Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[S1leNt RIP]

Love. It trumps all.

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

We cannot be truely free until we can look at our neighbors of another colour without hatred of any kind, and see them only as human and not of another ethnicity. That is Freedom, that is Equality, that is what humanity as a whole should strive for. To seek only one or the other is unwise, and when done so in the past has caused war on a massive scale, even with good intentions.

The only man who believed the same as I was Gandhi, and he had the British Empire scared using freedom, equality, and non-violence as his weapons (Though he did believe in violence, yet only if it had purpose and was not mindless. He did not fight against the british because he did not want to show that he was as mindless as his former masters).

I believe that answers your question OP. To be an extreme is possibly the worst thing you could do, even with good intentions.

 

[Baneat]

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

Actually i've looked over the most famous "communistic" governments in history, and they have more in common with fascism. That being said i actuall would vote for freedom as well.

You know how there's a left wing and a right wing yeah?

Imagine it went full circuit, with people further on the left-thought being further along the left side and vice versa.

Communism and Fascism are extreme views from these wings, as extreme as they get

So think, they actually end up in the same place! Just, the route they took was different.

The beauty of middle winging is that you're not employing this, thus, you are immune to being reductio-ad-absurdum/Hitlerum/Stalinum < (BS latin btw) into the extreme. Neither fascism nor communism put value to freedom, thus, it's in the neutral middle, and 0 times a million is zero, so you'll never end at that danger place.

That's the model I've been shown plenty of times on how ideals work with wings

 

[Berethond]

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

ugh, ok, affirmative action is there to make sure that a minority group has freedom without a majority group infringing on it, which has happened allot in the past and will happen again if we dont watch it carefully

No it isn't, affirmative action is to take freedom away from a majority group and give it to the minority instead.

 

[Worgen]

snip

talking to an american citizen, so I dont need a history lesson,e specially from you. i didnt say there wasnt any back then, but there shouldnt be affirmative action now.

And no, they wouldnt go by race. there are many many MANY poor white people, so that argument doesnt stand. Unless youw ant to say the government hates them because they're some how "tainted" by a person of colour. They'd most likely go by income. if what you're saying is true, we wouldnt have had any poor white people at all, in the history or the country, and in fact we would have chased out black people.

So no, there's no need for an affirmative action. especially if it means you have to take an inferior person (which can be white, if the organization is mostly none white, so its not even for people of colour), as compared to someone who is more qualified. There is no excuse for it.

are you really so blind as to think there is no racism in america anymore? dude, you really need to look at history more, this shit still happens, its just lower in number now and if we let the programs vanish then it will creep up bit by bit until its just as bad as it was back pre civil rights

states hate minorities, there, I said it, and you know what? states say its there right to hate minorities and fuck them up, thats why there was such resistance to the civil rights bills, they thought it was the fed infringing on their rights to treat portions of their citizens like shit

you want to know something interesting, soon white people will be a minority also, if it hasnt already happened, and that means that affirmative action will support us also, hopefully our new racial majority will be kinder to us then we have been to them

What we're looking for is the piece of paper that shows what USA aims for, which is the constitution of the USA. I believe at this point that any semblance of racism is now unconstitutional. "States" hating minorities is incredibly loaded, you can't account for ignorant fucks not following the rules, and you can't the same rule yourself to mitigate the other guy breaking the rules. Two categorical wrongs.. are still wrong to me.

The state has a looong way to go on how they run things, I think they are going the wrong way and pushing for greater intrusions, when all they need to do is enforce personal liberties, make sure contracts are held, do their duty in protecting country and its people from harm and direct persecution which enfringes on their rights as a person (Note that forcing private companies to hire on quotas is an enfringement). Obama's direction is to increase the presence of Govt in people's personal lives, which feels so bad to me. They're fucking forcing privately owned TV stations to normalise the volume of adverts (CALM act) - Whereas all it takes is for people to say "If you turn up the volume when your ad is up on TV, we pledge to not buy any of your shit" -

Anarchy isn't viable, and that's absolute freedom, Communism isn't viable either, which is Equality, but a minimal approach seems to be, most certainly so.

How much minimalism is required is different altogether, most minimalists don't want a public healthcare system, but I think it's equally important as the police and judicial system, which is the majority of what a minimalist wants the State to be.

ok, the calm act is to stop advertisements from blasting really loud which is a tactic they like since it once forces you to notice them and 2 can get you to hear them in the other room, funny how you place that all at obama's feet when it passed the senate unanimously, its almost like you forgot we have 3 branches of govt

also the constitution is an ideal, one that we are trying to live up to which is why we still have it, similar to how we still have affirmative action, if people didnt suck we wouldnt need either but people do suck so we need protections, just because its against the law doesnt mean it doesnt happen, thats why we have the judiciary, to keep an eye on things and prevent them from going badly, if we didnt need affirmative action anymore then we probably would have tossed it out when it was reviwed in 2000 something.

 

[Worgen]

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

ugh, ok, affirmative action is there to make sure that a minority group has freedom without a majority group infringing on it, which has happened allot in the past and will happen again if we dont watch it carefully

No it isn't, affirmative action is to take freedom away from a majority group and give it to the minority instead.

you sound like my racist uncle, he thinks slavery was a myth and jim crow was in the movie the crow (ok that last one is probably fake but I wouldn't put it past him)

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

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

Communism didn't work because it quickly dissolved into Fascism - there has been no true Communist nations in history

Equality. I believe no one is worth any more, or any less, than anyone else - we all hold the same worth. With equality, we do not have to worry about the expectations forced upon us by those above us - we have the freedom to choose, thus, freedom. When people are not equal, true freedom is only ever offered to those who are 'worth more' - the rich, the powerful, the famous, etc. The freedom of those higher in the social hierarchy takes priority over the freedoms of the middle class or lower people, leading the higher-class people to exploit those below - disintegrating into an economic state of capitalism and a social state of fascism, and the freedom we fought for is dead.

I believe in freedom, but it can only be exercised in a state with true equality - when no one person is above another. When a person is above another, their freedoms become more important than the freedoms of those below, so the freedoms of the lower-class people are sacrificed. When all people are equal the freedoms are balanced - hence, we have true freedom and true equality.

Equality doesn't necessarily mean conformity - it's not as if we would all be forced to be the same; rather, we all have equal rights, equal worth, equal opportunities, and an equal place alongside our fellow man. We still have freedom to choose in our life; we still have our individuality - except in this ideal world, no one is worth more or less than any other person.

 

[Berethond]

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

ugh, ok, affirmative action is there to make sure that a minority group has freedom without a majority group infringing on it, which has happened allot in the past and will happen again if we dont watch it carefully

No it isn't, affirmative action is to take freedom away from a majority group and give it to the minority instead.

you sound like my racist uncle, he thinks slavery was a myth and jim crow was in the movie the crow (ok that last one is probably fake but I wouldn't put it past him)

And you sound like someone who hasn't ever been completely fucked over because he wasn't a minority.

 

[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?

 

[gostlyfantom]

how aboot a mix between the two? because communism and anarchy both sound pretty shitty right now.

 

[Worgen]

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

ugh, ok, affirmative action is there to make sure that a minority group has freedom without a majority group infringing on it, which has happened allot in the past and will happen again if we dont watch it carefully

No it isn't, affirmative action is to take freedom away from a majority group and give it to the minority instead.

you sound like my racist uncle, he thinks slavery was a myth and jim crow was in the movie the crow (ok that last one is probably fake but I wouldn't put it past him)

And you sound like someone who hasn't ever been completely fucked over because he wasn't a minority.

so your grandfather was taken from another land and sold to some asshole then you were systematically discriminated against for decades?

 

[Azure Knight-Zeo]

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.

 

[Berethond]

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

ugh, ok, affirmative action is there to make sure that a minority group has freedom without a majority group infringing on it, which has happened allot in the past and will happen again if we dont watch it carefully

No it isn't, affirmative action is to take freedom away from a majority group and give it to the minority instead.

you sound like my racist uncle, he thinks slavery was a myth and jim crow was in the movie the crow (ok that last one is probably fake but I wouldn't put it past him)

And you sound like someone who hasn't ever been completely fucked over because he wasn't a minority.

so your grandfather was taken from another land and sold to some asshole then you were systematically discriminated against for decades?

No and neither was anyone living. My great-great-grandfather, however, was exiled from the USA. Bit of trivia there.

 

[Worgen]

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

ugh, ok, affirmative action is there to make sure that a minority group has freedom without a majority group infringing on it, which has happened allot in the past and will happen again if we dont watch it carefully

No it isn't, affirmative action is to take freedom away from a majority group and give it to the minority instead.

you sound like my racist uncle, he thinks slavery was a myth and jim crow was in the movie the crow (ok that last one is probably fake but I wouldn't put it past him)

And you sound like someone who hasn't ever been completely fucked over because he wasn't a minority.

so your grandfather was taken from another land and sold to some asshole then you were systematically discriminated against for decades?

No and neither was anyone living. My great-great-grandfather, however, was exiled from the USA. Bit of trivia there.

well he shouldnt have been trying to take american jobs, havent you been watching the news? we hate that

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

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

Actually i've looked over the most famous "communistic" governments in history, and they have more in common with fascism. That being said i actuall would vote for freedom as well.

You know how there's a left wing and a right wing yeah?

Imagine it went full circuit, with people further on the left-thought being further along the left side and vice versa.

Communism and Fascism are extreme views from these wings, as extreme as they get

So think, they actually end up in the same place! Just, the route they took was different.

The beauty of middle winging is that you're not employing this, thus, you are immune to being reductio-ad-absurdum/Hitlerum/Stalinum < (BS latin btw) into the extreme. Neither fascism nor communism put value to freedom, thus, it's in the neutral middle, and 0 times a million is zero, so you'll never end at that danger place.

That's the model I've been shown plenty of times on how ideals work with wings

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.

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Flig]

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.

 

[Baneat]

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

Actually i've looked over the most famous "communistic" governments in history, and they have more in common with fascism. That being said i actuall would vote for freedom as well.

You know how there's a left wing and a right wing yeah?

Imagine it went full circuit, with people further on the left-thought being further along the left side and vice versa.

Communism and Fascism are extreme views from these wings, as extreme as they get

So think, they actually end up in the same place! Just, the route they took was different.

The beauty of middle winging is that you're not employing this, thus, you are immune to being reductio-ad-absurdum/Hitlerum/Stalinum < (BS latin btw) into the extreme. Neither fascism nor communism put value to freedom, thus, it's in the neutral middle, and 0 times a million is zero, so you'll never end at that danger place.

That's the model I've been shown plenty of times on how ideals work with wings

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.

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

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.

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 >.>

 

[Agayek]

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.