Socrates spent his life questioning the Athenian democracy. His aim was not to undermine it but rather to give it faith. If democratic dogma has no skeptics, what makes it better than tyranny?

His students, Alcibiades, Critias, and Charmides, helped destabilize and overthrow the democracy. As soon as democracy and the law was restored, a case was brought up against Socrates for corrupting the youth and introducing novel religious practices in the state, but everyone knew it was because he had educated the enemies of the state. Socrates welcomed his "justice," choosing not to self-exile. The most entertaining outcome is the most likely—the man was killed by the same democracy he tried to strengthen.

It reminds me of something Bansky said: "I think I was lucky to learn so young that there's no point in behaving yourself. You'll be punished for something you never did anyway. People get it wrong all the time. Anyone who believes in capital punishment should be shot."

I can induce a law from this: no system can fully realize its Platonic ideal; in practice, it often produces an inverted version. "Performativeness" is inevitable, in Rohan's words.