evils. Once a democracy is established, all of Plato's recommendations on the foundations of power are abandoned. The philosopher's education is forgotten, leaving positions of power open to under- and over-educated people who "have no experience of the truth" or who "would refuse to act, thinking they had established themselves while still alive in distant places." Island of the Blessed", respectively (191). Rulers without the right education will rule with spirit and appetite, or with anger and desire, not as a philosopher king would rule with reason. Spirit would lead to irrational decisions and to the lack of restrictions on useless appetites that are dangerous to a stable society. Without laws, people do not feel the need to restrain themselves and there is a lack of moderation regarding wealth. People no longer distinguish between necessary appetites, such as hunger, and superfluous appetite, or the desire for wealth. Democratic lifestyles will be dedicated to the accumulation of wealth, resulting in people who should not be in poverty at the hands of outrageous taxes. Plato sees democracy as the ultimatecreator of mediocrity, a city where people have no discipline, commitment and result. Being a society tolerant of all actions, the individual is free to do as he wishes without restriction. This leads to a constant stream of changes, as people avoid developing skills and crafts by removing themselves from whatever situation the problem occurs in. Unlike Plato's aristocracy, where a person is confined to their craft until death, in a democracy people have the freedom to move as they wish from one craft to another. When they become bored or frustrated with a task, they leave it unfinished, giving rise to a class of weak, idle money-lovers who cannot bear the sometimes painful pangs of creation. Without commitment to a goal, these people jump around, satisfying their desires without discerning between good pleasures and evil. In response to an aristocratic question about their pursuit of pleasure, they "declare that all pleasures are equal and must be valued equally" (231). This justification represents the nail in the coffin for Socrates as he evaluates the democratic constitution, leaving him little problem in calling a democracy the fourth best. While democracy holds that all people are equal, Plato's definition of aristocracy, or perfect city, places clear emphasis on the fact that all people are not born equal. The only way to achieve happiness for the entire city is for individuals to realize their place and perform their role to the best of their ability. Although Plato's critique of a democratic constitution is adequately constructed in relation to its perfect aristocracy, he routinely and conveniently forgets to praise the aspects of democracy that allow him to assert his views in Republic. A democracy, a "city full of freedom", which gives every citizen the "license to do what he wants", can give birth to the appetitive part of the soul, the lover of money and idleness, but freedom like freedom of speech allow individual expression which, if allowed to grow, can lead to a happier society for all (227). Plato sees democracy as fourth best, but in aristocracies, timocracies, and oligarchies, the right to say what you wish is governed by the limited social mobility allowance. In fact, a citizen would never suggest a different way of government because he has no place to do it. A more adequate justification for placing democracy in fourth place would be to admit that, although aristocracy is the most ideal of all constitutions, it cannot come into being without the help of a set of democratic principles. In order for the philosopher-king to develop as Plato wishes, he must receive a moderate, censored education in music and poetry, along with physical training and other academic subjects. Only in a democracy could this type of learning occur, since in a timocracy or oligarchy the people in power would never approve a program that has as its primary objective the creation of a new and more perfect leadership. Democracies “have no obligation to govern,” allowing anyone to ascend the throne of power, from which they can discuss their ideas and possibly put them into action (228). This process, unique among Plato's other four constitutions, seems the only practicable way to create the education necessary for a philosopher-king (228). If Plato had asserted that aristocracy is formed through a democracy, or that there is a dependent relationship of some kind between democratic ways and the development of an aristocracy, his criticism of democracy would have left little room for doubt. Plato gives credence to the democratic constitution, but.