Per. Whatever the ruling power of the state after deliberation enacts
as our duty to do, goes by the name of laws.

Alc. Then if a tyrant, holding the chief power in the state, enacts
rules of conduct for the citizens, are these enactments law?

Per. Yes, anything which a tyrant as head of the state enacts, also
goes by the name of law.

Alc. But, Pericles, violence and lawlessness--how do we define them?
Is it not when a stronger man forces a weaker to do what seems right
to him--not by persuasion but by compulsion?

Per. I should say so.

Alc. It would seem to follow that if a tyrant, without persuading the
citizens, drives them by enactment to do certain things--that is
lawlessness?

Per. You are right; and I retract the statement that measures passed
by a tyrant without persuasion of the citizens are law.

Alc. And what of measures passed by a minority, not by persuasion of
the majority, but in the exercise of its power only? Are we, or are we
not, to apply the term violence to these?

Per. I think that anything which any one forces another to do without
persuasion, whether by enactment or not, is violence rather than law.