the problem that Plato poses here led him to the most radical solution imaginable: the philosopher's state. this was an ancient forerunner of modern communism. And, of course, Plato also derived legislative power from the universal spirit of the philosophers' caste, i.e. from himself

Yep. That's basically true, although spiritually the laws are a little different than the physical ones.

An evident truth our modern times seem to have forgotten.

It reminds me of @TomK's recent post about Nietzsche.

At first it seems to be saying there's no point to law, but that's really not the implication. The point is that without an enforcement mechanism there's no point to law.

Without the construct of societal laws, most humans will fall back on Moral/Ethical Relativism. It is kind of our nature. These cultural, regional, national, etc. differencesncan be problematic without a broader structure.

Timeless debate..

Is a person's character or inherent morality the principle driver behind their actions or is it the constraint of external regulations / consequences?

The development of the ideas of Thomas Hobbes took this to its conclusion of laws protecting us from a / our state of nature or John Locke theory of government by consent and rule of law.

Where do good people sit in all this? At the mercy of the bad… who often seem to make the laws these days…

I found this smart. Ye i mean, i stumbled this qoute in the richer company or in a business "Its expensive to be a poor". And asked myself, "Why the rich get richer and poor get poorer?. I dont mean this to anyone but i guess "Strategy" is the reason.

There are several problems with this passage (its not a direct Platonic passage, but rather a theme): "Good people" intrinsically follow the law and therefore do not require laws. That is, law abiding people do not need laws to tell them what to do. This is preaching to the choir. The prerequisite for this state of affairs is that the laws are virtuous.

"Bad people" find ways around the law, once again, people who are not law abiding, by definition, break laws or find ways around them. Once again, we are assuming that the laws are benevolent and virtuous.

The theme adds little value in my opinion. It's a circular argument. About as useful as: Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things.

The more interesting aspect this brings up is the interplay between the laws of society, personal ethics, and the relationship between legality and morality. Plato's Republic dives deeply into this area underpinned by Laws authored and enforced by a benevolent king dictator for life.

Rhetorical question, no need to actually answer:

How many times, just today, have you known you should do something, or that it would be best for your health/well-being to do something… but eh, didn't feel like it? Or, eh, you'll do that later? 🤷‍♂️

Social irresponsibility is just many, many individual irresponsibilities, added up together.

The line of good and evil runs through the heart of all men, and who among us is willing to destroy his own heart.

Quote on Quote "good people" have the ability to conduct horrific acts. "good people" break "bad laws", "bad people" break "good laws"

I think the quote fails to accurately portray the human condition, and places too much oomph on the moral implications of breaking the law (especially if what he means by law is top down government regulation).

Not laws, but conscience makes the difference between good and bad people.

Plato is definitely one of the greatest minds of all the times and a very practical and wise on his words.

How I interpret the quote is that he basically said that laws are so ineffective that they more hinter good intentions than enforcing them.