Platolotics

So this week while in class we had spent a lot of time talking about the Greeks, and their views on human nature. During our discussion on Plato, a very interesting point had come up that i wanted to elaborate on.

The statement was that: "Life leaders should not be a group of people who are all rich".

I think that this may or may not be one of the most clever solution statements that I have heard of in terms of politics in a very long time. The reason that this makes so much sense to me is that it would allow for so much more personality and equality in our society in terms of how things are run for the everyday people. Another thing that I think I really like about this is that it would be kind of scary at first to just elect people who were seemingly "unworthy" as we see it currently, but at the same time it would open up a lot of doors in terms of understanding, and I think in the long run of things really help.

The most important difference in my mind is simply this: how can someone who has been elected based on their money and importance in offic understand the poor side of civilization in their area? Unless that person had grown up being very poor then managed to become rich enough to run an official campaign, (which in my mind can only possibly be so many of the people we have elected in the past... if any) it just doesnt seem very fitting.

Personally, the number of representatives that we host per state shouldn't change, but that there should be an added distinguishing factor between them, one that represents the different class levels of that same state. In my mind this would make for the most effective means of political power change within society, do you agree?

Response to Julie's Post

I personally think that the term "selfless act" is a little bit of an oxymoron, for in order to perform an act of kindness, you have to want to help that person / thing in need.

When it really comes down to it, I feel like the term "selfless act" causes more argument than is needed on the subject, for why should it be questioned in the first plac wether or not you were being selfish to help someone? In the end if you have actually been a help, that is all the matters, you shouldn't need a proof of purchase to make you feel like a better person.

After all, its almost better that the person you have helped doesn't even know that you have been there to help them, for it means that you are just genuinely good, and for a splinter of time you get to be someone's guardian angel
Do you agree?