Socrates begins his reply to the brothers of Plato by attempting to elucidate the argument, and he again employs an analogy. Thus far in the argument, he explains, we seem to have been rather philosophically nearsighted, attempting to find justice in the individual man, rather than seeking it at large in the ideal state. Let us try to read the larger lettering: Let us attempt the construction of the ideal just state.
People unite to form a community because of mutual needs: food, dwelling, the growing of food, and so on. And since it is a given that people are born with various talents, or abilities, it follows that they should be assigned various levels of employment in order to ensure the common good and to perfect the stability of the state: Some should be farmers, some carpenters, tailors, shoemakers, toolmakers, weavers, blacksmiths, manual laborers, and so on. Thus Socrates proposes a division of labor. And we shall require merchants and traders, wholesalers, retailers, salesmen, etc. Thus Socrates proposes a rude balance of trade. Thus the state should be productive and should proceed busily and happily. But where is the justice or virtue of such a state?
Glaucon objects and says that this is merely a well-fed state, fit only for pigs. Reality shows us, he argues, that people seem to require more than necessities; they require certain luxuries, forms of recreation, refinements to life. These refinements are obviously characteristics of a "civilized" state as we know it.
