NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to make a poll in a second, but I'm just wondering which political value, assuming you could only choose one, do you believe is the most important.

What do you mean when you use this term, and why is it the most important to you?

Why is no one answering?

Bump.

[ZGMF-X10A] Freedom is what I value the most :D

Morality.

:bump:

In the words of William Wallace: "FREEDOM!!!"

Justice - without justice none of those others can really exist(power being the notable exception)

Freedom of expression matters the most to me. With a free interchange of ideas, most any other problem can be solved.

justice defined as, giving each person his or her due. this incorporates life which is what makes all other values possible.

I bet ppl who chose freedom are americans. OMG

I bet ppl who chose freedom are americans. OMG
I voted freedom and I'm Canadian.

I bet ppl who chose freedom are americans. OMG

Wouldn't "Freedom", in this sense, mean civil liberties? The freedom to do whatever you please? Seems to me that it would, which is why I voted for it.

I chose equality

Canada already has freedom. What we're lacking is equality rights.

Parliament passed C-38 anyways.

I would consider Freedom/Liberty to be the most valuable aspect, as apparently everyone else on the board. However, I cannot help but wonder what freedom means to everyone else on the board for surely we must each have different conceptions of freedom.

For example; for me, freedom is the English translation of liberty. It is a promise that all men and women deserve certain rights and are granted protection from the seizure of those rights. This promise is one that humanity can only strive to fulfill.

I chose equality
Ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a great read concerning equality.
Here's a link to a site with the short story.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

I bet ppl who chose freedom are americans. OMG

Yes, I am from the U.S. But really, as an ideal, freedom of political and religious expression isn't such a bad thing, is it?

Ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a great read concerning equality.
Here's a link to a site with the short story.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

I read this short story last year in English 10 class. Funny but interesting.

But what im talking about is people's equal rights like gay and lesbians and all those crap.

Peace, really. I thought about a few of the other ones, but in their extreme forms, they are undesirable to me. Freedom, for example, is undesirable in an anarchic form. Equality was good, but I had to choose peace. I'm a big pacifist at heart. :cool:

I read this short story last year in English 10 class. Funny but interesting.

But what im talking about is people's equal rights like gay and lesbians and all those crap.
How far do these equal rights extend? Equal opportunity? Equal economic standing?

How far do these equal rights extend? Equal opportunity? Equal economic standing?

Something I didn't know

Should've voted for peace :headbang:
Damn Iraq War

Something I didn't know

Should've voted for peace :headbang:
Damn Iraq War
Peace without freedom is tyrrany.

Peace without freedom is tyrrany.
I'm pretty sure we could only vote for one, however. :D Each of them, by itself and to an extreme, is undesirable in some way.

You're mean, I like freedom, power and democracy equally. They are quite amusing.

I'm pretty sure we could only vote for one, however. :D Each of them, by itself and to an extreme, is undesirable in some way.
Yup.

You're mean, I like freedom, power and democracy equally. They are quite amusing.
MWUHAHAHAHA!!! I did this just to be mean to you. How does it feel?

I voted freedom. Just so you know.

Freedom is being free to live your life without having to kowtow to a monarch, without having to get approval from a nameless bureaucrat to travel about your homeland, to take risks and be rewarded for those risks if you succeed, or to pay the price if you fail.

Freedom is when you, not some other person, control your own destiny.

with democracy, you can choose any of the other values.

I chose other because this pole is just silly. With the possible exception of power, each is equally good. Many are required or dependant on the others. A functioning Democracy requires security, equality, justice and freedom to exist. Democracy also facilitates these things along with equality. Freedom allows the free expression of morality just as allowing freedom is considered moral.

I'd prefer total justice to total freedom...

I bet ppl who chose freedom are americans. OMG

I voted freedom and I'm Canadian.

I voted freedom and I'm English. Americans just consider freedom so important because they seem to think they really have it lol <----Flamebait...

I chose other because this pole is just silly. With the possible exception of power, each is equally good. Many are required or dependant on the others. A functioning Democracy requires security, equality, justice and freedom to exist. Democracy also facilitates these things along with equality. Freedom allows the free expression of morality just as allowing freedom is considered moral.

Thats not true. Democracy just means that people elect the government, if they elect a government that restricts freedom or equality its still democracy. Dont forget that Hitler was democratically elected though he did abolish democracy along with freedom

Thats not true. Democracy just means that people elect the government, if they elect a government that restricts freedom or equality its still democracy. Dont forget that Hitler was democratically elected though he did abolish democracy along with freedom

Got to love historical inaccuracy. The most percentage of the vote Hitler ever got was 37 percent, and someone else got the majority. The Nazi party only controlled 230 out of about 600 seat on the Reichstag in 1933, in fact over fifty percent of the seats were anti-Nazi. Hitler came to power through shrewd political maneuverings, suggestions of a military coup and because people like von Papen thought they could control him.

I chose freedom. While maximizing equality also maximizes freedom, and maximizing democracy also maximizes equality, one should have the freedom to choose to not live in either a democratic or an equal society.

Power!

In human society policies and decisions are made by those with power (democratic or otherwise). Those with the greatest amount of power always triumph. The goal of any person with a socal agenda (pragmatic or dogmatic, hopfully pragmatic) is to amass enough power (ideally legitamate) to bring their agenda into being or oppose agendas they are against.

G.I.D.

Without equality, there can not be freedom.

However, without freedom, there is no equality.

Double edged sword there.

Yes, before you ask, I do mean absolute equality - including economic.

Got to love historical inaccuracy. The most percentage of the vote Hitler ever got was 37 percent, and someone else got the majority. The Nazi party only controlled 230 out of about 600 seat on the Reichstag in 1933, in fact over fifty percent of the seats were anti-Nazi. Hitler came to power through shrewd political maneuverings, suggestions of a military coup and because people like von Papen thought they could control him.


No one in the Weimar democracy ever got as high a proportion as Hitler did. He won because democracy was failing and because the KPD would have taken power if he didnt. Papen thought he could control him, but he didnt want to - he had to. Hindenburg ran an increasingly undemocratic government ignoring Nazi as the most popular party in the Reichstag.

And no, no one did get the majority. As it happens...

Nazi Party - 230 Seats
SPD - 133 Seats
Centre Party - 97 Seats
KPD - 89 Seats

After that all parties got 37 or less. How often does proportional representation ever produce majorities? The coalition that Hindenburg ran before Hitlers power was 3 Nazis and 9 DNVP's (37 Seats)

No, there was no threat of the military coup - It had been tried in 1921 and was brought down. Hitler did not control the military, the elites who tried to prevent his power did.

Democracy failed long before Hitler, he was elected. Why do people deny democracy when it chooses a non-democratic party?

Historical innaccuracy? :rolleyes:

Total equality can never come about as human beings are fundamentaly unequal.

Also, what is ment by "freedom"?

Amestria']Total equality can never come about as human beings are fundamentaly unequal.

Also, what is ment by "freedom"?

I believe it to mean the right to do what you want as long as it does not contradict reasonable law.

Stop argueing over Hitler and Nazi Germany, it doesent solve anything. You might as well be argueing over Napolion III!

Amestria']Stop argueing over Hitler and Nazi Germany, it doesent solve anything. You might as well be argueing over Napolion III!
Im just putting the truth forward when it is challenged, I just used it as an example.

I believe it to mean the right to do what you want as long as it does not contradict reasonable law.

What is ment by "reasonable law"?

Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two is four. Everything else derives from this.

Amestria']What is ment by "reasonable law"?

I mean law that is reasonable lol

Basically it does not restrict freedom to say you cant shoot someone
It does restrict freedom if there is a law that says you cant go outside on a tuesday.

One law is reasonable, the other is not.

Im just putting the truth forward when it is challenged, I just used it as an example.

Theres an informal rule among modern debate, when Hitler is mentioned, those that mentioned him lose the arguement. All comments about Hitler (unless relevent to a topic of equal gravity) are ignored!

Amestria']Theres an informal rule among modern debate, when Hitler is mentioned, those that mentioned him lose the arguement. All comments about Hitler (unless relevent to a topic of equal gravity) are ignored!

Well I dont see Undelia challenging my points. I would like to see it too, thats about as fact based as it gets. If no one replies, I'll leave it.

I mean law that is reasonable lol

Basically it does not restrict freedom to say you cant shoot someone
It does restrict freedom if there is a law that says you cant go outside on a tuesday.

One law is reasonable, the other is not.


What about laws concerning self harm?

Amestria']What about laws concerning self harm?

I dont think you can make a law against self harm, its your body. Then again, thats the problem - Reasonable law is a matter of opinion.

No one in the Weimar democracy ever got as high a proportion as Hitler did. He won because democracy was failing and because the KPD would have taken power if he didnt. Papen thought he could control him, but he didnt want to - he had to. Hindenburg ran an increasingly undemocratic government ignoring Nazi as the most popular party in the Reichstag.

And no, no one did get the majority. As it happens...

Nazi Party - 230 Seats
SPD - 133 Seats
Centre Party - 97 Seats
KPD - 89 Seats

After that all parties got 37 or less. How often does proportional representation ever produce majorities? The coalition that Hindenburg ran before Hitlers power was 3 Nazis and 9 DNVP's (37 Seats)

No, there was no threat of the military coup - It had been tried in 1921 and was brought down. Hitler did not control the military, the elites who tried to prevent his power did.

Field Marshal Hindenburg got a majority against Hitler in the 1932 presidential election. The Weimar Republic was controlled by a coalition of parties who opposed Nazism. It is known that von Papen entered into a secret alliance with Hitler to get the people he wanted in the cabinet, and it was his urging that led President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor. When Hitler became Chancellor he used a feared takeover by communist to get himself granted emergency powers, thus taking control of the military. He then banned the communist and socialist parties, with those parties banned, the Nazis had a majority, even though about 12 million people voted for the “illegal” parties. He then had Nazis officials surround the building where parliament was meeting and only allowed Nazis and other nationalists in. Thus, when a bill was introduced to give Hitler dictatorial power, there was no chance that it would fail. Doesn’t sound very Democratic to me.

Yes, thats a problem...

Yet however one defines freedom/law, to attain the desired socal system one requires power! I hold everything is secondary in human society!

(individual human philiosophy is a different matter)

Surely it's impossible to really define Morality, as it's subjective?

Field Marshal Hindenburg got a majority against Hitler in the 1932 presidential election.

Presidential election, yes. He was chancellor until 1934 and then Fuhrer.


The Weimar Republic was controlled by a coalition of parties who opposed Nazism. It is known that von Papen entered into a secret alliance with Hitler to get the people he wanted in the cabinet, and it was his urging that led President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor. When Hitler became Chancellor he used a feared takeover by communist to get himself granted emergency powers, thus taking control of the military.

Thats just a load of shit, where the hell did you learn that? Besides the cabinet bit, thats true but Nazi still deserved part of the cabinet.



He then banned the communist and socialist parties, with those parties banned, the Nazis had a majority, even though about 12 million people voted for the “illegal” parties. He then had Nazis officials surround the building where parliament was meeting and only allowed Nazis and other nationalists in. Thus, when a bill was introduced to give Hitler dictatorial power, there was no chance that it would fail. Doesn’t sound very Democratic to me.

Actually the SPD were there. The only party that was not was the KPD but seeing as only the SPD objected and the SPD and KPD together only had about the same amount of seats as Hitler did, it would not have stopped the enabling act. Only the KPD and SPD objected to Hitler as the rest feared the KPD who would take over otherwise. Your arguments are riddled with holes.

Thats just a load of shit, where the hell did you learn that? Besides the cabinet bit, thats true but Nazi still deserved part of the cabinet.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

I just reread it too and realized that the Nazis never had a majority. Even worse than I thought.

I believe it to mean the right to do what you want as long as it does not contradict reasonable law.

Eh...I'll say you have the right to do what you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others--not "reasonable" law because no single person's definition of "reasonable" is the same as any other's.

You think it's reasonable to not shoot anyone. I think it's reasonable to shoot someone attacking me or someone else.

One of us would get a law passed and the other would be disenfranchised (couldn't resist using the buzz-word, sorry!).

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

I just reread it too and realized that the Nazis never had a majority. Even worse than I thought.

Well yeah but no one had a majority in Weimar ever. Anyway some of that isnt really correct, for example putting down things about Hindenburgs half senility - Hindenburg hated Hitler and only appointed him because he had to. If he continued to ignore democracy there would be a revolution. Despite common belief or in other words what people want to believe Hitler was democratically elected. The text claims that he was not elected chancellor but he was - the chancellor of Weimar was generally the head of the most popular party. Although Hitler never had a majority over half the electorate voted against the democracy (Nazi and KPD put together). The enabling act was supported by all parties except for the SPD and KPD, also they were the only ones that refused to dissolve when parties were outlawed. I personally consider it strange that people would vote against democracy but I understand it can happen and has. To return to the issue, that is why democracy does not imply freedom as people have voted for parties that restrict it.

Eh...I'll say you have the right to do what you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others--not "reasonable" law because no single person's definition of "reasonable" is the same as any other's.

You think it's reasonable to not shoot anyone. I think it's reasonable to shoot someone attacking me or someone else.

One of us would get a law passed and the other would be disenfranchised (couldn't resist using the buzz-word, sorry!).

I dont think you can make a law against self harm, its your body. Then again, thats the problem - Reasonable law is a matter of opinion.


Yes I know....lol

Yes I know....lol

Well, that will teach me not to not read the entire thread before responding...whoops.

Okay, back to the question at hand--how can you base anything off reasonable law, then?

progress
single most important aspect of any country.

progress
single most important aspect of any country.

Depends what type of progress you're making and where you're going.

I most value Justice, Security, and possibly Morality (that doesn't mean right-wing Christian bullshit).

I bet ppl who chose freedom are americans. OMG
That's because they're basically lived in luxury since their nation was founded. They've never had to learn that "freedom of speech won't feed my children."

I most value Justice, Security, and possibly Morality (that doesn't mean right-wing Christian bullshit).


That's because they're basically lived in luxury since their nation was founded. They've never had to learn that "freedom of speech won't feed my children."

progress will though! heheh. the more progress you make, the more money you make, the more food you can get.
them more freedom you have, the less work get's done, the more you starve.

All are intertwined

Freedom to every person, meaning one cannot impede on an other person's freedom; meaning equality, economic equality. Also, to make this complete, there must be democracy, real democracy, rule of the people, people power; Anarchism.

So I put Freedom; economic, political and social freedom for all.

It was a three-way tie between justice, morality, and peace but morality came out on top :D

Ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a great read concerning equality.
Here's a link to a site with the short story.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html



I read Harrison Bergeron a year ago. It was great, I did an essay on it :D

For me, it's definitely equality.

Equality

I bet ppl who chose freedom are americans. OMG
I bet there are actually American "ppl" who know the difference between actual freedom and a word used by politicians for "jingoism". OMG

True Christian Morals and Values! Any nation without a true Christian foundation will crumble. It has been proven throughout history, and will always be so. Praise GOD allmighty!

I chose freedom & I'm Australian. Freedom to me means things like; being able to criticise your government without fear of reprisal, freedom of movement, freedom of the media, freedom to live peacefully & unmolested within your home.

So... With absolute freedom comes absolute responsibility, no?

Should you wish to interact with others, or a society even, where everyone is absolutely free, selfrestraint and respect of others will be the only things preventing you from killing everything - literally or symbolically.

I think I should like to live in such a society. It would be the untimate test of humanity. If it fails, it fails utterly. If it works, I'll probably never say anything nasty about mankind again. Hmm... Yups. I would very much like to try that in a place where a sorrounding society gas no influence.

So I choose freedom. It incorporates everything else on the list, with the possible execption of religious morals. I'm not American by the way. Now I'll go have a couple of beers with some mates and hope I one day can afford to buy an island for us somewhere.

I chose freedom. All the others are either constructs of society or vary from person to person. Freedom, on the other hand, is a fundemental element of all humanity. Prehistoric, wild man didn't have Democracy, or justice, or equality; if he was lucky he might have had power, but his freedom was as sure and inevitable as his death.

Of course, that's a little different from what I understand is the political meaning of freedom; a concession of certain things your government (whichever that might be; they're all the same) won't oppress you as much about.

I guess I'm with The Similized World on this.

Ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a great read concerning equality.
Here's a link to a site with the short story.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

:headbang:

A little bit of Kurt Vonnegut dies screaming everytime someone misuses that story as an argument against equal rights.

Unlimited freedom means no freedom for anyone.

Equal rights means maximized freedom for everyone.

I value freedom, but I vote for equality.

True Christian Morals and Values! Any nation without a true Christian foundation will crumble. It has been proven throughout history, and will always be so. Praise GOD allmighty!

any nation with one does too. doesn't make a difference, except that christian ones are self destructive while other ones are ussually destroyed from the outside. and they'll all eventually end. nothing lasts forever, they'd be forced to end when the universe ends.

also, what do you say about india and china then?

Justice, since it's multiple values I like in one. It is just for people to be equal, to be secure, to be free(which also includes having democracy), and to have peace, is it not?