I chose other 'cause I though Justice would be most important, and that kind of implies both equality and freedom so... I think I might've broken your poll...
Sorry.
Sorry.
Poll: Equality vs Freedom
- Thread starter The Scythian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Even though I think those two go hand in hand and one cannot be achieved without the other, if I had to pick one, I would choose equality.
This since if all people are viewed as equal, the will be no boundaries to what can be attempted. This is what I define as freedom, the option to attempt whatever you choose.
And if all other factors are viewed as null, what will get someone ahead is their merits and what they can actually do, which is something I would view as a gigantic step in the right direction.
This since if all people are viewed as equal, the will be no boundaries to what can be attempted. This is what I define as freedom, the option to attempt whatever you choose.
And if all other factors are viewed as null, what will get someone ahead is their merits and what they can actually do, which is something I would view as a gigantic step in the right direction.
Equality by what standards? Communism doesn't work with state infringements not because it's communism, but because it enforces equality in every sense. There is no benefit to trying, because all must be equal, no matter the effort put in or the righteousness of cause.
My ideal is that freedom should be the idea, and fairness and equality (mostly) come with it. In a truly free world, we are only bound or held down by our own ability, and nobody or nothing else. The man who can build a plane within a day using wood and cowhide can, someone who is too stupid to do so cannot.
Inequality is entirely natural, but fair inequality is different from unfair inequality. Some people can't lift as heavy weights as others, and this is inequality, but it is inequality by virtue of effort, the man who has trained for ages to become stronger is now inequal to one who hasn't. But this is natural and right inequality, because someone has put in more effort than another. Mandated inequality would put him right back down to the other level, ergo no point in trying.
My ideal is that freedom should be the idea, and fairness and equality (mostly) come with it. In a truly free world, we are only bound or held down by our own ability, and nobody or nothing else. The man who can build a plane within a day using wood and cowhide can, someone who is too stupid to do so cannot.
Inequality is entirely natural, but fair inequality is different from unfair inequality. Some people can't lift as heavy weights as others, and this is inequality, but it is inequality by virtue of effort, the man who has trained for ages to become stronger is now inequal to one who hasn't. But this is natural and right inequality, because someone has put in more effort than another. Mandated inequality would put him right back down to the other level, ergo no point in trying.
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Freedom does not attain security. Giving third world countries liberties or democracy does not trump giving them AIDS medicine or the means to survive. You can't stabilize Liberia by teaching its people the importance of "freedom". Freedom is the least of its problems. Let's look at China, for instance. It lacks many personal freedoms but it does not have a starving population and is (compared to most developing nations) fairly stable. It is free enough to allow for a crude capitalism to flourish and build up the economy, but business transactions can only work because of the stable legal infrastructure a government creates (concepts such as ownership, patenting, persecution of theft/fraud etc).JMeganSnow said:
As the overall standard of living in China will gradually improve, only then will people take an interest in things like democratic reform. Democracy is an important component of a stable country in the long term, but it won't feed or protect a man's family in the short term. In terms of priorities, people will always be willing to ditch democracy if it saves their family. They are being perfectly logical by doing so.
Equality dosen't exist without the social freedoms implied in everyone being equal. Freedom without freedom is a lie because that implies that some people have more freedom than others.(not to be confused with realising freedom)In other words, you have both or you have neither.
It's always about economics.richd213 said:
Equality and freedom both.
By increasing equality you won't get more freedom, you'd get more things sure. But those will be assigned to you.
By increasing freedom you won't get more equality because people always want an edge over the other people.
In short, people want freedom, but cannot handle it.
And equality fails to make a person happy, because we all want to be better than the neighbour.
I myself am for freedom.
It grants a bigger shot at individual happiness.
Vietnam, Laos and Cuba would like to disagree with youWierdguy said:
Corrupt humans and external forces tend to bring down Communism, not its ideology.Not sure that you can go for just one with the exclusion of the other - I wouldn't want a society devoid of equality, nor would I want to be in one with no rules - I don't have fair in anarchy. I don't think I know enough to prefer one over the other in balance - freedom allows some of the worst traits of humanity to succeed over the better aspects, whilst too much enforced equality can become oppressive and repressive to progress. Politically I lean left, so I'd say equality I guess - the people who are more successful should help those in need.
Equality, simply because - we already have freedom, and it's not exactly got us very far... if anything so called 'freedom' means we create issues for ourselves since, anyone who's got true freedom would have the ability to do whatever they want - no matter how dickish and terrible it is. Think about it, people like Westboro Baptist church, nazis, racsts and others extremists - what if THEY had 'complete freedom' it'd mean that anyone else would be pressurized into their views - and henceforth losing their own freedom.
Now if we were all equal on the other hand - people with silly views could believe what they like but wouldn't be able to cause any trouble, while we'd still be able to treat them no different to anyone else.
Pretty much in my view, perfect equality means you can strive for freedom afterwords.
Now if we were all equal on the other hand - people with silly views could believe what they like but wouldn't be able to cause any trouble, while we'd still be able to treat them no different to anyone else.
Pretty much in my view, perfect equality means you can strive for freedom afterwords.
Can we separate socialism from communism here? Communism is the extreme equality as developed from Marx, in everything would be distributed "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Socialism is not that extreme. All taxes are a form of redistribution of wealth, after all. The debate comes in how far you choose to interfere with the individual for the common good. I'm curious to know what you mean by "economical system that supports this structure".AVATAR_RAGE said:Socialism works in theory and theory alone. Simply because few socialists really agree with how socialism should work and more often than not ends up being some sort of dictatorship.agnosticOCD said:Socialism is anti-social and although I have my own problems with the democratic system, that's at least better than forcing people to be equal instead of giving everyone a chance to do their thing.
I think there's a reason why two of the best things to choose for your country in Civ5 is Freedom and Rationalism.
I believe that a Socialist-Democracy would work with tolerant (and thus equal and free) society. This in turn would only work with an economical system that supports this structure, and there lies the problem.
Realistically co-operative ways of running society cannot work in the huge countries in which we live. Too many people and too much debate. A smaller society would be easier to make into a fair society.
Anyway, freedom v equality, or in the abstract, anarchy v equality. As several people have already observed, freedom for all cannot be secured through anarchy, because there will always be people selfish enough to screw each other over rather than working for the common good. Socio-economic factors continue to crush the chances of actual freedom for people in so many different areas. Therefore, in order to secure freedom for everyone, you have to have some law in place to ensure equality for all. Once everyone is equal, then they can develop themselves in freedom as they see fit.
