Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[FarleShadow]

Absolutely free people are anarchists.
Anarchists can never be free, because if they act differently, they aren't anarchists and are no longer free.
therfore, nobody is free.

CIRCULAR LOGIC ERROR: PLEASE PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE.

 

[Baneat]

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.

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.

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.

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)

Then read his book, he published it in 1974 so it's not cryptic to read like that fucker Kant. There are a few issues with it, kinks to sort out (And I'm trying to kink them out, doing well so far), and confusion in how to make a preference system of enforcement, if you infringed someone's right to protest because your life was in danger because of it, there's not been a system to give preference in conflicts. It's all Kantian-derived, but far away from it by this point, with the good bits still there with the useless shit like most of the C.Imperatives whapped out.

 

[Agayek]

"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 equality

There's one problem with that though.

Human beings are not inherently equal. Some are good at math and terrible at athletics. Some are amazing artists while others can only draw stick figures. The sheer, simple fact of the matter is, you cannot have equality among humankind. People are simply too different.

The best you can do is give everyone the freedom to make whatever they want to/can out of their lives.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Increase equality and greater freedom will follow.

Freedom (economic at least) won't create equality.

They are mutually exclusive.

"Men and women are equal, under a tyrant's boot."

See that? You choose equality and get tyranny.

Wouldn't true equality imply that all men and women are equal? Doesn't this mean that this tyrant is equal to all men and women? Doesn't this mean the tyrant has no greater worth than any man or woman, and thus is no longer a tyrant?

If equality meant everyone was the leader of a country, then Feminism is a movement of anarchists.

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 point

My point is that with true equality, there would be no place for tyranny.

You didn't see my point? Really? You really see no point in that analogy? The same point you pointed out? Yes there would be a place of tyranny. No matter how equal a country can be, tyranny can still happen.

?If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy? - James Madison.

Tyranny can come at any time, and anywhere. The more people forget the faster it comes. When people forget to uphold the freedom they fought for centuries ago, it all falls apart. Freedom is not a one time thing, it needs to be maintained. Gender equality and political equality are not the same.

Eh... feminism is not an apt analogy because it does not involve the state in the same way anarchism does. The statement that Feminism is a movement of anarchists is not sound because anarchism is not a point in feminism. I assume you are implying feminism is equality, and that is not the case - feminism is a type of equality, a branch of it, regarding only gender differences.

You have missed my main point anyway - if everyone was equal, there would be no tyrants, because everyone is equal. By definition this is true - if there is tyranny in a state of equality, there is no longer equality.

Said tyrant would have to be above all others in order to be a tyrant. If there is true equality, this tyrant would be equal to, not above, all others - hence, he would have no power, and thus would not be a tyrant.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

"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 equality

There's one problem with that though.

Human beings are not inherently equal. Some are good at math and terrible at athletics. Some are amazing artists while others can only draw stick figures. The sheer, simple fact of the matter is, you cannot have equality among humankind. People are simply too different.

The best you can do is give everyone the freedom to make whatever they want to/can out of their lives.

Equality doesn't mean everyone is the same, or is forced to be the same - it just means we have "equal rights, equal worth, equal opportunities, equal freedoms and an equal place alongside our fellow man" (quoted from my previous post). Though this equality comes the freedom to do as they wish, as you were saying.

 

[Agayek]

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.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

 

[Baneat]

Political compass [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2] is the best way to describe it

Since this is a gaming site, imagine a game that used the nine-point LNC/GNE compass for morality with the political one in addition for politics within it. Maybe a fable type game could have that

That'd pwn. hard. I'd buy it

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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.

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.

If we have equality, no one can tell anyone what to do - we have freedom

No.

If there is straight and to the point equality, that means there has to be somebody that is keeping people in line. That means people are being controlled, which means they don't have freedom. Just like the forced social crap that Obama wants to implement in the US, making community service a requirement for people to graduate high school. The problem is that there are many people and kids out there that would rather just care for themselves and their own lives instead of there time being taken up by others. Charity is something to be given willingly, not something to force people to do.

The minute people start forcing people into some straight line, an "equality mold" were everybody has to go through the same things and the same requirements in life, freedom dies. Freedom can't live in an environment where authority pigeon holes people into certain directions.

I really believe that there isn't such a thing as pure equality, because if it happens, it means that people are forced to be a certain way, because if they aren't areas of inequality will happen. It is the nature of things. If we attain pure equality, there will be no freedom.

With such a structured society that believes for the good of the whole is most important and everybody should work towards it, we won't have people like artists and free spirits. In such a society, entertainment doesn't work for the good of the whole because it just wastes time that could be used for new advances to better humanity. In this scenario there will be no room for games. Games foster competition and in competition in the end, not all people are equal.

So, I advocate that we don't work towards pure equality, because at that point there wouldn't be freedom. Racial equality, that is fine. But there will be no such thing as economic equality, because having such would force people to give to the whole, it would be taking away their freedom to do with their money as they please; they earned the money or the money was willed to them, so it is their money and they should be able to do with it as they please.

Freedom is above all else, because once there is pure equality, there will be no freedom.

 

[Baneat]

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.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

My dissonance comes from the fact that I wouldn't say the beggar was justifiable in his actions

But I'd at least understand why he did it, and sympathise with his position to a degree.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

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.

The general argument against the concept is that it's theft. The one who "needs" it is taking it from the one who has it. The only difference is that it's government-sanctioned.

You wouldn't say it's acceptable for a beggar to mug someone walking down the street and steal his wallet (or at least I'd hope you wouldn't), yet you find it perfectly fine for the government to do the same. It's a bit silly.

If the beggar is poor, and genuinely needs it, I would say it is the right thing to do, yes. And I have always stood by that belief. If you were rich, and had no need for all the money you had, would you give it to those in need? I assume you would say yes, in which case, we agree.

 

[Agayek]

Equality doesn't mean everyone is the same, or is forced to be the same - it just means we have "equal rights, equal worth, equal opportunities, equal freedoms and an equal place alongside our fellow man" (quoted from my previous post). Though this equality comes the freedom to do as they wish, as you were saying.

That's just it though. You take any two people off the street, and I guarantee you they are of different worth, by any metric you feel like using (unless you use something stupid like "human = human" done).

Humans are inherently different, and because of that, they are inherently inequal. As long as that difference remains, equality is impossible.

 

[Agayek]

If the beggar is poor, and genuinely needs it, I would say it is the right thing to do, yes. And I have always stood by that belief. If you were rich, and had no need for all the money you had, would you give it to those in need? I assume you would say yes, in which case, we agree.

Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree then. Theft is never a valid option, in my opinion. If said beggar needed money so badly, he could have approached the man and offered to do an odd job for a few dollars or something like that. Instead, he attacked him. I can't see justification for that.

My dissonance comes from the fact that I wouldn't say the beggar was justifiable in his actions

But I'd at least understand why he did it, and sympathise with his position to a degree.

Fair enough. I would sympathize with the man too. That doesn't make what he did right though.

 

[Baneat]

If the beggar is poor, and genuinely needs it, I would say it is the right thing to do, yes. And I have always stood by that belief. If you were rich, and had no need for all the money you had, would you give it to those in need? I assume you would say yes, in which case, we agree.

Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree then. Theft is never a valid option, in my opinion. If said beggar needed money so badly, he could have approached the man and offered to do an odd job for a few dollars or something like that. Instead, he attacked him. I can't see justification for that.

My dissonance comes from the fact that I wouldn't say the beggar was justifiable in his actions

But I'd at least understand why he did it, and sympathise with his position to a degree.

Fair enough. I would sympathize with the man too. That doesn't make what he did right though.

But I know deep down I would do the exact same thing, as would many..

and it's so confusing, since giving the beggar the same treatment as a millionaire who did the same thing seems wrong, but deontology expressly forbids such an act. I wouldn't feel comfortable punishing the beggar, at all, I'd feel some moral dilemma for sure, though I shouldn't.

Normative ethics are pulling themselves away from useful, practical ethics, and following think-tanked, reasoned, well thought systems in the real world does not do what it's supposed to, and hit your intuition as much as it possibly can.

 

[viranimus]

Ok, I exercise my freedom to wonder why this isnt in political.

I am also confused by the intermelding of politics and philosophy, as it seems like some are thinking these highly subjective terms are all encompassing embodiments of ideology.

Fact is, governmental ideology, Communism, Captialism, Democracy, Monarchy, as well as sociological concepts such as socialism, individualism, Liberty, freedom, equality, etc are all failed and flawed concepts that we use because of the failings of human nature that prevent a system of self government from existing.

That is the only system of government that will ever be true and fair, and it would take a complete and fundamental shift in human nature for it ever to see the light of day.

So... I will, pick.... uhhhhhh...... ok, Sure, freedom. Freedom is simply put a more attainable goal naturally. Equality goes against not only human nature, but nature itself.

All I really want is not be confronted with thinly veiled attempts at forcing discourse to validate support for either conservativism and liberalism.

 

[TheDutchin]

as soon as i saw the equality bit i thought of the story "Harrison Bergeron", it displays that while equality is good, too much equality is a terrible, terrible thing. And on freedom, same thing, too much freedom and suddenly people are free to do what ever they want, without restriction. That may sound good at first but then think about psychopaths and murderers and thieves etc. etc. but overall i think that freedom is more important than equality, but neither is good in excess

 

[Thundero13]

Well personally I think we have enough freedom here in the land of Eire, and I really think equality is important, but a lot of other countries don't have as much freedom do they...

 

[zehydra]

ideally, the whole point of equality is to make people equally free.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

I think a mix of both is the best

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

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.

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.

If we have equality, no one can tell anyone what to do - we have freedom

No.

If there is straight and to the point equality, that means there has to be somebody that is keeping people in line.

This is not equality. If there is someone who needs to control these people, then by definition it is not equality.

People don't need to be kept in line if they are equal - that's fascism.

That means people are being controlled, which means they don't have freedom. Just like the forced social crap that Obama wants to implement in the US, making community service a requirement for people to graduate high school. The problem is that there are many people and kids out there that would rather just care for themselves and their own lives instead of there time being taken up by others. Charity is something to be given willingly, not something to force people to do.

The minute people start forcing people into some straight line, an "equality mold" were everybody has to go through the same things and the same requirements in life, freedom dies. Freedom can't live in an environment where authority pigeon holes people into certain directions.

Your ideology of 'equality' is flawed, as I have just stated. You are talking about 'forced equality', which as I have said in another post, is not equality. By equality, I mean we all have equal rights, equal freedoms, and an equal worth. That is true equality.

Equality doesn't mean we are forced to be the same - it may be a common product, but it is not necessary.

I really believe that there isn't such a thing as pure equality, because if it happens, it means that people are forced to be a certain way, because if they aren't areas of inequality will happen. It is the nature of things. If we attain pure equality, there will be no freedom.

With such a structured society that believes for the good of the whole is most important and everybody should work towards it, we won't have people like artists and free spirits. In such a society, entertainment doesn't work for the good of the whole because it just wastes time that could be used for new advances to better humanity. In this scenario there will be no room for games. Games foster competition and in competition in the end, not all people are equal.

Again, equality doesn't mean we're all the same. If we are equal, it doesn't mean we're all working for the state - again, that's fascism. We still have our individual beliefs, and values, and identity, and choices - we just don't have anyone above us telling us what we can or cannot do. This produces more freedom

So, I advocate that we don't work towards pure equality, because at that point there wouldn't be freedom. Racial equality, that is fine. But there will be no such thing as economic equality, because having such would force people to give to the whole, it would be taking away their freedom to do with their money as they please; they earned the money or the money was willed to them, so it is their money and they should be able to do with it as they please.

Freedom is above all else, because once there is pure equality, there will be no freedom.

What you are trying to do is implement a socialist model inside our current capitalist one - that doesn't work. If we worked towards equality it would mean an entire social reform, changing the very structure and foundations our society is built on right now. If people had to work the same jobs we have, and earn different amounts of money for different work...and then we have to give back money so we have equal wealth, that is communism and capitalism - they are polar opposites, and cannot work together, as you have just pointed out. So we'll need a new system. Will we need to work? Possibly. Possibly not. Will it be the same? Most likely not. Will we be equal? Yes. Will we be free? Yes. This is what we should be striving for

My model of equality is built on Anarchism, not communism. While I do believe the latter is ideal, the former is my main point