The object of this article, which analyses Statesman 291a1-303d3, is to show how the good, the object of politics qua knowledge, makes the regime with which it is associated a utopia. The good cannot be actualized anywhere in the sensible realm, because no city can be governed without laws, and the laws define what is good most often for the greatest number. A government of the good, without laws, is a utopia, but the laws, to the extent that they aim at the common interest, are in themselves the imprint of the good. I defend the thesis, at first sight paradoxical, that the true politicians are not those who know the good and imitate it, but those who recognise the utility of laws and agree to submit themselves to their authority. Thus Plato dismisses all existing regimes as sophistic regimes where power is exercised in the interest of the rulers and not of the ruled. Not every regime, however, bears the imprint of the good equally. By making politics a branch of knowledge, Plato imposes a numerical criterion on the classification of regimes; he crosses the criterion of number with that of law. I therefore argue for another paradox: the best possible regime is a monarchy in which the rulers obey the laws, the best existing regime is none other than democracy.

这篇文章，它分析的对象政治家291a1-303d3，是展示如何好，政治的目的之四知识，使与之相关的政权成为乌托邦。在没有明智的领域的任何地方都无法实现商品，因为没有法律就无法管理任何城市，而法律定义的商品往往是数量最多的。没有法律的善政就是乌托邦，但是就共同的利益而言，法律本身就是善举的烙印。乍看之下，我为这一论点辩解，自相矛盾的是，真正的政治家不是那些了解善良并效法善良的人，而是那些认识到法律的效用并同意服从自己的权威的人。因此，柏拉图将所有现有的政权都视作精明的政权，在这种制度中，行使权力是为了统治者而不是被统治者的利益。。但是，并非每个政权都同样地对商品施加影响。通过使政治成为知识的分支，柏拉图对政权的分类强加了数字标准。他将数字标准与法律标准相交叉。因此，我主张另一个悖论：可能的最佳政权是君主制，其中统治者遵守法律，存在的最佳政权就是民主。