Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[InfiniteSingularity]

In brief: I put individual happiness, equality and freedom over social progress. Individual > society. That's me - i'm an individualist. You are the opposite. To me, social progress is irrelevant if it doesn't make life better or people happier. If it makes life better, or people happier, it's progress.

You're not though.

You are following, to the letter, a socialist, "for the greater good" philosophy, where everyone contributes to the whole and is therefore much happier than they would be otherwise.

You're arguments and stances are directly counter to all of the Individualist philosophies.

You are quite literally arguing that the individual should submit themselves to the society in order to benefit the other individuals in that society.

...no, i'm not. I'm saying that one individual can sacrifice something to another individual, not society (if we're talking about the theft argument). I don't care about the greater good, really, i don't care for society; I care for the individuals. Each individual person, and their rights

I don't know where you got that from

 

[Korolev]

Ideally, both.

You cannot have perfect, total freedom and perfect, total equality. Total Freedom means that you don't have to obey any laws and that would create chaos and unfairness. Total Equality means that you would restrict people's freedoms to such an extent that you would be living in a totalitarian nightmare.

You have to find the happy balance - enough Freedom for people to pursue their own goals and enough equality to ensure that as many people has possible have the same opportunities. No country has this balance just right - the US isn't equal enough and a place like China isn't nearly free enough.

 

[Haydyn]

Freedom. Equality is taking away chocolate milk from all kids because there are some that are overweight. I'm reminded of: Glory is not easy to achieve; if it was, it wouldn't be glorious. Freedom is everybody starting at the starting line, equality is judging that some people need an early start. I'm all for the part of equality that is freedom, but as a whole equality goes against Natural Selection.

Keep in mind I'm not refering to equality for all races, religions, and sexual preferences. I would also like to add the disabled, as adding a second water fountain lower enough for people in wheelchairs is not what I'm against. I'm talking about when there is an outside party that thinks it has the right to determine what the best course of action for someone else is. If people want to do stupid things, they should pay the price. Nobody has the right to swing in and say "Oh, you are failing at Natural Selection. Let's cater to you."

Freedom, however, allows people to live their lives free of these restraints. Just because somebody can abuse something (chocolate milk) doesn't mean the people not abusing it should be declined it.

This is all speculation. Both Freedom and Real Equality are needed.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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

Not entirely, what you might notice is that countries that have gone over to communism weren't in an economically viable position to do so in the first place. If a country went communist at a point in its existance where it had the resources necessary to do so, things might turn out differently. Also, and perhaps more importantly, human corruption is what makes communism not work. The idealogy itself isn't flawed, people are.

But despite all that, I'd agree with Dags90. This question is too broad for one definite answer.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I care for the individuals. Each individual person, and their rights

Do you support my right to earn a living? And then keep what I earn (taxes notwistanding, I know the government needs to run)?

Let me put it to you this way: I have seen my classmates fail. They didn't give a damn about their own lives. So why should I? Why should anyone?

If I earn money working, I feel far less sympathetic to the hobo who shouts at me when I can only spare $2 in change.

Also, I think anyone should be allowed to defend themselves and their property (of a greater value than $50) with lethal force.

Someone mugs you? You should be able to shoot them. Point blank. I don't care if you rake in >$300,000 a year and they live off scraps. They have NO right to your property.

Damn, this has gotten off topic.

But yes. Freedom above equality. That's why my family owns guns!

 

[Baneat]

Then it's not true freedom is it.

People always make a cage for themselves. Human beings need to start thinking differently if we ever want a truly free and equal society. We can make our own minds up we don't have to be fixed by our instincts. That's what being sentient means.

It's like we invented time and now we stare at a clock until we can leave work.

When you look at it from the outside it just seems completely crazy.

Nope, it's not, thus, back to the point I made, they are mutually exclusive. To think we will all transcend a working societal model for no good purpose, lovely thought, pipe dream. I might as well wish that people would stop committing crimes so we didn't need a police force.

Your point was that if your are free then you just revert back to a tribal model.

That's not true freedom.

As long as we dismiss any chance to develop ourselves as pipe dreams then we won't get anywhere. We don't have to live the way we do. Nobody is making our minds up for us but us. As a society we can change things. Alot has happened in history to prove that. I bet once people thought democracy was a pipe dream.

You don't *have* to revert to tribality

Go on, leave the country and live off the land, you can be free, noone will support you. But you won't last long.

We last longer when we are organised and protected. I want a workable, best case scenario.

 

[EllEzDee]

We all saw what freedom did for the US. Racism, segregation, destruction of entire cultures...

Equality > freedom. If everyone is treated equally, there's no place for tyranicism because it's impossible for anyone to gain enough power.

 

[Agayek]

...no, i'm not. I'm saying that one individual can sacrifice something to another individual, not society (if we're talking about the theft argument). I don't care about the greater good, really, i don't care for society; I care for the individuals. Each individual person, and their rights

I don't know where you got that from

I'm getting it from the basic premise of every socialist philosophy ever designed.

The base principle of socialism is that one should be ready, and willing, to give whatever they have to someone else who needs it. The argument is that if everyone does so, ownership, class, politics and government will all eventually disappear, leading to Utopia.

That is exactly what you are trying to argue for. Your whole philosophy is a study in utilitarian ethics and socialist policy.

It's not bad (though I do disagree with you), but it's as far from an Individualist standpoint as you can get.

 

[radioactive lemur]

Increase equality and greater freedom will follow.

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

How do you figure? We have 20 times the forced equality as we had 200 years ago, and we are nowhere close to as free as we were then.

 

[MasterChief892039]

Are we assuming freedom and equality are mutually exclusive? Because otherwise I'd choose freedom, as it leaves people the option to treat each other equally while also you know... being free.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

I care for the individuals. Each individual person, and their rights

Do you support my right to earn a living? And then keep what I earn (taxes notwistanding, I know the government needs to run)?

Let me put it to you this way: I have seen my classmates fail. They didn't give a damn about their own lives. So why should I? Why should anyone?

If I earn money working, I feel far less sympathetic to the hobo who shouts at me when I can only spare $2 in change.

Also, I think anyone should be allowed to defend themselves and their property (of a greater value than $50) with lethal force.

Someone mugs you? You should be able to shoot them. Point blank. I don't care if you rake in >$300,000 a year and they live off scraps. They have NO right to your property.

Damn, this has gotten off topic.

But yes. Freedom above equality. That's why my family owns guns!

I support your right to earn a living. But I also support any given person's right to live - and if they have to steal to live, they are justified in doing so, because right to life trumps all.

I also believe you have NO right to end someone's life. As I said, their right to life is far greater than your right to your property. And if it was switched around, if you were poor, and needed to steal to live, then your right to life is greater than someone else's right to their property. It works both ways. And yeah, it can be cruel, but if you earn over $300,000 a year, you can spare some for those in need. And killing someone who needs some money, and has to steal for money, is far more cruel.

I don't believe in lethal force at all. You value your $300,000 more than someone else's life? You're a prick. Seriously. I hate guns, do you know why? Because it makes killing easy - you can kill someone without remorse, which significantly degrades the worth of human life, because people are primitive uncaring dicks who measure the worth of something by their emotional reaction to it - hence, money > human life.

I don't care how much money you earn, you don't have a right to decide when someone else's life ends, even if they steal from you. If someone needs to steal to live, then they are justified because they have a right to live. Everyone has an equal right to live. You do not get priority if you have more money, which is essentially what you are saying - if you have more money, you are worth more and have more of a right to live.

I honestly can't believe people still believe that

 

[radioactive lemur]

Ideally, both.

You cannot have perfect, total freedom and perfect, total equality. Total Freedom means that you don't have to obey any laws and that would create chaos and unfairness. Total Equality means that you would restrict people's freedoms to such an extent that you would be living in a totalitarian nightmare.

You have to find the happy balance - enough Freedom for people to pursue their own goals and enough equality to ensure that as many people has possible have the same opportunities. No country has this balance just right - the US isn't equal enough and a place like China isn't nearly free enough.

I agree with your basic point that there needs to be a balance and no country is perfect, but even the US has too much forced equality and not enough freedom.

 

[radioactive lemur]

I care for the individuals. Each individual person, and their rights

Do you support my right to earn a living? And then keep what I earn (taxes notwistanding, I know the government needs to run)?

Let me put it to you this way: I have seen my classmates fail. They didn't give a damn about their own lives. So why should I? Why should anyone?

If I earn money working, I feel far less sympathetic to the hobo who shouts at me when I can only spare $2 in change.

Also, I think anyone should be allowed to defend themselves and their property (of a greater value than $50) with lethal force.

Someone mugs you? You should be able to shoot them. Point blank. I don't care if you rake in >$300,000 a year and they live off scraps. They have NO right to your property.

Damn, this has gotten off topic.

But yes. Freedom above equality. That's why my family owns guns!

I support your right to earn a living. But I also support any given person's right to live - and if they have to steal to live, they are justified in doing so, because right to life trumps all.

I also believe you have NO right to end someone's life. As I said, their right to life is far greater than your right to your property. And if it was switched around, if you were poor, and needed to steal to live, then your right to life is greater than someone else's right to their property. It works both ways. And yeah, it can be cruel, but if you earn over $300,000 a year, you can spare some for those in need. And killing someone who needs some money, and has to steal for money, is far more cruel.

I don't believe in lethal force at all. You value your $300,000 more than someone else's life? You're a prick. Seriously. I hate guns, do you know why? Because it makes killing easy - you can kill someone without remorse, which significantly degrades the worth of human life, because people are primitive uncaring dicks who measure the worth of something by their emotional reaction to it - hence, money > human life.

I don't care how much money you earn, you don't have a right to decide when someone else's life ends, even if they steal from you. If someone needs to steal to live, then they are justified because they have a right to live. Everyone has an equal right to live. You do not get priority if you have more money, which is essentially what you are saying - if you have more money, you are worth more and have more of a right to live.

I honestly can't believe people still believe that

So people are ENTITLED to the money YOU earned because they are poor? Poor people should just be allowed to steal from the rich? And the rich have no right to defend what they earned? What kind of fucked up world do you live in?

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

...no, i'm not. I'm saying that one individual can sacrifice something to another individual, not society (if we're talking about the theft argument). I don't care about the greater good, really, i don't care for society; I care for the individuals. Each individual person, and their rights

I don't know where you got that from

I'm getting it from the basic premise of every socialist philosophy ever designed.

The base principle of socialism is that one should be ready, and willing, to give whatever they have to someone else who needs it. The argument is that if everyone does so, ownership, class, politics and government will all eventually disappear, leading to Utopia.

That is exactly what you are trying to argue for. Your whole philosophy is a study in utilitarian ethics and socialist policy.

It's not bad (though I do disagree with you), but it's as far from an Individualist standpoint as you can get.

Yeah, i think you summed it up then. Politically it makes little sense to label me as individualist; however, I hold the individual over the state, society, and overall progress, so socially I consider myself individualist. I don't know if there's a difference really, but whatever.

 

[Baneat]

I care for the individuals. Each individual person, and their rights

Do you support my right to earn a living? And then keep what I earn (taxes notwistanding, I know the government needs to run)?

Let me put it to you this way: I have seen my classmates fail. They didn't give a damn about their own lives. So why should I? Why should anyone?

If I earn money working, I feel far less sympathetic to the hobo who shouts at me when I can only spare $2 in change.

Also, I think anyone should be allowed to defend themselves and their property (of a greater value than $50) with lethal force.

Someone mugs you? You should be able to shoot them. Point blank. I don't care if you rake in >$300,000 a year and they live off scraps. They have NO right to your property.

Damn, this has gotten off topic.

But yes. Freedom above equality. That's why my family owns guns!

I support your right to earn a living. But I also support any given person's right to live - and if they have to steal to live, they are justified in doing so, because right to life trumps all.

I also believe you have NO right to end someone's life. As I said, their right to life is far greater than your right to your property. And if it was switched around, if you were poor, and needed to steal to live, then your right to life is greater than someone else's right to their property. It works both ways. And yeah, it can be cruel, but if you earn over $300,000 a year, you can spare some for those in need. And killing someone who needs some money, and has to steal for money, is far more cruel.

I don't believe in lethal force at all. You value your $300,000 more than someone else's life? You're a prick. Seriously. I hate guns, do you know why? Because it makes killing easy - you can kill someone without remorse, which significantly degrades the worth of human life, because people are primitive uncaring dicks who measure the worth of something by their emotional reaction to it - hence, money > human life.

I don't care how much money you earn, you don't have a right to decide when someone else's life ends, even if they steal from you. If someone needs to steal to live, then they are justified because they have a right to live. Everyone has an equal right to live. You do not get priority if you have more money, which is essentially what you are saying - if you have more money, you are worth more and have more of a right to live.

I honestly can't believe people still believe that

So you think my basic health-care and basic aid with food and shelter is a good compatible idea? That it should be part of a state dedicated to personal liberty and minimisation of itself? Because our NHS is bloated, our socialist payouts to poor are too luxurious for what they are. You have the right to live, but the government isn't required to make you comfortable, you don't have a right to a comfortable existence, just an existence.

 

[Axel1105]

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

you mistaken, comparing equality to communism is like comparing a plastic bb shooter replica of a .45 cal pistol and the actual pistol. communism only looks like equality but its in fact a tyranny. socialism is true equality, like switzerland

 

[fletch_talon]

We're pretty good as far as freedom goes. In my opinion, some people have too much freedom.
Equality is on the right track too, but could use a little work.

I think we should work on equality and then strive to maintain a balanced quantity of the two.

 

[Vibhor]

Freedom because equality promotes censorship

 

[Axel1105]

It's so hard to answer this... I said equality, because I'm a raging socialist. But I chose it because I've been disappointed with what people have done with freedom, both in my country and everywhere else. Not that places where there isn't freedom are better off, but equality I feel would be better. Life has treated me differently, what can I say?

Thank you!!! my thoughts exactly. I live is the u.s. and im a teachers aid and i see what children do with all that freedom and i think to myself- the future of the u.s. is in peril

 

[Agayek]

I support your right to earn a living. But I also support any given person's right to live - and if they have to steal to live, they are justified in doing so, because right to life trumps all.

I also believe you have NO right to end someone's life. As I said, their right to life is far greater than your right to your property. And if it was switched around, if you were poor, and needed to steal to live, then your right to life is greater than someone else's right to their property. It works both ways. And yeah, it can be cruel, but if you earn over $300,000 a year, you can spare some for those in need. And killing someone who needs some money, and has to steal for money, is far more cruel.

I don't believe in lethal force at all. You value your $300,000 more than someone else's life? You're a prick. Seriously. I hate guns, do you know why? Because it makes killing easy - you can kill someone without remorse, which significantly degrades the worth of human life, because people are primitive uncaring dicks who measure the worth of something by their emotional reaction to it - hence, money > human life.

I don't care how much money you earn, you don't have a right to decide when someone else's life ends, even if they steal from you. If someone needs to steal to live, then they are justified because they have a right to live. Everyone has an equal right to live. You do not get priority if you have more money, which is essentially what you are saying - if you have more money, you are worth more and have more of a right to live.

I honestly can't believe people still believe that

Just an honest question here.

Why is the life of someone who attacked me worth more than my property? They willingly attacked me, cognizant of the fact there was at least a 50% chance I would fight back. The sheer fact that they followed through with it meant they willingly accepted the consequences of that decision.

So why is it such a bad thing to deliver those consequences?

It's an honest question I've asked several people with similar viewpoints to yours and I've never received a valid answer. Why does my attacker get to abandon personal responsibility when the consequences get too harsh?

My confusion stems from the basic principles of my own philosophy, wherein individual liberty and personal responsibility go hand-in-hand as the most important values for someone to carry. One should be free to make whatever choices they wish. That freedom carries with it a responsibility to accept the consequences of those choices. If I go to attack someone, I fully expect them to fight back, and I accept that as a consequence. Why does my attacker not bear the same responsibility?