Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[Agayek]

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

Fair enough. I've already made that step, and it was surprisingly easy in my case, but I can see why you'd wrestle with it.

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.

Why does someone else get to claim what is yours because they need it? I'm honestly baffled by the idea. Someone claims they need it, and so they should be free to take whatever is yours? That's more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, no shit. People will do anything to survive, regardless of whatever punishments await. Just because they'll do it doesn't affect the morality (or legality for that matter) of it. You can bet your ass I'd steal if I couldn't afford food and was starving. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do it.

PS - I also agree with you on the "get rich" being stupid thing. I see no point in having more money than you're going to use. You do sound a bit hypocritical though. If you don't want any more money than is needed, why the fuck are you paying for an internet connection? You don't need it to survive. You need nothing more than water, food and shelter. Everything else you own is extraneous. Why do you have it if you detest having more than what you need?

 

[Baneat]

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

Fair enough. I've already made that step, and it was surprisingly easy in my case, but I can see why you'd wrestle with it.

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.

Why does someone else get to claim what is yours because they need it? I'm honestly baffled by the idea. Someone claims they need it, and so they should be free to take whatever is yours? That's more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, no shit. People will do anything to survive, regardless of whatever punishments await. Just because they'll do it doesn't affect the morality (or legality for that matter) of it. You can bet your ass I'd steal if I couldn't afford food and was starving. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do it.

PS - I also agree with you on the "get rich" being stupid thing. I see no point in having more money than you're going to use. You do sound a bit hypocritical though. If you don't want any more money than is needed, why the fuck are you paying for an internet connection? You don't need it to survive. You need nothing more than water, food and shelter. Everything else you own is extraneous. Why do you have it if you detest having more than what you need?

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.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

Fair enough. I've already made that step, and it was surprisingly easy in my case, but I can see why you'd wrestle with it.

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.

Why does someone else get to claim what is yours because they need it? I'm honestly baffled by the idea. Someone claims they need it, and so they should be free to take whatever is yours? That's more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, no shit. People will do anything to survive, regardless of whatever punishments await. Just because they'll do it doesn't affect the morality (or legality for that matter) of it. You can bet your ass I'd steal if I couldn't afford food and was starving. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do it.

PS - I also agree with you on the "get rich" being stupid thing. I see no point in having more money than you're going to use. You do sound a bit hypocritical though. If you don't want any more money than is needed, why the fuck are you paying for an internet connection? You don't need it to survive. You need nothing more than water, food and shelter. Everything else you own is extraneous. Why do you have it if you detest having more than what you need?

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.

As for the hypocritical thing... it is a personal flaw of mine, and I accept that, and I am, like everyone in this world, selfish. I would use the argument that this is my parents' internet connection and it's their money, not mine, but I know that I will pay for internet when I am living independently. My main gripe is money in excess though - internet has increasing importance in our society, with media being digitalised and such, so it is acceptable. But if you have money kicking around (which we don't) then it shouldn't belong to you.

I also have a thing with charity organisations, because it's always an official process, and nothing ever changes. No matter how much money is put through, the situation doesn't improve. I have very little faith in charity, because I don't believe they are doing things the right way. I don't want to have to choose which organisation to donate to - I want to assist people who genuinely need it, and while the two points may coincide, it is difficult to tell exactly where

 

[nerd51075]

Freedom allows each man (or woman) to make something of themselves. Talents are naturally distributed unequally among people, meaning some people are naturally better than others at certain things. Those who are skilled at what they need to do will survive and prosper, and pass their skills on to the next generation. Darwinian evolution is still at work in today's society.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

What's the metric for a successful system of ethics?

Once you've found that system, where every action you intuitively feel is right, is right by the system you've modeled, you've reverse engineered your ethics system successfully. If your system makes you feel uneasy when applied rigorously, you've got some issue somewhere.

We don't have the core "This is morality" to work with, so we gotta work backwards. That's why it matters to me.

Like, Peter Singer, I'd propose a model scenario where he has to choose between shooting a man in the head or painfully pulling off the legs of 2 ants, and his system proposed means that, if he followed it, he'd shoot the man in the head. But, I know that he'll feel that's wrong, he'd tear the ants' legs off, because, despite the fact he doesn't want to place a value on reason, he will, and it weakens a lot of what he says (Any animal is just as important as a human life)

Fair enough. I've already made that step, and it was surprisingly easy in my case, but I can see why you'd wrestle with it.

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.

Why does someone else get to claim what is yours because they need it? I'm honestly baffled by the idea. Someone claims they need it, and so they should be free to take whatever is yours? That's more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, no shit. People will do anything to survive, regardless of whatever punishments await. Just because they'll do it doesn't affect the morality (or legality for that matter) of it. You can bet your ass I'd steal if I couldn't afford food and was starving. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do it.

PS - I also agree with you on the "get rich" being stupid thing. I see no point in having more money than you're going to use. You do sound a bit hypocritical though. If you don't want any more money than is needed, why the fuck are you paying for an internet connection? You don't need it to survive. You need nothing more than water, food and shelter. Everything else you own is extraneous. Why do you have it if you detest having more than what you need?

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.

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.

 

[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.