I taught a Philosophy of Education class and it forced me to read Plato's Republic real close. I chose Book IV to assign because it seemed to work well as a stand-alone chapter. Little did I know that that Book would illuminate most basic underpinnings of Republican belief concerning big ideas like the culture, the economy, justice and courage.
An early dialogue (y'know before they had diaries they had dialogues) focuses on regulating the culture:
Then to sum up: This is the point to which, above all, the attention of our rulers should be directed,--that music and gymnastic be preserved in their original form, and no innovation made. They must do their utmost to maintain them intact. And when any one says that mankind most regard
The newest song which the singers have,
they will be afraid that he may be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song; and this ought not to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet; for any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and ought to be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe him;-he says that when modes of music change, of the State always change with them.
Got it? --rock n roll punk and rap all changed the modes of the State and that is a huge problem for harmony. So the solution lies in a restrictive culture where there is no musical innovation, no new kinds of song, no "lawless" amusements.
Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens.
Well, with such tight control on the culture, how does Socrates treat regulating the economy?
Well, and about the business of the agora, dealings and the ordinary dealings between man and man, or again about agreements with the commencement with artisans; about insult and injury, of the commencement of actions, and the appointment of juries, what would you say? there may also arise questions about any impositions and extractions of market and harbour dues which may be required, and in general about the regulations of markets, police, harbours, and the like. But, oh heavens! shall we condescend to legislate on any of these particulars?
I think, he said, that there is no need to impose laws about them on good men; what regulations are necessary they will find out soon enough for themselves.
No need to impose laws regulating the market! Here is a central assumption that makes a lot of Republican beliefs fall into line. Regulate the culture and the economy will take care of itself. A good culture creates good men and good men do not need their economic affairs regulated.
As for those who would try to regulate the economy:
Yes, I said, my friend, if God will only preserve to them the laws which we have given them.
And without divine help, said Adeimantus, they will go on for ever making and mending their laws and their lives in the hope of attaining perfection.
You would compare them, I said, to those invalids who, having no self-restraint, will not leave off their habits of intemperance?
The regulators are invalids. It's the old "trial lawyers" and "faceless bureaucrat" dressed up for Classical consumption. Central Republican belief: Attempts to regulate the market are harmful and misguided.
Here's just a bit more concerning economics. The State does not want poverty or wealth for its workers.
Then, under the influence either of poverty or of wealth, workmen and their work are equally liable to degenerate?
That is evident.
Here, then, is a discovery of new evils, I said, against which the guardians will have to watch, or they will creep into the city unobserved.
What evils?
Wealth, I said, and poverty; the one is the parent of luxury and indolence, and the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent.
Fundamentally, opposition to material gains by labor is based upon this assumption that comfort will induce laziness. This section is talking about the general populace, the workers, and not the rulers or Guardian class. The Guardians' relationship to wealth is discussed I believe in Book III. Socrates goes on to explain that having a general populace that's a bit hungry will create tougher soldiers than those of wealthy states.
So, that's a lot to chew on right now. If there's interest, I'll get into how Plato's definitions of justice and courage inform the Republican mentality. Can you say "War on Terrr"?