Socrates Argument Analysis

Throughout the nation today, some of the most divisive disagreements that arise often center around the push for state rights as opposed to an expansion of an already big government. Under the current Trump administration, the debate over how much power each side should have is being seen today. On one hand, California, home to many undocumented immigrants, is pushing for sanctuary laws, which can be seen argued through natural law. While on the other hand, the federal government argues they have all the power to enforce current immigration statutes, which can be better discussed in a positive law point of view. With respect to the views of past philosophers, the thinkers who explored more of a positive law path have a stronger argument for

As opposed to Thrasymachus' initial beliefs, Socrates stands by the states with the right to exercise their powers. Within the dialogue, Socrates explains that Thrasymacus' viewpoint on justice is wrong through the idea of the art of ruling. He believes that the art of ruling does account for the wellbeing of those being ruled (Plato, 23). Through the example of a shepherd, Socrates explains that it is in the best interest of the ruler to rule in the greatest interest of the people (Ibid). Therefore, Socrates comes to the conclusion that art and government do provide for the weak, which are the subjects in this case. When connected to immigration, it can be seen that it is in the interest of the U.S. government to provide for the weak (states) to make themselves better off in the long run. Thus, by allowing the state the freedoms allotted in the 10th amendment and permit the right to migrate, the U.S. government could be preventing further issues for themselves, such as protests or anarchy. Alas, this argument is weak because allowing each state to run as they please would lead to disorder and it would be impossible to fully rule in the interest of the weaker because the interests are not

should rule over the state is reasoned. Hobbes begins by explaining what a commonwealth is and its role in the community. He defines a commonwealth as the "multitude so united in one person" (Hobbes, 120). The definition sets the framework for the notion that the states should come together and have one voice, hence the federal government speaking on the behalf of all the states. This role of the commonwealth, or common power, is to protect the public from foreigners or outsiders (Hobbes, 119). The passage regarding foreigners is one of the strongest points from Hobbes' text that the U.S. has the power to overrule California's desire in order to protect the public. In addition, Hobbes points to the argument that the state should have certain powers over the federal government when he states that the power of the sovereign should not be divided (Hobbes, 130). Hobbes goes further to quote the bible and explain that a "kingdom divided cannot stand" (Ibid). Although Hobbes does mention God as his basis for reasoning, it is not done in the same respect as Aquinas would have. In this case, he is supporting the U.S. and not the states because he believes that once power becomes divided, the authority further weakens to the point where the society cannot function. If the U.S.'s power is divided amongst 50 states and those states