Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[funguy2121]

Recently, I was listening to talk radio with my father, and the pundit brought up something very interesting. He brought up freedom and equality, and their role in society. So, Escapists, what should civilization strive for more? Are there more important ideals to be focused on? Please discuss.

Poll is broken! I called it!

How are these two mutually exclusive? I read the OP for clarity, and didn't find any. Without details, your pundit is sounding like a charlatan.

Specifics and context, please!

 

[Kair]

Freedom without equality is not freedom, it is barbarism. Your freedom is not worth more than that of your peers.

It is also impossible to have equality without the freedom of every individual (equality requires equal participation).

Any way, to use the word 'freedom' in a world of mental sickness does not make sense.

 

[mionic]

Equality is communism, freedom is democracy. To have both you must be either Switzerland or Luxembourg. The 2 neutral countries.

and sweden. or, well, at least we claim to be, and officially are

 

[Brandon237]

Freedom, if you have freedom you can do the rest and know about your society, if you are given complete equality it may very well lead to a communistic living hell.

 

[mightybozz]

Guys, freedom does not equal democracy. Freedom = no constraints or rules at all = anarchy.

 

[Biodeamon]

I like communism but i think equality in society would turn into one of those dysotopian 70's stories where everyone are like minded zombies. People should go for the freedom of an individual to allow for growth of the society.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

Versus threads are always hard, even without being this abstract.

Freedom without equality is freedom for some tyranny for the rest.

Yeah, this is what I mean. It really depends how fundamentalist one wants to be in this matter, because I can think this directly opposite and it is no less true; equality without freedom is a tyranny for everybody... Pure freedom can be considered as anarchy and so on...

If two things even slightly depend on each other, it is really hard pick better, like in this case where both things are ethically "good" and very abstract. There is no way to "pick better" here, but don't get me wrong, I like this philosophy here

Freedom is better, because with that human usually starts to think and invent. However this freedom usually leeds to people killing each other (unfortunately even nowadays). Equality is the basis for well developed societys when every man has equal rights and equal responsibilities (laws) to act upon. However the equality in certain parts of society just will not work, i.e. pure communism as such is unthinkable when one wants to make a society. Even in communism some people are more equal than others .

Equal rights and responsibilities are good thing about equality, but without freedom one can not be human in my mind. If human kind would have never had freedom to think and to act, we would still throw stick and stones to each others.

I could see this for the most part, history provides some examples of the oppressed driving a progression here and there, but mostly invention thrives under personal freedom. Though for broad political/societal equality I don't think communism or sameness/uniformity as some have argued is necessary either (and ultimately undesirable as they both have a way of encroaching on freedom). The concept of a true democracy is one where every citizen has an equal voice and with the current tools available to maintain an informed populace we have the tools to shift from more of a self-participatory democracy rather than a representative democracy which try as it might must fail to represent all citizens equally.

I admit that this is an absolute pipe-dream at the moment and that we have many personally & socially held values that would disrupt this, so the shift would have to include a new cultural paradigm where money/resources are still wanted/used to encourage free market, but no longer has a status equipped to the perception of the mass culture, which is even more of a pipe dream. Other aspects of interpersonal perception would have to change as well, an equally lofty goal (demographically based value association), and the change would have to be an organic one driven by the mental mode of the people and not some form of organized agenda, but it seems to be the way we are progressing for the most part, albeit slowly.

/*EDIT: money can only succeed as a status symbol if it is a resource that some have and others not, with the ability to gain more due to personal ingenuity and such, but also have a generous base line for all citizenry no one really lacks enough to live decently and it will crumble as a status icon. /endEdit */

Ultimately though I think either one will lead to the other eventually, and if I HAD to pick I guess freedom, but its tricky as freedom is heavily dependent on at least a drive towards and a sense of current equality.

 

[Kitteh]

Equality in its extreme is Communism - and its historicaly been proved communism cant hold in the long run so freedom probably.

neither can a purely free state either. which is more important, your right to own an object or a thief's right to steal it?

 

[exessmirror]

Equality, if we are all equal how can we not be free.

 

[Aur0ra145]

You only deserve what you earn. This includes happiness. You are not entitled to anything.

I think that pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Yes I know and understand the difference between socialism and communism. However recent history has shown that Socialism on it's own is not beneficial in fact it has lead to dictatorships and such.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I'm going to have to agree with post #24: Both. They're interdependent. (Please note that freedom and absolute license, contrary to popular belief, are not the same thing.)

 

[rokkolpo]

I once read the Giver back in middle school. It was about a community that gave up choice and freedom for equality and "sameness". It might not be an accurate depiction (Its science fiction) But I choose freedom over equality ever since.

So you were influenced by ones man opinion.

Thats not very good.

Getting influenced happens faster than you think.
Everyone gets influenced by one man's opinion on a daily basis.

It's called media.

Everyone has the ability to filter it out once they realise it.

Its called thinking.

''Once they realise it''

 

[mightybozz]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Yes I know and understand the difference between socialism and communism. However recent history has shown that Socialism on it's own is not beneficial in fact it has lead to dictatorships and such.

Such as?

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Such as?

Well most recently one of the countries in South america (Venezuela I think don't quote me on it though I am going purely by memory) is currently being governed by a socialist party that has abused it's power and left it's people in a terrible state. How bad well fuel is cheaper than milk in some parts.

But to use a more extreme example the Nazi party was a socialist one too. Socialism as an ideology is often abused by the corrupt and so should (in my opinion) only exist next to a democratic system and a supportable economic scheme.

 

[mightybozz]

I don't think economic theory automatically translates into a totalitarian state. Most of Europe was governed socialist principles in the years after WW2. Certainly the UK saw increased national control over industries and infrastructure, because the two wars had shown that state control didn't lead the economy to implode. Economics does not dictate your nation's approach to the rule of law or human rights, or democracy.

National socialism is generally thought to be on the right-hand side of the political spectrum. Frankly, fascism and communism meet each other around the back of the spectrum though. Communism takes control of your goods to equalise wealth. Fascism takes control of your goods for the benefit of the nation and the people.