Declaration of Independence was written and put into effect in the late 1700's. That is a bit of time ago but the work of Plato and Aristotle came a long, long time before that. Even with the major time disparities involved, there are some common themes and ideas that exist among both of the philosophers and the author of the Declaration of Independence. Even while keeping the focus on the Declaration of Independence very narrow, there are some obvious commonalities between the Declaration and the two classic philosophers. While many ideas and viewpoints change and shift over time, there are others that are much more enduring and prone to remain strong and many of those ideas are seen in the works analyzed within this report. Analysis

Much of what Plato had to say was very much in line with the Declaration of Independence. It is stated in The Republic that the ideal situation for society is when there are three classes of people, those being axillaries, producers and guardians. Further, things go well only when those three classes are in sync on what should be done and why. Indeed, the passage from the Declaration of Independence says much the same thing when it is said that the rulers are "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed." In other words, things are right and proper when the warriors and the rules are acting with the consent of the people that put them into power. Basically, if the people in charge are acting at the behest of those that elected them, then the proper balance is in place. Further, each of the people in those three classes are where they are because they have given the right, rather than a privilege, to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless of what role they fall into through their supports and experiences, they are expected to produce based on what they are supposed to be doing. The first of those two statements comes from the Declaration of Independence and the latter comes from The Republic. Those two statements are obviously in sync. People are to be given equal opportunity and chances to do as they will. If they want...

If they want to be a warrior that defends the country, they can choose to do so as well. It works because everyone is given the chance to do what they wish. One major part of The Republic that goes against the Declaration of Independence is the talk about whether there is any merit or purpose in being just. A lot of this argument comes from Thrasymachus. His words are obviously that of a person that sees no problem in ruling from a position of power and advantage rather than granting liberty to people, such as the Declaration of Independence does. He also asserts that there is no merit in being just and that justice would seem to be about unnatural restraint on what is a natural urge, that being the tendency to grab and take what is wanted rather than worrying about liberty or fairness. However, much of The Republic aligns with the Declaration of Independence (Plato, 2016).
Some other words offered by Plato further drive home the point that he was very aligned with the ideas and frameworks offered by the Founding Fathers of the United States. One example was the words of Plato's brother Glaucon. He espoused what has come to be known as Contract Theory. This is the idea that there is a tacit agreement between people that one person will not hurt another. Of course, the opposite would be anarchy and would be harsh and bad for most people. This very much aligns with the words of Thrasymachus. People in power (e.g. England over the colonies before the Revolution) would have every opportunity and "right" to order what they saw fit while those without power would suffer moderately or greatly depending on the situation and the amount of power they did or did not have. Plato and Glaucon instead asserted that everyone should be helpful and virtuous to one another. The relevant passage from the Declaration of Independence basically says the same thing. People are presumed to have the right to happiness and they are presumed to have rights that cannot be taken from them by any governmental power or form of government. This was obviously the antithesis of what was…