Poll: Equality vs Freedom

[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.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Being equally oppressed doesn't really help anyone(except the guy in charge), so yeah freedom is the first step.

 

[Naeo]

Uh...jerk move here, but both, so long as they're in limited quantities. Absolute freedom is an awful, terrible idea because fundamentally, society is a douchebag and enough individuals are that it just wouldn't work. Equality is a nice idea, but impossible to achieve and forcing it on people by depriving them of freedom is going to create an oppressive micromanaging state. Freedom without equality is impossible, because the strong will take advantage of the weak to the fullest of their power in many cases. Equality without freedom is pointless because once you're equal, what do you do if you have no freedom?

Freedom is necessary to ensure a happy populace and to ensure a functioning state and society. Equality is necessary to ensure that the state and society function smoothly and that the people are happy. One without the other leads to severe unrest--either inequalities become so great that the poor demand reform/change and may start a revolution, or everyone is equal but no one has many freedoms, so everyone revolts to get some basic liberties. You need enough freedom that people have choices and can fairly make them on their own when it comes to things of importance, and you need enough equality so that the gaps between the top and the bottom sectors are minimal, no one group is severely disadvantaged by design, and that everyone is treated fairly.

 

[mikev7.0]

I don't understand why both cannot be high priorities. My opinion at least is that you need an ideology that encompasses both. I think that's why in my native country we have a rebublican democracy or at least that's the intent.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I'm sorry I don't understand why it has to be one or the other...
:s

 

[metal mustache]

I refuse to one choose and not the other, i want both. I shall remain willfuly ignorant of any logical paradox in my decision.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Freedom without equality is freedom for some tyranny for the rest.

But equality without freedom is tyrany for all.

OT: If I had to choose, I take freedom. I'm sorry, but people cannot made to be "equal" in the true sense of the word ever really.

 

[Agayek]

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.

 

[Peteron]

Lets ask Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace, any last words? "Freeeeedooommm!" There you have it.

 

[IkeGreil29]

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?

 

[willofbob]

for there to be freedom, there must be equality

 

[mega48man]

well, let's see what the alcohol is telling this ol' philosopher to say....

...ok, freedom because without freedom we're slaves to a higher power. if we strive too much for equality, we develop communism, and communsim is an asshole and a joke. if anyone reading this is offended by that statement, ha ha, you're a communist. i'm not saying equality is bad, it's great, but as long as we're banded together to work for freedom, we feel like the man next to us is our brother, and equality is already achieved.

"all wars are civil wars because all men are brothers" -Francois Fenelon

 

[gamer_parent]

I don't understand why the two need to be mutually exclusive. Equality can be about the idealistic vision that all people have the same rights and opportunities, a true meritocracy. I don't see how this must infringe upon freedom.

snip

several things.

1. affirmative action doesn't work the way you think it works. there is no forced quota/ratio for hiring minorities. Enforcing such a rule would make organization management a nightmare.

2. racism is alive and well. There might not be an overarching agenda to oppress minority groups, but if you think people are free of biases and that prejudices no longer has any effect on how our society operates and functions, then you're clearly blind as bat.

 

[Baneat]

I'm sorry I don't understand why it has to be one or the other...
:s

You need to read the replies, there's definitely mutual exclusiveness.

You can have freedom and egality, but must accept that the freedom is not absolute freedom but freedom defined within a minimalist state, designed to protect the restriction from others.

Cmon, it's a discussion thread so if you want in, gotta clue up on the discussion being held.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I'm sorry I don't understand why it has to be one or the other...
:s

You need to read the replies, there's definitely mutual exclusiveness.

You can have freedom and egality, but must accept that the freedom is not absolute freedom but freedom defined within a minimalist state, designed to protect the restriction from others.

Cmon, it's a discussion thread so if you want in, gotta clue up on the discussion being held.

Except there doesn't have to be mutual exclusivness.

It's all about how people act if they are free. If you think that being selfish is the default of human nature then we should all be ashamed that our species hasn't been able to rise above it's primal urges.

 

[Nouw]

If you lack freedom but have equality, doesn't it mean that it doesn't which sex/race gets punished?

And if you lack equality but have freedom, isn't it (to an extent) our modern society?
Notice how my reply is in questions so if I'm wrong I can become enlightened upon such a heavily debated topic

 

[gbemery]

I would say freedom. Because with equality comes the chance of things being taken away from me just because someone else doesn't have it or didn't want to work for it. But with freedom comes the freedom to ***** about equality and why we should have it then allow you to strive for it. Sure equality is great to argue for aslong as you aren't the one giving anything up or sacrificing anything but instead are the one getting all the things to make you equal to others...why do I feel like Glenn Beck should be here arguing about left wing, marxist, commie dems wanting to force the world into a one salary world where everyone lives around the poverty line :/

EDIT: All in all why can't we have both? Everyone start out with Freedom and then those that want equality have the freedom to go where they want together and start their own community or country where everyone is equal?