Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[Jegsimmons]

with freedom, you are all equal, you all have to put in work to be successful your chances are almost always equal to that of everyone else, it usually comes down to choice and preference and how hard your willing to work for it. You have equality you have nothing to strive or innovate for. and your freedom is usually restricted in societies that focus too much on equality.

 

[Baneat]

]Because if you don't need it, and they do need it, there is no reason they shouldn't have it.

Were you looking for the contradiction? It's there mate. The reason they should not have it is that it's a liberty not only to have things not stolen or forcibly taken from you, and another to actually have ownership. You gotta pick one or the other, they are entirely incompatible. But this one is *very* communistic, there's no reason a doctor shouldn't have more than basic living, let's redistribute the wealth to the poor.

It's average utilitarianism, but with money, and comes with lots of problems of its own (My favourite being

Put people on X, and their utility on Y, the best solution is the one that maximises the utility, meaning XY is the greatest number. Sounds reasonable enough, yeah? If someone has a massive Y you have the right to knock him down a notch and redistribute.

What you're trying to do, is flatten Y across the X's, but, we can get the most by flattening Y to the thinnest sliver across a huge number, many more lives barely worth living, but overall, more area.

Sounds dystopic

 

[charlest92]

equality kills freedom/freedom negates equality best world>> 70/30 <<free equal

 

[Agayek]

Also: Your own preferred theory is designed to prevent anyone becoming moral authorities, it nerfs them so they can't do damage with it. What makes you the moral authority on what is needed and what is deserved? Can I not just do the same thing with anything, do whatever the fuck I want? I don't think that guy "deserved" to live, so I am justified in murdering him. Deserved being off my own code of ethics. Which are inconsistent.

There isn't a moral authority on what is needed or deserved. That's just it. There's an objective rule that all are subject to, and it is the basic principle of society:

You are, or rather should be, free to do whatever the fuck you want, provided you do not infringe on anyone else's right to the same. It's the only universally applicable system of morality. Any more rules than that and you start intruding on inconsistent or subjective territory. It's pretty simple.

 

[AsgardsChosen]

Equality is all well and good when it's global, but getting to that point isn't easy, so I vote for Freedom. Once everyone is Free, then we can start trying to even it all out.

 

[Baneat]

Which is why I would take it a whole lot further and implement a socialist government-controlled economy, to eliminate poverty, which ensuring it doesn't disintegrate into fascism - it's a hard line to balance, but I believe it can be done.

You quote a part of what I said on infringements, but you do not believe in it one bit, not even at all. You are proposing extreme government interference, but picked a principle of minimalist government to agree with, then you've just gone full circle and abandoned it. I believe you've arrived at communism, you could not be further from the principle you said you agreed with.

I've been at this too long, but I will say that you've now got the job of finding benevolent people who absolutely will not abuse the enormous power over everyone you've just provided them..

Got shit to do, but it's been interesting.

Also: Your own preferred theory is designed to prevent anyone becoming moral authorities, it nerfs them so they can't do damage with it. What makes you the moral authority on what is needed and what is deserved? Can I not just do the same thing with anything, do whatever the fuck I want? I don't think that guy "deserved" to live, so I am justified in murdering him. Deserved being off my own code of ethics. Which are inconsistent.

There isn't a moral authority on what is needed or deserved. That's just it. There's an objective rule that all are subject to, and it is the basic principle of society:

You are, or rather should be, free to do whatever the fuck you want, provided you do not infringe on anyone else's right to the same. It's the only universally applicable system of morality. Any more rules than that and you start intruding on inconsistent or subjective territory. It's pretty simple.

I wasn't disagreeing with your point, but it followed directly from it, so I felt you should be included in that, the moral authority was infinite's authority to decide what people deserve.

I agree 100% principally speaking with you, so not much point trying to refute me.

 

[Agayek]

Because if you don't need it, and they do need it, there is no reason they shouldn't have it. It does no harm to he who doesn't need it, and it saves the life of someone who does need it. Denying this to someone who needs it is preposterous, selfish, and ridiculous.

There's a very simple reason they should not have it: It's yours. Regardless of how it came into your possession (except for theft), it rightfully belongs to you. Someone taking that by force is a violation of your rights to own property. It's as simple as that.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

snip

I know someone else owns it, but I don't think they should. For some arbitrary reason someone has $30 million and someone else has less than $100 to live off - the one who needs money to live, has no home, no job, and no money, and needs to steal as a last resort in order to live is rightful in taking money from someone who is well off.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Yeah, we might own heaps of money, but if we don't have the right to it (which unless we worked hard for it we don't) then it should rightfully go to someone who needs it. This is why i detest the notion of being rich - it's ridiculous to have more money than is needed and allowing people to starve because they can't get money to buy bread for a week and "theft is against the law". Fuck the law - I would do whatever I needed to do to survive, and I know you would too. Don't act so high-and-mighty and take the moral high ground just because you don't need to steal for food - if you were poor, you would too.

There is a major flaw in your argument. You say that the rich people who didn't earn the money, don't deserve it because they didn't earn it. But then you want to give that money to some poor people, the thing is, they didn't earn it as well.

No, you're right. But they need it to live.

Now you are going to say that there is an exception that the people are poor. The problem is that it makes the situation unequal. If the rich people that earned the money can't have the exception to give their money to the family members who "didn't earn it" and feel safe in the notion that the money will stay in the family, then you or anybody else can't make the exception that the poor people get the money.

It's not an exception, it's part of the condition. You appear to have forgotten that the "need" is paramount - if someone needs money, but doesn't have it, and someone else has money, but does not need it, then the one who needs it deserves the money of the one who has it.

I disagree with the notion of "money staying in the family" because it puts archaic symbolic traditions over what needs to be done.

I'm only going to say fuck the law if it unjust, like taking my money away to give to other people, or forcing people to help others if the people don't want to. Because those laws are impeding freedoms.

I believe it is unjust to hold one person's life over another's because of their wealth, which is essentially what you are doing, because you are allowing the poor man to starve for the sake of the rich man's wealth. And this is our law, so I'm saying "fuck the law"

I have plenty of money troubles. I haven't been able to get a job, and I've got college loans that will be coming due, and I just barely have enough money for food and gas for my car. Not once as it ever occurred to me to go out and steal from some rich person. It is illegal and I will not break a just law. I don't care if the person inherited the money and did work for it. Someone wanted them to have it and I will respect that person's wishes.

Ok, so eliminating stealing: Doesn't your situation make you a little bit angry at our system, how you have to be eligible to earn money? You have to pay for college/university, you have to prove your worth to get a degree in order to get money? That might be just me though

The whole, "if you were poor, you would too" thing is not going to work on me. Because of I have the character to not be that type of person. If I don't earn it or somebody doesn't give it legally and willingly to me, than I will go without. If that means I end up dieing, then so be it.

Okay, so when you're starving and homeless, with no money, job, or sympathy, you will die on the streets. But that's okay, because you have the moral high ground!... :/

[quote}A people that resort to stealing, have tarnished their character and standing in life. And I don't want to have anything to do with them. If somebody inherited that 30 million, it is because somebody wanted that money to be left to the person. I don't find a person's wish of things after death to be arbitrary. If that is arbitrary, then the reason to steal the money from that person to give it to the poor person is arbitrary.[/quote}I don't believe someone should die for the sake of an arbitrary moral high ground. If they need it, and they can't get it legitimately, I don't care how right or wrong, legal or illegal it is, they have a right to live, and deserve the money someone else doesn't need. Or they can steal. As I said, everyone has a right to live, regardless of wealth. Which is why I detest capitalism.

Such things are to be left to charity, if poor people need help, look to charity. Taking money from people because of the arbitrary reasons that "they didn't earn it" or "they have too much money", is wrong and I won't stand for it. I'm anything but rich, but I will stand for their right to have that money.

I don't believe in money at all, and I guess this is where you and I differ. As a result, I don't believe anyone has the right to have money - but if someone needs it (which they will in this system) then they should have it. That's my view

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

...ah. I see now.

Capitalism created hierarchy, which creates inequality, unbalancing freedom. I understand the notion of people working for their money, but it is a system run by greed, power, money, and inequality. It is a biased system. Especially given that we have to prove our eligibility to work, so only some people can actually get the opportunity to work for money. And we have to pay to prove our eligibility - it just doesn't work in a society which promotes equality and freedom (and it does - almost all western societies use red white and blue on their flag: "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité" (sp?) in the words of the French).

I don't believe in a system where some people are less than others. There is so much wrong with capitalism in this regard - I won't go into it all, but ask me any specific question about it and I will answer.

There will always be monetary inequality. With thinking in a monetary sense anyway, if I ever got to a point where I am comfortable with the money I have and the things I have and the food I am eating, and I am just plain comfortable all around, I'm not going to care that people have more than me, because I will be at a satisfied point. Everybody's point of satisfaction in the system is different. Feeling unequal in this system is pointless. Boohooing about it will get people nowhere. This is a system of survival of the fittest, if people aren't willing to do the work it takes to get them the things they need and want, then they will be left by the wayside. In order for society to grow, it has to foster responsibility for ones own life and a proper work ethic to get the things that are needed and the things people want. People that don't want to work within that system will have to just move out of the way and let society move unhindered.

People that don't work for success, will not get what they want. A vast majority of the people that advocate for "spreading the wealth around" are people that don't want to pull out all the stops and do the work to get what they want, because it is "too hard".

I say too bad, work for it within the just laws, or fall by the wayside.

 

[Baneat]

Because if you don't need it, and they do need it, there is no reason they shouldn't have it. It does no harm to he who doesn't need it, and it saves the life of someone who does need it. Denying this to someone who needs it is preposterous, selfish, and ridiculous.

There's a very simple reason they should not have it: It's yours. Regardless of how it came into your possession (except for theft), it rightfully belongs to you. Someone taking that by force is a violation of your rights to own property. It's as simple as that.

Back for five seconds to throw a little spanner in:

I think part of minimalist government should include basic (As in, you'll get by, you'll survive) aid -

The right to life elevates other rights. I don't believe in any more than that, you don't need to do anything but keep them afloat.

An Idea I was toying with.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Because if you don't need it, and they do need it, there is no reason they shouldn't have it. It does no harm to he who doesn't need it, and it saves the life of someone who does need it. Denying this to someone who needs it is preposterous, selfish, and ridiculous.

There's a very simple reason they should not have it: It's yours. Regardless of how it came into your possession (except for theft), it rightfully belongs to you. Someone taking that by force is a violation of your rights to own property. It's as simple as that.

I disagree with the notion of ownership, because of much of the time it is arbitrary. If someone is born rich, and someone else is born poor, should we allow the poor to suffer and allow the rich to prosper? I don't think so - I don't believe that is right, I believe it is morally and ethically wrong. You might disagree with me, but I don't believe arbitrary ownership trumps welfare.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Because if you don't need it, and they do need it, there is no reason they shouldn't have it. It does no harm to he who doesn't need it, and it saves the life of someone who does need it. Denying this to someone who needs it is preposterous, selfish, and ridiculous.

There's a very simple reason they should not have it: It's yours. Regardless of how it came into your possession (except for theft), it rightfully belongs to you. Someone taking that by force is a violation of your rights to own property. It's as simple as that.

Back for five seconds to throw a little spanner in:

I think part of minimalist government should include basic (As in, you'll get by, you'll survive) aid -

The right to life elevates other rights. I don't believe in any more than that, you don't need to do anything but keep them afloat.

An Idea I was toying with.

We sort of have that with Centrelink here in Australia, but they criteria you have to fill to be eligible is quite tight, and difficult to fill. And the people who decide whether you deserve it are biased with their own opinion - there's no hard and fast rule with it. It's way too inconsistent.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

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

True communism has actually never existed. Frankly, freedom in its extreme form would be a more true communism. The people rising up and taking control of their government. That being said, I did vote for freedom, but personally for me it's more from an artistic/anti-censorship perspective.

 

[TheTaco007]

Both. We give everybody equal freedom to do what they like, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

You are just way out there, too far out there.

I didn't forget the "need paramount", because I don't acknowledge it, I don't see a paramount. I sometimes give money to those bell ringers for charity at Christmas time, and sometimes I don't. Even if I have plenty money to spare, if I don't want to give the money I don't. It's my money and I decide where it goes.

There will always be a want/need for compensation for work, that is why we have a monetary system. In the past, there was bartering, the worker go payed in whatever the employer had to give. The problem is, whatever the employer had to give might not have been what the worker wanted or needed, so that is where money comes into play. It stands for the item given, that way the worker can get what they want or need with the money.

Money came about because it was a more useful and efficient system. Now, a large amount of money that is used today doesn't come in bill or coin form. Money is gathered and stored electronically. These days, it is a rarity that I actually use paper money. In the past five months the most money I have had in my wallet has a been twenty dollars, 95% of my purchases are done with my debit card. All of this came about because it is more useful to carry around one or two cards than it is a wad of bills and some coins and have to keep track of them and count them out when making a purchase.

I don't see anything that will be more convenient than digital money transactions. Money is here to stay, because people will always want compensation, money is the best way.

I'll just leave it at that I will never agree with you, because the way you want things, especially the no money thing, will hinder progress.

Edit: And in the way you are seeing the idea of "deserving", it is being misused and there is no such thing as deserving in that matter.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

snip

You are just way out there, too far out there.

I didn't forget the "need paramount", because I don't acknowledge it, I don't see a paramount. I sometimes give money to those bell ringers for charity at Christmas time, and sometimes I don't. Even if I have plenty money to spare, if I don't want to give the money I don't. It's my money and I decide where it goes.

There will always be a want/need for compensation for work, that is why we have a monetary system. In the past, there was bartering, the worker go payed in whatever the employer had to give. The problem is, whatever the employer had to give might not have been what the worker wanted or needed, so that is where money comes into play. It stands for the item given, that way the worker can get what they want or need with the money.

Money came about because it was a more useful and efficient system. Now, a large amount of money that is used today doesn't come in bill or coin form. Money is gathered and stored electronically. These days, it is a rarity that I actually use paper money. In the past five months the most money I have had in my wallet has a been twenty dollars, 95% of my purchases are done with my debit card. All of this came about because it is more useful to carry around one or two cards than it is a wad of bills and some coins and have to keep track of them and count them out when making a purchase.

I don't see anything that will be more convenient than digital money transactions. Money is here to stay, because people will always want compensation, money is the best way.

I'll just leave it at that I will never agree with you, because the way you want things, especially the no money thing, will hinder progress.

Edit: And in the way you are seeing the idea of "deserving", it is being misused and there is no such thing as deserving in that matter.

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.

 

[AdamKane]

Freedom, cause with freedom comes the chance to make eqaulity, while equality only leads to less freedom (case in point, affirmative action).

Affirmative action is not equality.

 

[Warforger]

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.

This was a point Karl Marx jumped on. Basically, the free governments have freedom for you to choose your work, not freedom from it, it gave freedom to choose your private property, not from it etc. etc. It was just slavery in his eyes, and it doesn't matter considering the massive amount of political influence companies have in politics for the freedom. So yah it gave further reason for a violent uprising, which makes peaceful Communism not make much sense to me since it goes against the very idea.