Title says: "Obama Will Let Me Go" ...So says a captured Illegal Alien

So we still haven't found the place in Plato's Republic where he advocated illegal aliens running over borders and flouting the rule of law?
Wikipedia says this about Republic:

If a ruler can create just laws, and if the warriors can carry out the orders of the rulers, and if the producers can obey this authority, then a society will be just.

en.wikipedia.org...(Plato)
Perhaps the question is in interpreting what laws are just. Socialists are trying to change the laws we have to reflect their need to appear benevolent, that is, if illegals break the laws of another country, the Socialist must change the laws to reflect the ideology they have of feeding and clothing every person regardless of how it affects everyone else. It requires centralized control, which is not the definition of the Philosopher/King society, it is the definition of Leninist Communism Soviet style, because the reality is that where the Philosopher/Kings had wisdom to rule, the Communist system depends on a "dictatorship of the Proletariat" in which a handful of Elites run everything based on an authoritarian principle. Unfortunately, some Utopians cannot tell the difference.

Maybe the issue isn't entirely whether we have read Plato's Republic but how we interpret what we are reading.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Honor93

 

I said I was done with chat with YOU.

I'm funny, am I? Glad you're amused.

what need ??

The need of the people from other countries who are being oppressed, starved, forced to live without adequate medical care. Those that are living like maltreated cattle or dogs, and no one is doing anything to help them.
Why are Central Americans not privy to the same "refugee" protection that the Somalians, and Sudanese, and other 'sanctioned escapees' received?

Because refugee status is different than poor status. Refugees were still decided upon by authorities in power, and once they got here, they weren't given welfare status. All this welfare stuff came later on with FDR.

And, have you read Plato yet? Still not aware of how 'The Republic' promotes arranged marriages, eugenics, education depending on what 'career' the kids will be steered toward?

You still haven't told me how the Founding Fathers have taken Plato's Republic and caused arranged marriage and eugenics to be a staple in our own Republic. I told you that arranged marriages is a social trend that continued into probably around the 19th century. In India there are still some arranged marriages, but I don't see that as directly tied to the Holy Roman empire or Plato's Republic. Ergo, your argument is not valid in this discussion.
Eugenics is a Progressive trend and it was Progressives who embraced it in President Wilson's time, and they embraced Hitler till he put people in ovens and the whole world recoiled.
I'm not sure if you were viewing eugenics as being part of the arranged marriage/keeping bloodlines in the family sort of thing or not, but that could be a nifty question for the Rothschilds though.

So Plato's Republic had arranged marriages and that is why today we have arranged marriages in the US???? Or did you mean something else by your post?

Want to talk about private property and inheritance? Why do the Socialists believe that they have a right to take money passed down generations?

Acquired! Socrates; do you want to know how much I acquired? In the art of making money I have been midway between my father and grandfather: for my grandfather, whose name I bear, doubled and trebled the value of his patrimony, that which he inherited being much what I possess now; but my father Lysanias reduced the property below what it is at present: and I shall be satisfied if I leave to these my sons not less but a little more than I received.

And then tax that which a man acquits himself through hard work

That was why I asked you the question, I replied, because I see that you are indifferent about money, which is a characteristic rather of those who have inherited their fortunes than of those who have acquired them; the makers of fortunes have a second love of money as a creation of their own, resembling the affection of authors for their own poems, or of parents for their children, besides that natural love of it for the sake of use and profit which is common to them and all men.

classics.mit.edu...

In the end, what right does society have of confiscating either that which a father worked for and passed down to his children, or that which a man worked for himself? Perhaps our Founding Fathers came to their own conclusions from this. Perhaps Adam Smith came to his own conclusions.


How about this:

On what principle, then, shall we any longer choose justice rather than the worst injustice? when, if we only unite the latter with a deceitful regard to appearances, we shall fare to our mind both with gods and men

classics.mit.edu...
Will men continue to "choose" the social and economic justice of the Socialists when they realize fully the damage which will accrue to their paycheck? Just ask Bill Maher, as he recently stated that the liberals were losing him when he found out what his real tax bill was for redistributing his income to others.....

Again, what is the understanding we are bringing to the table here?
For the Marxist redistributionists, the ends justify the means...

He only blames injustice who, owing to cowardice or age or some weakness, has not the power of being unjust. And this is proved by the fact that when he obtains the power, he immediately becomes unjust as far as he can be.

Maybe you can interpret this piece for us.

No one has ever adequately described either in verse or prose the true essential nature of either of them abiding in the soul, and invisible to any human or divine eye; or shown that of all the things of a man's soul which he has within him, justice is the greatest good, and injustice the greatest evil. Had this been the universal strain, had you sought to persuade us of this from our youth upwards, we should not have been on the watch to keep one another from doing wrong, but every one would have been his own watchman, because afraid, if he did wrong, of harbouring in himself the greatest of evils.

Thus Marxists believe themselves to be the expropriators of some divine justice in redistributing the wealth of those who acquired it of themselves because man is not capable of being his own watchman

WildTimes, where is thy response, surely your interpretation trumps mine as you are such an expert at social justice, equity, and Plato's Republic.

I must frankly confess to you, because I want to hear from you the opposite side; and I would ask you to show not only the superiority which justice has over injustice, but what effect they have on the possessor of them which makes the one to be a good and the other an evil to him

classics.mit.edu...

Or do you know what that means?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


ooops acquits = acquires

Wildtimes, Plato describes the State through Adeimantus

Quite right. The barest notion of a State must include four or five men.
Clearly.
And how will they proceed? Will each bring the result of his labours into a common stock? --the individual husbandman, for example, producing for four, and labouring four times as long and as much as he need in the provision of food with which he supplies others as well as himself; or will he have nothing to do with others and not be at the trouble of producing for them, but provide for himself alone a fourth of the food in a fourth of the time, and in the remaining three-fourths of his time be employed in making a house or a coat or a pair of shoes, having no partnership with others, but supplying himself all his own wants?

Adeimantus thought that he should aim at producing food only and not at producing everything.

classics.mit.edu...


For the Marxist, the State is Supreme and the rulers of that State which presume to know what true justice is, would demand that all producers bring into the State that which they produce for the common good. Is this not what Communism is? But where did our Founding Fathers say that from each according to his ability to each according to his need? Find that place in our Constitution or in the Federalist Papers and I may concede your argument that our Founding Fathers took their cue from Communism in Plato's Republic.

Oh by the way there are lots of gods and goddesses in Plato's Republic, at least in the dialogue, and you could be correct in that our Founding Fathers Republic is somewhat of a descendent of the Holy Roman Empire (of Christianity). Which means that neither secular humanism nor the Greek gods and goddesses have their place in our own Republic. I have yet to see a Greek god mentioned in our Constitution.

Socrates proposed a solution parallel to his treatment of housing and money, that the wives and children of the Guardians were to be in common and that no parents were to know their own children, nor children their parents. He advocated a programme of eugenics, analogous to the breeding of hunting dogs or birds, where the best of either sex would be united as often as possible, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom

www.historytoday.com...
So where does it say in our Constitution that wives should be shared in common and live in communes with men? That is communistic and you know it and our Founding Fathers never advocated such a thing. If anything they advocate neither that which the ancient Greeks practiced of women being secluded nor of the communism of Plato's Republic.

cnsnews.com...

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said today that the Senate immigration bill is even worse than feared, since it legalizes illegals' relatives and even those previously deported:

"And the Senate proposal offers amnesty to far more illegal immigrants than we thought. In addition to most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, the bill offers to legalize the relatives of illegal immigrants outside the U.S. and even others who have already been deported back home. So current immigration laws are shredded.

Just one reps opinion on the new immigration bill....

cnsnews.com... for those who are interested this is a pdf file of the bill.

reply to post by 727Sky


This bill is insane to say the least.! Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I can just see,someone sneaking in small print ,for pregnant women to continue;crossing up to the middle of the bridge. Once that is completed...some one will call the "EMS" for delivery of your baby! Don't worry all cost is free "THANKS" to American Tax Payers. This only applies where the Rio Grande River that connects the two Countries.

cnsnews.com...

The 844 page Immigration Bill Would Take Nearly Three Days To Read - Nonstop- but was released Wednesday night. The vote is on Friday...Not the first time a bill is passed to find out what is inside.

•Obamacare,
•The Stimulus,
•Fiscal Cliff Deal,
•$1.1 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill
•$280 Billion Continuing Resolution,
•2009 Climate Change Bill

Were all passed the same way. Forget Immigration for a moment and think about how laws are more and more being passed in D.C. without our Elected Reps understanding much less knowing the content..

Originally posted by 727Sky
cnsnews.com...

The 844 page Immigration Bill Would Take Nearly Three Days To Read - Nonstop- but was released Wednesday night. The vote is on Friday...Not the first time a bill is passed to find out what is inside.

•Obamacare,
•The Stimulus,
•Fiscal Cliff Deal,
•$1.1 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill
•$280 Billion Continuing Resolution,
•2009 Climate Change Bill

Were all passed the same way. Forget Immigration for a moment and think about how laws are more and more being passed in D.C. without our Elected Reps understanding much less knowing the content..

Heck, there could be a gun ban buried in there...
Who knows?
We have to pass it to find out what's in there....

reply to post by butcherguy


Noooooooo don't pass it. They had a lot of private meetings. Sneaky little suckers.