NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, come on then. I'm bored, so get to it! :p

I'm in favor of Social freedom, myself.

Both. I value them equally. Generally speaking though, I lean more towards economic freedom than social.

Economic. Without it what good is free speech or general rights.

I think social freedom. Wait...can you give some examples?

Economic. Without it what good is free speech or general rights.
__________________
Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
Your sig suggests otherwise.

Definately social freedoms.

Your sig suggests otherwise.

I think freedom starts with the ability to own property and earn money. Yes I'm very socially liberal but if I HAD to sacrifice something I'd rather keep economic freedom over pretty much less important social freedoms (which of course I'd much rather keep anyway)

I think freedom starts with the ability to own property and earn money.

that is just silly

Social freedom. Economic freedom is a non-sense, since economy is by definition affecting others as much (if not more) than yourself, no it's not freedom, but power. And "freedom" of economic power only leads to an injust society, full of suffering, misery and exploitation.

Economic freedom. Hands down. My money is mine and noone elses, not the 'govs, not the welfare systems, noone but mine. And if they did abolish individual rights it would start a war.

As long as the RKBA is counted a 'economic' we're good.

that is just silly

oh gosh. How dare we have incentives for working and a flexible market with choices.

I think freedom starts with the ability to own property and earn money.

Freedom starts with the ability to stay alive, something made impossible for many when you have too much economic "freedom".

oh gosh. How dare we have incentives for working and a flexible market with choices.

Oh NOEESSS!!!111!!!!! CAPITALISM IS NOT THE ANSWER! BAN CAPITALISM!!1!!!1!!

:D

oh gosh. How dare we have incentives for working and a flexible market with choices.

That has nothing to do with economic "freedom". Economic "freedom" (or more exactly, economic power) give much more incentives to own capital and exploit the work of others than to work by yourself. And a flexible market doesn't mean any real choice, it just means a choice strongly limited by the will of tiny few: the others of the means of production.

Both are extremely high on the list, but social is ever so slightly higher... the whole anarchist thing, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in economic freedom and the right to make money etc., but I'd rather have free speech and expression and be poor, than have lots of cash with no freedom to do anything else. I know, I'm oversimplifying the issue, but it's been oversimplified already for me by Potaria, so meh.

Both are extremely high on the list, but social is ever so slightly higher... the whole anarchist thing, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in economic freedom and the right to make money etc., but I'd rather have free speech and expression and be poor, than have lots of cash with no freedom to do anything else. I know, I'm oversimplifying the issue, but it's been oversimplified already for me by Potaria, so meh.
More or less my view on it too.

Freedom starts with the ability to stay alive, something made impossible for many when you have too much economic "freedom".

Look I'm not arguing for anarcho-capitalism or anything. Some welfare/workfare and education should exist, people shouldn't starve. But without a meritocracy based on money and a free market I'm not free to earn money from my skill/labour and spend it how I choose.

oh gosh. How dare we have incentives for working and a flexible market with choices.

"incentives for working" = freedom?
the existence of money is necessary for the existence of freedom?

whether or not "the ability to own property and earn money" are good things, it's just silly to go around claiming that freedom starts from them. the individuals in societies that first came up with such things were notably less free than many of their property and moneyless neighbors.

Economic. Screw welfare, and high yaxes. And, we really need FEWER civil liberties, so I would never vote for that...

I can't really choose between them. If someone else controls your money, they also control you. Are you likely to speak against someone with the power to impoverish you? If so, you're in the minority.

Well, come on then. I'm bored, so get to it! :p

I'm in favor of Social freedom, myself.
Economic freedom. That doesn't mean I want loads of capitalism though. Pure capitalism takes away economic freedom from most people. I think ecoonomic issues are more important because they affect more people's lives in more significant ways.

Economic "freedom" (or more exactly, economic power) give much more incentives to own capital and exploit the work of others than to work by yourself. .

You can't own capital unless you've made the money in which to buy it. If somone wishes to work for you on a mutually benefical deal and you make money from it than great, you live in a free society.

Well, if I can't have both I'd rather have money and watch the gov owned news on a 60 inch flat screen in my large house sipping Burban, but seeing as economic freedom dosn't promis I wont be living in a box watching the news on the gov owned corner tvs I'll go with social with a side of hard work.

It appears that most people here, left and right (except for Kilobugya and Free Soviets), have a very narrow definition of economic freedom.

Economic. Screw welfare, and high yaxes. And, we really need FEWER civil liberties, so I would never vote for that...
Sense we are removing freedoms, lets start with removing your freedom to remove freedoms

Sense we are removing freedoms, lets start with removing your freedom to remove freedoms
Since when DID I have the freedom to remove freedoms? And I asked for fewer liberties, not none.

Social. Because money isn't everything..... :D

Since when DID I have the freedom to remove freedoms? And I asked for fewer liberties, not none.
I ment theoredicaly if you had the ability to remove freedoms you would have that ability so we could take that away first and formost and be done with it (not just you but anyone that tries to remove social freedoms)

How can you seperate the two?

I mean to have personal freedrom of speech is
just the same as right to own property.

I reasoned that if you separate them econimal freedrom is only for society
but not for the indivual. Like free market and tax cut only for companies.

If I was to separate them then social freedrom would be the individual right to own things and do as he want with them.
Becouse you can only do things with what you own.
Material things are important becouse they are solid and pragmatic.
Freedrom without material things would be freedrom to only to abstract and social party things
and don't like that.

If you don't agree then consider my vote on social freedrom an vote on economic freedrom instead.

I agree social freedrom begins with ownership.

I ment theoredicaly if you had the ability to remove freedoms you would have that ability so we could take that away first and formost and be done with it (not just you but anyone that tries to remove social freedoms)
How do you remove the government's freedom to remove freedoms?

If you don't agree then consider my vote on social freedrom an vote on economic freedrom instead..

While communism is generally poor on the social freedoms aspect. I can't see why a left anarchism, or even socialism would HAVE to take away social freedoms.

How do you remove the government's freedom to remove freedoms?
Right now our bigest tool is with social pressure ... but I am not sure there is a real ability to do such ... the best we can do is hold them accountable

How can you seperate the two?

I mean to have personal freedrom of speech is
just the same as right to own property.

wow. just wow.

How do you remove the government's freedom to remove freedoms?

Constitution :rolleyes:

Constitution :rolleyes:

haha (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1918toc.html)

You can't own capital unless you've made the money in which to buy it. If somone wishes to work for you on a mutually benefical deal and you make money from it than great, you live in a free society.

In my society. People get money to prevent society from loosing the money it would cost you if you where unemployed.
So you can keep buy stuff you haven't earned to ensure the money flows around fast enough.
Also you get money to prevent the cost of hospital treatment
before you hurt yourself.

The more money you earn the highter the tax but just so much that there still is an marginal improvement.
People run and abandon companies just for the thrill of success and in return earn some expensive partying.

If you have property like an mansion, the tax is measured from the maximal value that you theoretically could gain from it if your skills and knowlegdes are professional.
The reasoning is that you are obviously so capable if you own the property.
If not you are not expected to own such things.

Guess the name and it is a capitalism.

haha (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1918toc.html)

:D
fair point.
You've gotta include a judiciary, democracy, seperation of powers ect.. on top then.

Economic. Without it what good is free speech or general rights.

Welcome to the People's Republic of China. Proof positive that economic freedom does not lead to any other form of freedom.

Free markets will lead to free people. If people can control the basic means of their lives, then they will be more willing to control other factors of their lives as well.

Constitution :rolleyes:
Yeah right, the US violates its constitution all over the place, and Japan took a piss on its for the sake of the iraq war.

If people can control the basic means of their lives, then they will be more willing to control other factors of their lives as well.
Funny how I agree completely with this statement, yet I lean more towards socialism.

I think that capitalism can often take away individual control as much as grant it.

While communism is generally poor on the social freedoms aspect. I can't see why a left anarchism, or even socialism would HAVE to take away social freedoms.

No you are right. I live in a capitalistically socialistic country.
Socialism within capitalistic system, an mix.
It really doesn't have to.

Liberalism begun as social and left wing movement.
There is so many socialistic aspects but the mean comunists often bully successfully other forms of socialism.
In my country there was an subparty of "individualist socialists" in the socialist party and they where totally eradicated by "democratic means".
That party is sick I think.
They are ex comunists who are just populistic and exploit kids.

The best would be an combination of capitalistic liberalism, social liberalism and anarchism.

I have to regard economic freedom as more important to me. This is because I am not afraid to up and move to another country when my social freedoms are taken away, but to be able to do that I have to have the economic means.

If I have the social freedom but no economic freedom, and these social freedoms strart being eroded, there is bugger all i can do about it.

Freedom basically means being able to choose for yourself, and this depends, in the current world, on having the economic wherewithall for the choice to be implementable.

Welcome to the People's Republic of China. Proof positive that economic freedom does not lead to any other form of freedom.
Give it time. China will become more free as time goes on. Liberalization is not an instant process, you do realize.

haha (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1918toc.html)
Accountability is important, as well as a general consensus amongst the members of society to respect the rule of law. In the case of the Soviet Government, this was just a scrap of paper drawn up by the orders of Stalin to make it look like the USSR had rule of law, when, in reality it didn't.

Define economic "freedom". Actually, define social "freedom", too. They're completely subjective terms. I do not see the current economic reality as particularly "free".

What's the use in being economically free if you aren't actually free to do anything other than amass and retain capital?

What's the use in being economically free if you aren't actually free to do anything other than amass and retain capital?
If that's all you can do, then society will eventually evolve to the point where the pressures of people with loads of money wanting to spend it will result in loosening of the restrictions on society.

Define economic "freedom". Actually, define social "freedom", too. They're completely subjective terms. I do not see the current economic reality as particularly "free".
Economic Freedom: Being allowed to do with your property as you wish.

Social Freedom: Being allowed to do with yourself as you wish.

Let's see.. economic freedom. The freedom to own property, and to give my economic means and labour to the cause or person of my choice.

Social freedom. The freedom to associate/love/marry who I want, decide what religion (if any) I choose to belong to, to talk about whatever I want to talk about with whoever I so choose to do it with, to wear what I want and go where I like. To listen or not listen to what I choose.

No brainer, really. Social freedom. Economic freedom is only useful where it purchases me greater social freedom.

It depends on the definition of economic freedom. Until we've rid the world of totalitarian capitalism the vast majority of the population will remain as the slaves of a tiny unelected élite.

If that's all you can do, then society will eventually evolve to the point where the pressures of people with loads of money wanting to spend it will result in loosening of the restrictions on society.
If it's all the same to you, I'll choose not to wait patiently for my actual freedoms to someday be granted. Smacks of willful naivete and outright laziness.

Economic Freedom: Being allowed to do with your property as you wish.

Social Freedom: Being allowed to do with yourself as you wish.

That's extreme and impossible if not umpragmatic.

It's the same thing, becouse why would you be able to dance if you must dance in an uniform and can't choose clothes that's what it means.

It's totally absurd. No cars, no clothes and no music other than what sociaty gives you.
You are not able to be free as an person to say what you want and dance when you want if can't do what you want to your property.

You can think you right all you want, I just think your are wrong.

What's the use in being economically free if you aren't actually free to do anything other than amass and retain capital?

Except leave and go somewhere where the freedoms match your expectations.

I think freedom starts with the ability to own property and earn money.

Wouldnt you say that is more an indication of the start of economic slavery?

If it's all the same to you, I'll choose not to wait patiently for my actual freedoms to someday be granted. Smacks of willful naivete and outright laziness.
No, that it certainly doesn't. Economic freedom will lead to increasing social freedoms. Furthermore, the social freedoms that will result from popular support, not granted as if from on high, will be more robust.

Wouldnt you say that is more an indication of the start of economic slavery?

Or a society with personal responcibility and meritocracy where people have incentive and purpose to work hard/flourish. Kinda like what we're living in today.

Wouldnt you say that is more an indication of the start of economic slavery?
Certainly not.

Only in the outdated Marxist paradigm is that so.

That's extreme and impossible if not umpragmatic.

It's the same thing, becouse why would you be able to dance if you must dance in an uniform and can't choose clothes that's what it means.

It's totally absurd. No cars, no clothes and no music other than what sociaty gives you.
You are not able to be free as an person to say what you want and dance when you want if can't do what you want to your property.

You can think you right all you want, I just think your are wrong.
That's what I'm saying. People with property will want increasingly greater amounts of personal freedom, and as a result of their economic freedoms, the social freedoms will naturally follow.

No, that it certainly doesn't. Economic freedom will lead to increasing social freedoms. Furthermore, the social freedoms that will result from popular support, not granted as if from on high, will be more robust.
But only when the powers-that-be decide it's time to turn on the taps of Liberty. No thanks, I'll choose actual freedom first.

But only when the powers-that-be decide it's time to turn on the taps of Liberty. No thanks, I'll choose actual freedom first.
Popular pressure from below will force them to do so, if they want to remain in power.

Popular pressure from below will force them to do so, if they want to remain in power.

Popular pressure could also dictate socialism. Or neo conservitism ;)

Popular pressure from below will force them to do so, if they want to remain in power.
Oh yeah? If the masses don't have the freedom to do so in the first place, that's as neat a trick as pulling Bugs Bunny out of Elmer Fudd's hunting-cap.

But only when the powers-that-be decide it's time to turn on the taps of Liberty. No thanks, I'll choose actual freedom first.
You mean the freedom to be completely dependent on the powers-that-be rather than dependent on your own efforts. Well good luck.

Certainly not.

Only in the outdated Marxist paradigm is that so.


I see it as once you start earnign money the govt. can take whatever share they want from you (and they take a hefty share - the bulk of which is going to programs that I don't agree with). So is it really your money or are you workign for someone else? Especially when you have to struggle just to pay bills, and can't get anything saved.

Once you "own property" you have to constantly pay for the right to own that property, so it looks as if you don't truely own it at all. You can't get around it. Either fall in line with the economic system that they provide or starve and go homeless.

Therfore: economic slavery

Social freedom is sexy.
Economic freedom is just cool.

Sexy>cool.

Therefore:

Social freedom>economic freedom.

Let's see.. economic freedom. The freedom to own property, and to give my economic means and labour to the cause or person of my choice.

Social freedom. The freedom to associate/love/marry who I want, decide what religion (if any) I choose to belong to, to talk about whatever I want to talk about with whoever I so choose to do it with, to wear what I want and go where I like. To listen or not listen to what I choose.



I don't approve of who you married, and since I control your money, I'm taking it away from you!

You can't really have social freedom unless you also have decent economic freedom.

I see it as once you start earnign money the govt. can take whatever share they want from you (and they take a hefty share - the bulk of which is going to programs that I don't agree with). So is it really your money or are you workign for someone else? Especially when you have to struggle just to pay bills, and can't get anything saved.

Once you "own property" you have to constantly pay for the right to own that property, so it looks as if you don't truely own it at all. You can't get around it. Either fall in line with the economic system that they provide or starve and go homeless.

Therfore: economic slavery

Well either you accept the need for a government or not, in which case it'll be a debate about anarchism.

But with the taxes you're given a police force to protect your property free education for your kids and neighbours and countless other stuff.

If you hate the thought of taxes or a mortgage simple, don't buy a house and don't make enough money to pay taxes. ha way to keep your freedoms.

I see it as once you start earnign money the govt. can take whatever share they want from you (and they take a hefty share - the bulk of which is going to programs that I don't agree with). So is it really your money or are you workign for someone else? Especially when you have to struggle just to pay bills, and can't get anything saved.

Once you "own property" you have to constantly pay for the right to own that property, so it looks as if you don't truely own it at all. You can't get around it. Either fall in line with the economic system that they provide or starve and go homeless.

Therfore: economic slavery
Actually, taxes are paid so as to guarantee the protection of those rights. You are not purchasing the actual rights, those you already have.

Furthermore, that's another reason I believe in the minimization of the role of government in our everyday lives. If the government spends less money on wasteful programs (everything from nuclear weapons to ludicrous pork spending bills) then you're more economically free.

Furthermore, it's entirely your choice as to whether you wish to participate in the economic system that currently exists, and to say the choice exists between joining up and starving and going homeless, well, that's a vast oversimplification. Your options to do with yourself are limitless. You could become a hermit, you could become a monk, you could fall under the care of a bunch of monks, you can even move to another country.

you can even move to another country.
Best option so far.

Oh yeah? If the masses don't have the freedom to do so in the first place, that's as neat a trick as pulling Bugs Bunny out of Elmer Fudd's hunting-cap.
Then I happen to be all for revolution, in said instance.

(What's this? Me supporting revolution?)

Well either you accept the need for a government or not, in which case it'll be a debate about anarchism.

But with the taxes you're given a police force to protect your property free education for your kids and neighbours and countless other stuff.

If you hate the thought of taxes or a mortgage simple, don't buy a house and don't make enough money to pay taxes. ha way to keep your freedoms.


No I just dont belong to this time period. I want to find a plot of land, build my own house, farm my own food and protect myself and not have to spend the rest of my life paying for the priveledge of being a citizen.

If I dont buy a house then I have to rent. I'm stuck with one or the other. And there is no way out of taxes unless you're dead (which I wouldn't mind being except then it would sadden family and friends and I don't want to do that).

This is because I am not afraid to up and move to another country when my social freedoms are taken away, but to be able to do that I have to have the economic means.

and, of course, the necessary level of freedom to be allowed to leave

Economic freedom is a joke. How does the exploitation of the working class qualify as freedom? Surely economic freedom would mean that the majority of people have control over their lives in the economic realm rather than the power being in the hands of a few capitalists? What good does the right of property do me if I still have to work for capitalists?

No I just dont belong to this time period. I want to find a plot of land, build my own house, farm my own food and protect myself and not have to spend the rest of my life paying for the priveledge of being a citizen.

If I dont buy a house then I have to rent. I'm stuck with one or the other. And there is no way out of taxes unless you're dead (which I wouldn't mind being except then it would sadden family and friends and I don't want to do that).
Primitivism then. There's places where you can do that sort of thing. None of them are in the industrialized west, but places where you can do that still exist.

and, of course, the necessary level of freedom to be allowed to leave
Well apparently if we all make enough money for the state, eventually we'll be granted the freedom to do so...:rolleyes:

Economic freedom is a joke. How does the exploitation of the working class qualify as freedom? Surely economic freedom would mean that the majority of people have control over their lives in the economic realm rather than the power being in the hands of a few capitalists? What good does the right of property do me if I still have to work for capitalists?
You can work for whomever you would choose to work for. If you can provide a good or service that society deems to be desirable, then you can survive. Economic power is in the hands of the individual. Not some mythic capitalist up in a big tower, whipping the masses to make them work harder.

Best option so far.
agreed

and, of course, the necessary level of freedom to be allowed to leave

All we need is the ability to jump a wall and hope we don't get hit in the face with barbed wire :D

Well apparently if we all make enough money for the state, eventually we'll be granted the freedom to do so...:rolleyes:
You have no clue what I am saying, do you?

I am saying that as people accumulate more wealth, their desire to use the wealth as they see fit will increase. This desire will take the form of a political movement to force the government to allow them to have greater personal freedom. If the government does not follow the will of the people, then the people have the right to remove the government from power, however is necessary.

Primitivism then. There's places where you can do that sort of thing. None of them are in the industrialized west, but places where you can do that still exist.


sure, If I earn enough money to buy my own island or something that is just as unlikely - but then someone will probably find a way to make me to have to continue paying taxes on that too

All we need is the ability to jump a wall and hope we don't get hit in the face with barbed wire :D
The citizens of East Germany were perfectly capable of getting out of that miserable country, even with fortifications sufficient to stop an armored assault.

You have no clue what I am saying, do you?

I am saying that as people accumulate more wealth, their desire to use the wealth as they see fit will increase. This desire will take the form of a political movement to force the government to allow them to have greater personal freedom. If the government does not follow the will of the people, then the people have the right to remove the government from power, however is necessary.


And the more money you have the more money you can put into changing laws to help you increase your wealth at the expense of the rest of the population who doesnt have such power, hence more economic freedom and less personal freedom.

sure, If I earn enough money to buy my own island or something that is just as unlikely - but then someone will probably find a way to make me to have to continue paying taxes on that too
Nope. Just go to somewhere remote. Siberia, the Amazon, the Himalayas, Northern Canada, Alaska or some large forest somewhere. You will not be able to do so in the fertile plains and lowlands because the human population in such areas is generally pretty big, but there are places where you can go and not be disturbed.

And the more money you have the more money you can put into changing laws to help you increase your wealth at the expense of the rest of the population who doesnt have such power, hence more economic freedom and less personal freedom.
Which is why people can band together in political parties, labor unions, interest groups and the rest.

And the more money you have the more money you can put into changing laws to help you increase your wealth at the expense of the rest of the population who doesnt have such power, hence more economic freedom and less personal freedom.

Well not only is there a cap on how much you can donate to political parties and even so stuff like the human rights act or restrictions on the working week is going to be down to the popular vote.

You have no clue what I am saying, do you?
No, I do get precisely what you're saying.
I am saying that as people accumulate more wealth, their desire to use the wealth as they see fit will increase. This desire will take the form of a political movement to force the government to allow them to have greater personal freedom. If the government does not follow the will of the people, then the people have the right to remove the government from power, however is necessary.
Says who? You? The "people"? Remember, they don't get to have rights until they accumulate wealth.

Which is why people can band together in political parties, labor unions, interest groups and the rest.

Which does very little as the ones in power are the economic leaders who are looking out for themselves

Over the course of nearly 30 years, a few thousand of the citizens of East Germany were perfectly capable of getting out of that miserable country, even with fortifications sufficient to stop an armored assault.

small correction made

Which is why people can band together in political parties, labor unions, interest groups and the rest.
Not without social freedoms they can't.

Which does very little as the ones in power are the economic leaders who are looking out for themselves
Who risk losing power in the vote or by...other means...if they disregard the will of the populace.

Not without social freedoms they can't.

well, they can. it's just really fucking dangerous, and not very frequently successful.

Not without social freedoms they can't.
The argument has become circular.

Economic freedoms will inevitably lead to social freedoms.

well, they can. it's just really fucking dangerous, and not very frequently successful.
Might as well take your chances on the gun-towers and razor-wire, then.

Economic freedoms will inevitably lead to social freedoms.
Well, I call that willfully naive, with far too much trust placed in authoritarian structures to suit my tastes.

well, they can. it's just really fucking dangerous, and not very frequently successful.
If you are not willing to fight for your freedom, when all other avenues are exhausted, then you do not deserve it.

Why the hell are we arguing about which is more important anyways? I happen to like both economic and social freedoms a hell of a lot, and they are certainly not mutually exclusive. Only in some absurdist mindgame are they mutually exclusive. I am completely and totally done with this debate.

Look I'm not arguing for anarcho-capitalism or anything. Some welfare/workfare and education should exist, people shouldn't starve. But without a meritocracy based on money and a free market I'm not free to earn money from my skill/labour and spend it how I choose.

Ayn Rand would call you an altruist :)

Economic. Screw welfare, and high yaxes. And, we really need FEWER civil liberties, so I would never vote for that...

Yeah, all those people living their lives the way they want, and doing you no harm, are so damned offensive.:rolleyes:

I can't really choose between them. If someone else controls your money, they also control you. Are you likely to speak against someone with the power to impoverish you? If so, you're in the minority.

This is the problem with excessive economic freedom. Are you likely to speak out against your boss, when he can put you out starving on the street? Economic power mustn't be concentrated in the state, but it should be distributed.

How do you remove the government's freedom to remove freedoms?

It's a difficult question. The mechanisms available to remove a government's freedom to remove freedom are better developed than the analogous methods for corporations. Government is the only, or at least, by far, the best tool for restricting the ability of corporations to reduce the freedom of others.

Ayn Rand would call you an altruist :)

Than Ayn Rand doesn't understand whats in her best interest ;)

It's a difficult question. The mechanisms available to remove a government's freedom to remove freedom are better developed than the analogous methods for corporations. Government is the only, or at least, by far, the best tool for restricting the ability of corporations to reduce the freedom of others.

Public pressue forced Nike to pay more to its sweatshop Labour. People unhappy with the practices of a business (mcdonalds/walmart) often can make a company do something just as effectively as the government.

Give it time. China will become more free as time goes on. Liberalization is not an instant process, you do realize.

Could be true. I doubt it.
And I do realize that liberalization isn't instant. Just like the communist utopia wasn't instant. "Just a few more sacrifices. It'll get better soon." "Keep making sacrifices. Your children will live in a better world." "Your parents sacrificed their lives to the ideal. The least you can do is make a few more sacrifices for the future golden age." And so-on.
There's no proof anything will ever come of it. Just faith.
Look at Russia. Their real freedoms are going away.

Social freedom. It is very difficult to have economic freedom without social freedom, since the whims of repressive government inevitably lead to the corruption of the free market in the name of nationalism or political suppression. The result of that is ultimately economic failure and environmental devastation.

You can't have a free economy without a free people, since the nature of capitalism is irrevocably intertwined with the freedom of individuals to pursue rational self interest; therefore, without social freedom there cannot be true economic freedom.

But then again, the converse is also true. You can't have a free society and an unfree economy except on the smallest scale; that is, small to a point where both defined social and economic freedom are rendered irrelevant. However, since such societies are practically impossible and unsustainable it is true that a free economy always goes hand in hand with a free society.

You can't have a free economy without a free people, since the nature of capitalism is irrevocably intertwined with the freedom of individuals to pursue rational self interest; therefore, without social freedom there cannot be true economic freedom.
.

Well the new right is neo lib and neo con. Under Thatcher we certainly had a free economy but the same could not be said of our "victorian values" and overall cencorship and crackdown of raves/drugs ect..

If that's all you can do, then society will eventually evolve to the point where the pressures of people with loads of money wanting to spend it will result in loosening of the restrictions on society.

Thus leading to greater freedoms for the wealthy elites. Um, yay, I guess. This is actually the direction that China and, less successfully Russia, are heading in. It leads to a feudal aristocracy. Maybe eventually, if there are enough conflicts of interest between the centralized power and the aristos, both sides will try to bring the serfs onto their side against the other. This process historically takes centuries, and usually involves generations of blood and suffering. Political rights are more likely to get the job done in this life.

Well, come on then. I'm bored, so get to it! :p

I'm in favor of Social freedom, myself.

Question: why do they appear to be mutually exclusive?

(answer: because the question is loaded.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)

Question: why do they appear to be mutually exclusive?

(answer: because the question is loaded.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)

Possibly. But I enterpreted the question as asking which do you value more. Its like asking what do you like more your job or your friends they're not mutually exclusive but a prefference on which you find more important can still be made.

Well, there is a certain contradiction between them. There is a reason to why people on the right have stressed economic freedom and people on the left stress social freedom. If it was easy to combine them, most people would....

If it was easy to combine them, most people would....

Tis a shame the reps spoiled by objectivism and anarchist type libertarianism.

The argument has become circular.

Economic freedoms will inevitably lead to social freedoms.

Damn Marx for this whole myth of "historical inevitability." Now everybody's doing it.

So it's basically a case of rule by a bunch of well-meaning commies who'll let you do what you want as long as you don't try to buy or sell anything, or a bunch of fundamentalist conservatives who'll let you get as rich as you want, but execute you if you try to buy anything cool or fun.

I'd go with the former, but I'd prefer a system with moderate economic freedom and high social freedom.

So it's basically a case of rule by a bunch of well-meaning commies who'll let you do what you want as long as you don't try to buy or sell anything, or a bunch of fundamentalist conservatives who'll let you get as rich as you want, but execute you if you try to buy anything cool or fun.

I'd go with the former, but I'd prefer a system with moderate economic freedom and high social freedom.

Me too. Very few of social freedoms give people the ability to screw other people over.

Economic, social will follow.

I don't approve of who you married, and since I control your money, I'm taking it away from you!

You can't really have social freedom unless you also have decent economic freedom.
Utter crap. You're assuming the current system is in place where none of us have social freedom other than what we can purchase. This wasn't the choice that was offered.

If the means to live are denied based on social choices, then social freedom doesn't actually exist. Which means the question you seem to think is being asked is "Economic freedom or starvation".

Social freedoms can exist without economic freedom. The government can tell me where I'm going to work. They can take all the earnings from that employment and put me up in a house and make sure I'm fed the food they find is the best for me. However, what they cannot do is restrict my livelihood based on my social choices. If they are, then that isn't a social freedom, now is it?

Economic, social will follow.
Any idea when [social will follow]? Just wandering because we've been placing Economic Freedom first, for a while, and Social Freedoms are only getting worse and worse.

Maybe we could set a cut-off date... :D

Any idea when [social will follow]? Just wandering because we've been placing Economic Freedom first, for a while, and Social Freedoms are only getting worse and worse.
Y'know apart from racial equality, gender equality, gay rights...

Economic, social will follow.
Social and political, economic would probably follow. I figure if people have the rights of self-determination, they're going to start wanting shit.

Y'know apart from racial equality, gender equality, gay rights...
You do realize those are actually advancing faster in countries that have less economic freedoms, correct?

You do realize those are actually advancing faster in countries that have less economic freedoms, correct?
In the short term. I thought we were talking long-term. Economically unfree things like feudalism, slavery etc. from further back were completely in line with the idea that people were supposed to fulfil a certain role and that deviation was "wrong".

It's only happening that way around in the short term because capitalism happens to have recently got itself associated with religion and communism is associated with atheism. But there's no inherent connection.

Without economic freedom, there is no social freedom.

Serfs or slaves can only become socially free after being freed. The poor can only rise after they have enough to eat, etc.

This is just silly.
Economiv and social freedoms stem from each other. They are symbiotic.

This is just silly.
Economiv and social freedoms stem from each other. They are symbiotic.
Indeed.

I value them both. All or nothing!

This is just silly.
Economiv and social freedoms stem from each other. They are symbiotic.
Agreed.

I don't really think you can have one without the other. We are socially stratified along economic lines. In other words, "them that has, gets".

If you have money, you have options. The less money you have, the fewer options you have; the more money you have, the more options you have.

I don't really think you can have one without the other. We are socially stratified along economic lines. In other words, "them that has, gets".

If you have money, you have options. The less money you have, the fewer options you have; the more money you have, the more options you have.This is how it is.
It is not how it needs to be.

As I pointed out above, you can have social freedoms without economic freedoms -- so long as you are provided the means to life regardless of your social choices.

Well, come on then. I'm bored, so get to it! :p

I'm in favor of Social freedom, myself.

I voted economic freedom, because I feel that economic freedoms can lead to social freedoms.

~ Romandeos.

Neither. I want to be oppressed.

I guess social freedom, but economic freedom is still very important.

Neither. I want to be oppressed.

...Mind explaining that one?

~ Romandeos.