For 8th time: I have already questioned conservatism , if you have a Socratic question to ask that will expose conservatism's untruth ask it, or admit you cant. Shall we go for 9 ??you don't want question what you believe to be an unquestionable true, "[/I].
.
Bare in mind that I have not established any truth but only presented arguments for a point of view,.
)if so why so afraid to present evidence that I have refuted Plato??
I just showed you that I did already. .
if you commit murder the court wants to find the truth about whether you did it!!!!
Socrates engaged in questioning of his students in an unending search for truth. He sought to get to the foundations of his students' and colleagues' views by asking continual questions until a contradiction was exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the initial assumption. This became known as the Socratic Method, and may be Socrates' most enduring contribution to philosophy.
Just as I said, you belive you have the unshakable truth and because of that you don't want question your own believes, and not tolerate others to question what you believe.I already did question them and learned that they are correct. If you think they are incorrect say why. A long goof ball rant is not saying why. See, you are totally crushed in 1% of the words you need!
I have no intention on expose conservatism untruth.For 8th time: I have already questioned conservatism , if you have a Socratic question to ask that will expose conservatism's untruth ask it, or admit you cant. Shall we go for 9 ??
It is way too off topic that just confirm what I say on the paragraph above.Ok so at the moment you lack the IQ to establish what is true; so you have to start from the beginning. Here are 5 simple questions. Do you know what conservatism is? What? Are you a conservative? Why? Why not?
where????
Here is where you refuted Plato:.............................................
you fill in where the dots are. Do you understand?
you mean the only significant issue in human history is not freedom versus govt as Plato and Aristotle thought? So then what is it????
Have you ever read The Republic from Plato?
"freedom is for Plato a true value, democracy involves the danger of excessive freedom, of doing as one likes, which leads to anarchy. Secondly, equality, related to the belief that everyone has the right and equal capacity to rule, brings to politics all kinds of power-seeking individuals, motivated by personal gain rather than public good. Democracy is thus highly corruptible. It opens gates to demagogues, potential dictators, and can thus lead to tyranny. Hence, although it may not be applicable to modern liberal democracies, Plato’s main charge against the democracy he knows from the ancient Greek political practice is that it is unstable, leading from anarchy to tyranny, and that it lacks leaders with proper skill and morals. Democracy depends on chance and must be mixed with competent leadership (501b)."
Plato: Political Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Plato is also the Philosopher who said Gov. have to control what kind of music and other arts people should make and enjoy, and defended gov. laws that guarantee the right of people slave others nationalities.
And I have already answered your question to you.
Reason why Plato says people have to be governed by strong and prepared leadership and not democracy alone. For plato too much freedom is bad.
Our question is not whether I have read Republic but whether the only significant issue in human history is freedom versus govt as Plato and Aristotle thought? If not what is it.
So you want talk about Plato and Aristotle thoughts about freedom and gov. without putting their thoughts in consideration and calling their thoughts as "long meadering rant".
And than you make the same question that was just answered with Smith and Plato thoughts, and you tell such thoughts are wrong.
The thing is, you don't actually want talk about anything. You have your idealistic point of view that you follow by faith and have used no argument or explanation about what you say a part from idealistic "powerful words" faith. You sometimes use empty accusatory adjectives trying to discredit what was said because you have nothing else to say other to just disagree for the disagreement sake, and after that asking questions that was just answered.You want talk about Adam Smith and Plato point of view to support your "powerful words" faith while you reject their point of view when brought to you. And you keep doing that because you have absolutely nothing to talk about other than just preach powerful worlds used as argument for your pure faith on such "powerful words".
Nobody is waist your time but yourself. All you have to do is to say that you disagree because you have your believes ("powerful words") and full stop. Because there is nothing else to talk about.
don't want to talk about them but rather know what the issue in human history is if not freedom versus govt and Plato as Aristotle explained. Did you think it coincidental that in every election in America the issue is freedom (Republican) versus govt ( Democrat) ? Do you understand now?
Yes, it is also what Adam smith said.
Now, profit and competition are two different things (as I have explained) that Adam smith approached. He says greed is a bad thing driven by profit, it is malevolent. But greed in a free market competition turns to be good and this is the invisible hand. Because driven by greed business will try to offer the best product or price and service than their competitors in order to obtain higher capital accumulation (capitalism).
This is why monopoly is bad, because the drive for profit without competition there is no invisible hand.
wrong of course Adam Smith was a champion of capitalism. Now do you understand?
reducing prices 80% is not a solution?
if you commit murder the court wants to find the truth about whether you did it!!!!\
The court wants to clear the calendar. The court has no other desires..
Judges are judged by administrative judges on the basis of how quickly they clear their calendars,.
that would make them evil which is mostly not the case.
wrong of course. A judge would be quickly fired for, say, not allowing an atty to call as many witnesses as he wanted, in order to clear the judges calendar.
nobody is talking about unrestrained freedom, obviously. you changed the subject without seeing it.
if so please present an example or admit you cant.So you're advocating for socialism.
.
In US courts, judges do not have the discretion to quantify the number of witnesses called by either attorney. "
"if you can say it in 4 words, then don't say it in 20 words to waste the court's time."
1) have people shop with their own money or vouchers and keep what they don't spend
2) have providers compete on basis of price and quality
The absence of socialism is anarchy. You said that nobody is advocating for anarchy. I assume you include yourself in "nobody". Ergo, you're advocating for socialism, just (possibly) less socialism than someone else.if so please present an example or admit you cant.
100% wrong of course. Socialism is when govt owns the commanding heights ie the big industries. In the absence of socialism you can have capitalism for example. Now do you understand?The absence of socialism is anarchy.
well, we really don't want people dying at emergency room doors.
step 1) allow hospitals to deny non-paying, non-insured.
.
step 2) stop the us from paying for every other countries drugs and healthcare advancements.
well, we really don't want people dying at emergency room doors
not sure about that one. Yes, drug companies, for example, charge Americans more because we are richer but if they didn't they'd probably have less revenue for research or if they charged Europe full freight they'd probably have less revenue too. I'm sure they work it out to get maximum revenue for themselves which is ok.
but your suggestions are relatively trivial compared to op suggestion advocating full on switch to essentials of capitalism
100% wrong of course. Socialism is when govt owns the commanding heights ie the big industries. In the absence of socialism you can have capitalism for example. Now do you understand?
. Regulation is a form of socialism.
.
Better that, than everyone dying when the system collapses......or goes socialist and degrades to dark age lvls.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?