He already explained that it depends on WHOM you are talking about. Or do you actually think that one would be universally better for all populations?
His comments annoys me
I need straightforward answer
I'm also confused by what irritates you about this response, specifically because you lauded Napoleon for essentially saying the same thing, albeit somewhat more poetically.
As an aside, I think that's the right answer, but in my estimation, both systems enslave people eventually.
Actually, I don't understand this response either, since "for whom" is obvious in the context of the question, or in this forum even. If "Capitalism or Communism: Which is better?" is incomplete, then so must be "Atheism or Religion: Which is better?" or "Greed or Altruism: Which is better?" They all come down to values. If you can answer one without giving it a second thought, then "for whom" needs only be assumed using the same assumption of values you used in your answer to the other question.
In the other thread, you gave a clear stance against Calvinism in defense of the common man. I don't understand why you wouldn't make that same assumption here.
Jonathan, Dr. Jekyl had Mr. Hyde.
I have Nitpicker and he's asking, "'For whom' is obvious? To whom?"
I've been in politics too long and distrust people's motives too much to let anyone get away with rhetorical questions like G's on economic systems and yours above.
Demagogues use rhetorical questions to exploit passions, not to explore issues.
Nitpicker? Rhetorical? No offense, but neither. I didn't ask any questions. You made an assumption in one case where the issue was uncontested but you wouldn't make this same assumption on another case. That's inconsistency. That analogy comparing me or G to demagogues is invalid logic:
P1. Demagogues use rhetorical questions to exploit passions.
P2. You are using rhetorical questions.
C1. Therefore, you are exploiting passions.
I've only expressed confusion on your reservations. If you do not desire constructive discussion, then I have nothing further to say for now. Take it for how you wish...
Jonathan, I delayed replying until I could check your logic.
First, you didn't ask any questions; you used questions to support your conclusion.
Second, your questions are not analogous to G's question.
1) Capitalism and communism are economic systems with vast amounts of objective data,
2) Atheism and religion are belief systems, one of one has no objective data, and
3) Greed and altruism? Altruism is both a practice and a school of thought. Greed?
To say they all come down to values is unsupported opinion and simplistic.
Third, reducing your syllogism to a Venn diagram reveals its errors.
1) Only P2 is valid.
2) Accepting its validity, then to succeed your
a) P1 would have to read "The only purpose of rhetorical questions is to exploit passions", and
b) C1 would have to read "Your purpose is to exploit passions."
Tom Sarbeck is right, but nothing is totally best for any one. Many years before, when he was US ambassador to India, Charles Bowls had said that 'domesticated capitalism' can be good to India. We are actually experiencing it presently. Communism did not prove to be totally good for the communist countries and likewise, uncontrolled Capitalism too will be proved to be not totally good for America.
Good thoughtful question - I think for me to answer I would have to research more and think about it. I like it that you get us to thinking.
Yes.you are right