Poll: Equality vs Freedom
- Thread starter The Scythian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you give people freedom it's only a mater of time before the masses abuse it, if you give people equality it's only a mater of time before the big shots abuse it. You give people one and they demand the other. It's one big loop with total destruction or domination as the only "true" answers.
The direct opposite to Communism is not Fascism - it is neo-liberalism, or Capitalism. Communism is a measure of economic division of wealth, not social values; on the other hand, Fascism is a measure of how social values are applied, and it's direct opposite is Anarchism. They are on different scales entirely, and cannot be compared. Communism and Capitalism are on opposite ends of one scale; and Fascism and Anarchism are on opposite ends of another, separate scale.Baneat said:
As I have stated above, there has been no true communist state in history - sure, they stated off with Communist ideals, but disintegrated into Fascism very quickly as those in power exploited the people and enforced an extreme system of conformity and oppression. This is not communism - communism is extreme socialism. A true communist state would embrace both freedom and equality; while 'communist' nations throughout history have neglected the former and enforced the latter, resulting in extreme fascism
I don't quite see how feminism fits into this - feminism is not about anarchy or leadership, it's about the inequalities between women and men; anarchism or any such ideal doesn't come into it. I did not mention feminism, and it is not relevant in my pointUltratwinkie said:
My point is that with true equality, there would be no place for tyranny.
If we don't have freedom, we don't have equality. If people don't have freedom, that means that somebody that is above them is controlling them, so there is not equality.
Freedom is above all else.
Freedom is above all else.
After reading Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" I tend to take the freedom option. As pointed out in the story, the only true way to make us all equal is to handicap us all so that we are all exactly the same as the lowest common denominator. Communism/socialism only uses an economic approach to this, this is understandable since Marx basically thought that all major events in human history were driven by socioeconomic factors, however just because we all have the same amount of money, does not make us all equal. There will still be those who are better musicians, better dancers, better thinkers, better leaders. The only way to achieve, true egalitarianism would be to phyiscally and mentally hamper all but the lowest common denominator. "All men are Not Created Equal and it is the duty of the Government to render them so". I'm sure very few will think this is a good idea.
Of course, this is the extreme end of the arguement and I doubt any popular philosophy will accept this as a goal. Though it's still a good use of hyperbole to show that when we ignore people's natural talents for the sake equality, bad things can happen.
Of course, this is the extreme end of the arguement and I doubt any popular philosophy will accept this as a goal. Though it's still a good use of hyperbole to show that when we ignore people's natural talents for the sake equality, bad things can happen.
Never said it was, consider the model I showed, and I actually agree with you fully. Communism and fascism meet at the exact opposite end of where the neutral point started.InfiniteSingularity said:
And then, freedom-pushers go off in some complete other direction, I like to think of it as directly upwards for some reason.
So you're actually agreeing with me completely >.>
Individual liberty is the single greatest principle the human race can adhere to. It always trumps forced equality. The freedom to choose is what defines humanity, and we must never surrender that to external (or internal) forces.
That said, I do fully support "equality" insofar as it means "equal opportunities for all". I vehemently reject the concept that everyone should be equal in all things, and that everyone must share everything that they are with everyone else. That is lunacy. Give people the freedom and opportunity to choose their own path, and let them reap the consequences of their decisions.
That said, I do fully support "equality" insofar as it means "equal opportunities for all". I vehemently reject the concept that everyone should be equal in all things, and that everyone must share everything that they are with everyone else. That is lunacy. Give people the freedom and opportunity to choose their own path, and let them reap the consequences of their decisions.
If we have freedom without equality, then those above have the freedom to exploit those below for personal gain, destroying the freedom of those below - we have no freedom.Sonic Doctor said:
If we have equality, no one can tell anyone what to do - we have freedom
This is anarchic, absolute freedom, you are *absolutely* correct in what you say, but there is a best-case scenario proposed by Robert Nozick, which is a system in which the only way freedom is restricted is to prevent the direct infringement of other's freedoms. You can cut out almost all of what the government does, stick to these principles and have (What he's claimed to have found) Utopia.InfiniteSingularity said:
The book's Anarchy (He addresses and concludes to what you have also said) - State (Builds up a system) -Utopia (His projection for his system)
Sort of a "freedom with walls when you want to remove others" system. It's very cool.
Theoretical communism uses the State to force everyone to be equal in all things. This enforced equality will eventually dissolve the difference between classes, and ultimately governments, until everyone's one big, happy family.signingupforgames said:
The problem is that every practical application of Communism thus far halts at the first step and then corruption sets in, and it all goes to hell.
Technically it is fair, because if he's born rich he's done nothing to deserve his wealth. Someone in the world is starving and needs his money so he can eat. I don't understand how it is unfair to take the money from someone who has it, but does not need it, and give it to someone who needs it, but does not have it.Father Time said:
I was not disagreeing, merely clarifying for everyone in that quoteBaneat said:
Political compass [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2] is the best way to describe it
I've always loved that notion, and decided long ago it was the best way to run a society. It eliminates all flaws in our current society (at least, I have not come across a problem it does not solve)Baneat said:
Actually, both Fascism and Communism (in practice) are firmly in the "left-wing" side. Both employ large governments with immense levels of control over the populous, for "the greater good". It is the epitome of left-wing ideals.Baneat said:
Communism, on paper, wants to be right wing, but no one has ever let it reach that stage.
"Forced" equality is not equality. If everyone was truly equal, there would be no one to "force" the equality. If there is someone of more value, who has the power to force equality, it is not true equalityAgayek said:
