NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do you value more?

*In the social sense

can't have one without the other.

If all are free, then all are equal.

Both, they are inseperable.

Equal freedom for everyone? It's a balancing act, to be sure.

Fuck equality. All I care about is freedom. Equality comes with freedom, or at least it should.

I would argue that, to an extent they are both nessecary but the American system of democracy seems to put freedom ahead of equality, while the British system does the opposite. I should stress I am referring to social in both cases.

How can you have one but not the other?

How can you have one but not the other? Its not one or the other, just which one you prefer more greatly. to grant complete freedom you cannot guarentee complete equality, because complete equality would mean you could not be more "wealthy" than another. To grant complete equality you cannot guarentee citizens the right to everything they possess.

Communism or Capitalism.....I'm going with Socialism.

Its not one or the other, just which one you prefer more greatly. to grant complete freedom you cannot guarentee complete equality, because complete equality would mean you could not be more "wealthy" than another. To grant complete equality you cannot guarentee citizens the right to everything they possess.

Well I would prefer freedom then communism.

Freedom. A society that is totally equal is one that will stagnate and die; people are not all the same, and it's impossible to achieve total equality without reducing our entire society down to the lowest level possible. Even worse, a society that mandates equality will inevitable eliminate freedom because our decisions in a free society can affect our position within it.

Which do you value more?

*In the social sense

In order to have freedom, one must have equality, and vice-versa. A forced choice between the two values is a false dichotomy.

pr0n of course:rolleyes:

In order to have freedom, one must have equality, and vice-versa. A forced choice between the two values is a false dichotomy.
Once again...Its not one or the other. I am asking which one you value more.

Well I would prefer freedom then communism.

.....Communism does not necessarily imply lack of freedom. Communism is a government which runs the industry (More like Socialism) Example: You can have a democratic Communist society, it just hasn't happened yet.

Freedom. A society that is totally equal is one that will stagnate and die; people are not all the same, and it's impossible to achieve total equality without reducing our entire society down to the lowest level possible. Even worse, a society that mandates equality will inevitable eliminate freedom because our decisions in a free society can affect our position within it.

You are closest to my own feelings on the subject. egalitarianism as a staple of society will often produce far more harm than good. I would rather see people high above me that I may aspire to than be guarenteed a decent place in society and have no upward mobility at all.

Its not one or the other, just which one you prefer more greatly. to grant complete freedom you cannot guarentee complete equality, because complete equality would mean you could not be more "wealthy" than another. To grant complete equality you cannot guarentee citizens the right to everything they possess.

What does "the right to everything they possess" have to do with freedom?

If by "possess" you mean "own", there are plenty of examples where the "right to everything they possess" runs directly contrary to freedom. Slavery, for instance.

Freedom. A society that is totally equal is one that will stagnate and die; people are not all the same, and it's impossible to achieve total equality without reducing our entire society down to the lowest level possible.

People can be equal without being identical.

Even worse, a society that mandates equality will inevitable eliminate freedom because our decisions in a free society can affect our position within it.

Inequality that is really freely accepted is not inequality at all. I have my doubts that much "inequality" would ever be truly freely accepted in a genuinely free society (a society quite different from ours.)

Egalitarianism is the most stupid idea there ever was. By "equality" leftists mean reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

I'll take freedom anyday.

Egalitarianism is the most stupid idea there ever was. By "equality" leftists mean reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

I'll take freedom anyday.

No, we don't. By "equality," leftists mean equality of participation and equality of opportunity. No one really supports equality of condition.

In order to truly have freedom, people must have an equal participation in determining society's course. Thus freedom and equality are really two sides of the same coin.

The only kind of "equality" I support is equality under the law, i.e., no special privileges for anyone, rich or poor. I don't support wealth distribution or any other kind of equality enforced by the barrel of a gun.

The only kind of "equality" I support is equality under the law, i.e., no special privileges for anyone, rich or poor. I don't support wealth distribution or any other kind of equality enforced by the barrel of a gun.

Except the enforcement of the "No Totalitarians" policy. :D

The only kind of "equality" I support is equality under the law, i.e., no special privileges for anyone, rich or poor.

Then you should oppose capitalism, which under the law maintains a system which privileges some at the expense of others.

I don't support wealth distribution or any other kind of equality enforced by the barrel of a gun.

A truly free and equal society would not need wealth redistribution to counter its own failings.

Then you should oppose capitalism, which under the law maintains a system which privileges some at the expense of others.

Capitalism allows people to rise or fall on their own merits. As it should be.

People can be equal without being identical.

That's true; but given that the dichotomy is between freedom and equality, I would assume they mean equality way beyond that which we should expect as necessary for a democratic society.


Inequality that is really freely accepted is not inequality at all. I have my doubts that much "inequality" would ever be truly freely accepted in a genuinely free society (a society quite different from ours.)

It all depends on what we consider "inequality"; people will always have inherent advantages and disadvantages but the goal of society is, or should be, to give everyone an equal shot at achieving what they want to do with their lives.

Capitalism allows people to rise or fall on their own merits. As it should be.

How many billionaire heirs/heiresses do you see living on the streets? None.
How many incompetent business executives are working at McDonalds? None. Capitalism allows you to rise and fall according to how much money you can swindle away from other people.

That's true; but given that the dichotomy is between freedom and equality, I would assume they mean equality way beyond that which we should expect as necessary for a democratic society.

What kind of "equality" is that?

It all depends on what we consider "inequality";

Power inequality. There is no other kind of "inequality." If I have more money than you because I want more money and you want less, are we thus "unequal"? No, we are simply different.

If you are given special privileges and unequal power because you are smarter, or male, or straight, or whatever, then there is inequality.

people will always have inherent advantages and disadvantages

Inherent differences.

but the goal of society is, or should be, to give everyone an equal shot at achieving what they want to do with their lives.

A truly equal shot. Not a shot we merely pretend is equal because we outsource inequality to private economic institutions instead of enforcing it directly through the state.

Capitalism allows people to rise or fall on their own merits. As it should be.

What does that have to do with freedom? Are you saying that if I do not have talent I should not be free?

Are you saying that if I do not have talent I should not be free?

Not what I was implying.

Not what I was implying.

Is that not the implication of meritocracy?

Not what I was implying.

You didn't mean to imply it, but that is the cold hard truth of law of the jungle capitalism.

I propose massive taxes by the government... no not for equality, pron

If anyone has read Kurt Vonnegut's short story 'Harrison Bergeron' they will know that absolute equality goes hand in hand with a lack of freedom. As much as I dislike inequality, freedom is definately my preference.

How many billionaire heirs/heiresses do you see living on the streets? None.
How many incompetent business executives are working at McDonalds? None. Capitalism allows you to rise and fall according to how much money you can swindle away from other people.

Well, you have to take into account that people look out for their own self-interests, so billionaires will want to give what they have earned to their children to ensure a family legacy, and exceedingly greedy assholes will want to make sure that they will retain or increase their power by having cronies and other like-minded oafs in powerful-enough positions. It's not a problem born of capitalism, it's a problem born of jackasses and schmucks.

If anyone has read Kurt Vonnegut's short story 'Harrison Bergeron' they will know that absolute equality goes hand in hand with a lack of freedom.

"Harrison Bergeron" has nothing to do with absolute equality.

Well, you have to take into account that people look out for their own self-interests, so billionaires will want to give what they have earned to their children to ensure a family legacy, and exceedingly greedy assholes will want to make sure that they will retain or increase their power by having cronies and other like-minded oafs in powerful-enough positions. It's not a problem born of capitalism, it's a problem born of jackasses and schmucks.

A problem made possible because of capitalism.

Any kind of government enforced equality other than equality before the law is a joke, but unfortunately that means we have a lot of governments making wisecracks...

freedom, equality is just myth of the left.

Both. Equality is not a myth of the left. Not only are they not mutually exclusive, but Freedom and Equality are both specific values written into the American declaration of independence and the constitution. To say otherwise is unworthy of a true American in my humble opinion.

freedom, equality is just myth of the left.

"Contradictions" between freedom and equality are myths of the right.

If anyone has read Kurt Vonnegut's short story 'Harrison Bergeron' they will know that absolute equality goes hand in hand with a lack of freedom. Most definitely. The idea that Freedom conflicts with equality is perverse. To say that is equal to saying that for there to be freedom, some must be greater than others.

"Contradictions" between freedom and equality are myths of the right.

A particular faction of the right. The most disturbing kind. The closet-fascists.

Freedom

A particular faction of the right. The most disturbing kind. The closet-fascists.

Dispite the fact that I quote hitler in my sig, I am no fascist. I only recognize that all people are unique and different. To surpress that would be wrong.

Dispite the fact that I quote hitler in my sig, I am no fascist. I only recognize that all people are unique and different. To surpress that would be wrong.

What does that have to do with equality?

Dispite the fact that I quote hitler in my sig, I am no fascist. I only recognize that all people are unique and different. To surpress that would be wrong.

Whoever said equality meant suppression of individuals?

Whoever said equality meant suppression of individuals?

If everyone is equal, individuality is surpressed.

Which do you value more?


False dicotomy.

I can voluntarily choose (freedom) to share resources with those that I associate (equality). This notion that one is either for "freedom" or one is for "equality" is specious nonsense promoted by the (usually statist) forces of the "right" and "left" political cults. (edit: and even to just posit the question as "which do you value more" doesn't make any sense. There is no reason to value one more than the other. To do otherwise is still to imply that the one prevents or precludes the other. As I have already explained, such is nonsense.)

False dicotomy.

I can voluntarily choose (freedom) to share resources with those that I associate (equality). This notion that one is either for "freedom" or one is for "equality" is specious nonsense promoted by the (usually statist) forces of the "right" and "left" political cults. (edit: and even to just posit the question as "which do you value more" doesn't make any sense. There is no reason to value one more than the other. To do otherwise is still to imply that the one prevents or precludes the other. As I have already explained, such is nonsense.)

Good thing I didnt ask an either-or question, then. There is reason to value one more than the other, as many people have already successfully argued. There is certainly a point at which one can begin to intrude upon the other.

If everyone is equal, individuality is surpressed.

So, in order to be free individuals, do you give less freedoms to some so that they can be individuals? After all, if we gave everyone equal freedoms, we'd be suppressing individuality, right?

Good thing I didnt ask an either-or question, then.

Freedom or Equality

:confused:

If everyone is equal, individuality is surpressed.

only under strange definitions of equality that no one who promotes equality accepts

If everyone is equal, individuality is surpressed.

How so?

If some people are more powerful than others, then those with less power will be less free, and less capable of expressing their individuality.

If everyone is equal, individuality is surpressed.

Only if they are equal in every sense. Equal in rights and freedoms is not the same thing

Which do you value more?

*In the social sense

What is with polls and false dichotomys lately?

What is with polls and false dichotomys lately?

False dichotomies are great propaganda tool.

Once again...Its not one or the other. I am asking which one you value more.

Except some of us can't reply with the answer we would give. You didn't give us an option for valuing them equaly, there was certainly room.

can't have one without the other.

My thoughts, exactly.

Except some of us can't reply with the answer we would give. You didn't give us an option for valuing them equaly, there was certainly room.

Surely you dont think any society perfectly balances the two? or if they did, that it could even be sustained for any great period of time.

Surely you dont think any society perfectly balances the two?

Any society with one must have the other.

Any restriction of one is a restriction of the other.

I voted pr0n.

Equality, as in equal rights for women, equal rights for minorities - I'm all for it. But the tendency is to take this to extreme, like "equal wealth" for everyone. So it's impossible for me to vote for "equality" when its so generalized like that.

Freedom is more my style, on the other hand I also agree with laws say in Austria and Germany outlawing Nazism. They make sense. Maybe not forever, but then there are a lot of other laws I agree with that limit freedom. I'm not an anarchist, so I can't vote for freedom all the way either.

So. pr0n. Can't disagree with giant, jiggly boobs.

Surely you dont think any society perfectly balances the two? or if they did, that it could even be sustained for any great period of time.

Never said that a society has done so only that some on here myself included value freedom and equality equaly, a poll option that was unavailable. As to it's sustainability what exactly would prevent it?

What is with polls and false dichotomys lately?

You are confusing dichotomy with a value judgement. I never made a dichotomy. I agree that Freedom and equality cannot be seperated, but one can overshadow the other in society.

pr0n for sure

Both, they are inseperable.
Yup...

both, cuz if you have 1 you also have the other.

Really, it's hard to say.

Equality is great and all. In God's eyes, we are all created in His image, regardless of race, gender, wealth, or other societal differentiators. That sort of equality is unavoidable, and definitely worth emulating. Artificial equality of other sorts isn't such a great idea, though. Not everyone is of equal intelligence (though that doesn't affect their absolute worth) or ability, and pretending they are is just silly. So inner equality is good - but artificial equality is bad.

Freedom needs to be limited, or the entire society will go to hell in a handbasket without delay. Freedom to kill people and eat their livers, for instance, is a bad freedom. Freedom to eat cows, veal or veggie burgers for dinner is a good freedom. You can't just say "freedom that infringes on others' freedoms don't count." It becomse a circlular logic. Freedom needs to be limited by some fixed standard, and ultimately ties back into being equal before God.

So the two are related, and inevitably tied together. BUT I think a society that emphasizes equality tends towards an artificial equality, and a society that tends to emphasize freedom recognises they MUST limit it, so I said freedom.

Really, it's hard to say.

Equality is great and all. In God's eyes, we are all created in His image, regardless of race, gender, wealth, or other societal differentiators. That sort of equality is unavoidable, and definitely worth emulating. Artificial equality of other sorts isn't such a great idea, though. Not everyone is of equal intelligence (though that doesn't affect their absolute worth) or ability, and pretending they are is just silly. So inner equality is good - but artificial equality is bad.

Egalitarianism does not involve "pretending they are", it involves preventing such differences - or any arbitrary differences - from being used as a basis for inequality.

Freedom needs to be limited, or the entire society will go to hell in a handbasket without delay. Freedom to kill people and eat their livers, for instance, is a bad freedom. Freedom to eat cows, veal or veggie burgers for dinner is a good freedom. You can't just say "freedom that infringes on others' freedoms don't count." It becomse a circlular logic.

How is it circular?

Good thing I didnt ask an either-or question, then.

Sure you did. You asked me which I value more. I cannot answer that question because I don't see how one can or should be valued over the other. In fact, I think a lot of bad things happen when people try to value one over the other.

People aren't equal by nature and by motivation.

It is true that without economic equality some people won't have the same freedoms as some others have. But then, I don't have the freedom to win the Olympic Gold in the 100m sprint either.

It is true that without economic equality some people won't have the same freedoms as some others have. But then, I don't have the freedom to win the Olympic Gold in the 100m sprint either.

The gold medal's only value is as a signifier of merit. The same is not true of material goods.

Which do you value more?

*In the social sense

i can't be free unless my fellows are equally free. so pr0n it is.

The gold medal's only value is as a signifier of merit. The same is not true of material goods.
Depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Either way, the concept still stands. On the whole (and hey, improvements are certainly necessary) providing better value to your fellow man will leave you with more material goods in our society. If people complain that they don't have enough material goods, there is a solution available.

Sure you did. You asked me which I value more. I cannot answer that question because I don't see how one can or should be valued over the other. In fact, I think a lot of bad things happen when people try to value one over the other.

To admit that one may overpower the other is the same as admitting they are different in nature and definition. To totally balance the two would be impossible.

And Soheron, if I remember correctly, you dont use conventional definitions of either word, so that may be why some (myself included) are having difficulty understanding you.

Depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Either way, the concept still stands. On the whole (and hey, improvements are certainly necessary) providing better value to your fellow man will leave you with more material goods in our society. If people complain that they don't have enough material goods, there is a solution available.

Even a slave might have been able to get a little better treatment from the master if she worked very hard; at least, she might have been able to avoid some punishment.

Does that make slavery an acceptable system?

And Soheron, if I remember correctly, you dont use conventional definitions of either word, so that may be why some (myself included) are having difficulty understanding you.

I think the definitions I use for both words are fairly intuitive, and correspond approximately to their usual political usages.

"Equality" to me is equality of moral consideration, translating into equality of power.

"Freedom" to me is the capability to do what I want to do and live the way I want to live.

Forced equality of outcomes is antithetical to freedom.

Not only do I disagree with the claim that you can't have one without the other, I think the two are mutually exclusive.

Does that make slavery an acceptable system?
Would the slave have had any freedom?

I think it is generally accepted by pretty much every free market-type person that neither slavery nor the threat of punishment or use of force is a valid way to get an agreement. Once an agreement is made though, both sides will have to be made to adhere to it.

Note that if you don't work and can't afford food, no one is punishing you any more than gravity is punishing you if you are silly enough to jump off a cliff without a parachute. All beings have to work to survive.

Would the slave have had any freedom?

Does a child laborer in some Third World sweatshop?

I think it is generally accepted by pretty much every free market-type person that neither slavery nor the threat of punishment or use of force is a valid way to get an agreement.

That is because they define "slavery" in such a way as to exclude the threat of starvation.

Note that if you don't work and can't afford food, no one is punishing you any more than gravity is punishing you if you are silly enough to jump off a cliff without a parachute.

It depends on the conditions of your society. Private property compels us to work in certain ways in submission to certain people; to refuse to do this is to face starvation, and that is a punishment.

All beings have to work to survive.

How many beings have to work for a capitalist to survive?

people seem a bit confused......equality is part of freedom, but freedom is not part of equality.....you have to have equality to have freedom, but you can very easily have equality without having freedom. we can all be equal without having any freedom whatsoever

Both should be maximized, because you can't have one without the other.

Does a child laborer in some Third World sweatshop?
Sure. The child could choose to wander back out onto the open plain to be eaten by a hyena. By choosing the sweatshop, the child dramatically improves his and his family's life.
Private property compels us to work in certain ways in submission to certain people; to refuse to do this is to face starvation, and that is a punishment.
That is not a punishment because it's simply a natural state of affairs. If you don't work for your food, you don't get food. This is true of all creatures in the world.

"Both should be maximized, because you can't have one without the other."---Jello Biafra


yes you can. it is possible to have a very great amount of equality without having any freedom.

Sure. The child could choose to wander back out onto the open plain to be eaten by a hyena. By choosing the sweatshop, the child dramatically improves his and his family's life.

That is true; it is merely whining leftists who would be concerned for the child's autonomy.

And those damn abolitionists! Can they not see that the slave can choose to disobey? Sure, she must accept the consequences, but that is true of all choices; nowhere are we granted a right to escape the consequences of our actions.

That is not a punishment because it's simply a natural state of affairs.

Capitalism is most definitely not the natural state of affairs.

That is true; it is merely whining leftists who would be concerned for the child's autonomy.
I don't understand what your objection is. Without the sweatshops the children would be far worse off.
Capitalism is most definitely not the natural state of affairs.
But one of your primary objections has been that capitalism forces people to choose between work and starvation.

Every system does that.

I don't understand what your objection is. Without the sweatshops the children would be far worse off.

Only within the framework of the capitalist economy, which is the real atrocity.

But one of your primary objections has been that capitalism forces people to choose between work and starvation.

Every system does that.

Yes, every system does.

Not every system forces us to choose between work done in submission to and for the profit of another and starvation.

Enough freedom will lead people to the decision that equality is right.

Only within the framework of the capitalist economy, which is the real atrocity.
Are you insane? Those are third world countries. They don't have a sufficiently well developed economy to feed themselves. When choosing between subsistence-level agrarian society and working in a sweatshop, I choose the sweatshop.

Sure, I work long hours, doing hard, dangerous work. But the same is true outside the sweatshop, and the sweatshop pays better.
Yes, every system does.

Not every system forces us to choose between work done in submission to and for the profit of another and starvation.
And if you could describe what the material difference is, maybe that might matter.

Outside capitalism, you either produce food yourself (which might not be your preference) or you produce something someone else might want in order to get food from them. Otherwise there's no food for you. Nothing changes just by taking away capitalism.

Are you insane? Those are third world countries. They don't have a sufficiently well developed economy to feed themselves. When choosing between subsistence-level agrarian society and working in a sweatshop, I choose the sweatshop.

Sure, I work long hours, doing hard, dangerous work. But the same is true outside the sweatshop, and the sweatshop pays better.

You are still keeping to a capitalist framework.

Being mugged might be better than being shot - but why tolerate a system that will do either?

And if you could describe what the material difference is, maybe that might matter.

Freedom is a pretty significant difference, though I don't know if you consider it "material."

Outside capitalism, you either produce food yourself (which might not be your preference) or you produce something someone else might want in order to get food from them. Otherwise there's no food for you. Nothing changes just by taking away capitalism.

Yes, lots of things change.

Firstly, even if you don't replace capitalism with anything, the option of producing your own food is more plausible than it is in a world where land and resources are owned.

Secondly, replacing capitalism with something else - say, anarchist socialism - could involve exchange and the division of labor while also minimizing exploitation, expanding both freedom and equality.

"Secondly, replacing capitalism with something else - say, anarchist socialism - could involve exchange and the division of labor while also minimizing exploitation, expanding both freedom and equality."---Soheran


you must not understand the system that you propose if you think it would expand freedom in any way

you must not understand the system that you propose if you think it would expand freedom in any way

You must not understand the nature of an argument if you think that qualifies.

Freedom is much more important.

You must not understand the nature of an argument if you think that qualifies.

A system similar to that which you advocate will probably give people freedom and equality. It would reduce them all to beggars equally, scavenging for food, and give them to freedom to starve to death or jump off a tall building.

Look I didn't want to read through 7 pages of crap, so I am just going to point out what somebody has hopefully already pointed out. The two are *not* inseperable. Fredom usually brings equality (in a certain sense, not in reality though), however, Equality does not necessarily bring freedom, in fact it will usually contravene freedom. All of this depend upon the sense in which you are referring to. I believe 'social freedom/equality' was the official standard in the OP. As such, Social freedom will bring equality only in that everyone is free, but not in terms of social status. Social equality can only be achieved with near-zero freedom.

yes you can. it is possible to have a very great amount of equality without having any freedom.A great amount of equality amongst a certain segment of the populace, perhaps. This doesn't take into account those who are removing freedoms; they most certainly won't be equal to the rest of the people.

A great amount of equality amongst a certain segment of the populace, perhaps. This doesn't take into account those who are removing freedoms; they most certainly won't be equal to the rest of the people.

True... there will never be true equality (or pr0n :( ) in the government...

that's why I say freedom.

True... there will never be true equality (or pr0n :( ) in the government...All the more reason to eliminate the state.

Communism or Capitalism.....I'm going with Socialism.

I would like to point out here that capitalism, as posited by Adam Smith, calls for the government to step in and level the playing field whenever big "mercantile interests" get powerful enough to control competition, the government is supposed to step in and level the playing field.

What right-wing economists champion these days is not capitalism. It is Free Market Economics. The two are not the same.

As a latecomer to this thread I'll just say that some amount of equality is necessary to keep freedom because if any group gets too powerful they become oppressive. A certain amount of inequality is harmless, and even desirable. Limits on freedom should only exist to the point that they protect the freedoms of others. And that's freedom to, not freedom from. You do not have the right to be free from shitty music and annoying neighbors.

Limits on freedom should only exist to the point that they protect the freedoms of others. And that's freedom to, not freedom from. You do not have the right to be free from shitty music and annoying neighbors.

*Claps*

You have learned well.

Join me: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11705166#post11705166

I don't believe freedom and equality always go hand in hand. Social freedom can be distributed equally to the people, but not everyone in a free society has the means to make use of it.

For example, if we look at Maslow's heirarchy, physiological needs and the need for safety generally must be satisfied before an individual can start enjoying the freedom to express love, gain self-esteem, etc.

Bottom line, free people in poverty do not necessarily have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of their social freedoms.

That being said, the opportunity is there, so I vote for freedom.

Once again...Its not one or the other. I am asking which one you value more.

Well, that being the case, I will say that I choose freedom because as long as I am free, I can maintain my own equality against those who think they can somehow lord it over me.

HOWEVER, I think there is a fundamental flaw in the choice you present.

Freedom and equality cannot be separated becuase equality always comes about in a society of free people. The bottom line is, free people will never freely choose to be unequal, i.e, to say that someone else is better than them. So if I have freedom, then I already have equality, and even if you, in your freedom, try to say you are better than me, you will have a hard time proving that argument, since we are both free to live, say and do as we please. Assertions that inequality somehow exists naturally, then, merely boil down to personal social preferences, not actually breakdowns of social or political power (which would impinge on freedom).

By "equality," I am talking about political equality and equality before the law, which also covers social equality -- because any system that recognizes any kind of class privilege that allows more or less access to government and protection under the law according to whatever criteria, is already treating people unequally. By treating people unequally, it is already infringing on the freedom of some people. A system in which a poor man gets the same legal protections and same access to government as a rich one is a system that has functionally erased all practical distinctions of class and, thus, treats everyone equally and ensures the freedom of all.

But, having said all that, the bottom line is, if I am free, then you cannot make me unequal.

I don't believe freedom and equality always go hand in hand. Social freedom can be distributed equally to the people, but not everyone in a free society has the means to make use of it.

It is thus not a free society.

Denying people the means to freedom is equivalent to denying them the legal capability to have that freedom.

"A great amount of equality amongst a certain segment of the populace, perhaps. This doesn't take into account those who are removing freedoms; they most certainly won't be equal to the rest of the people."---Jello Biafra


nonsense....the people are more than effective enough at removing each other's freedoms. look at america....the vast majority of voters support one of the parties that looks to suppress the freedoms of others.....they just pick the party that suppresses the rights that they don't exercise, so they don't think other people need them. you get enough different blocks of people fighting to suppress one right or another, and soon enough you get a variety of suppressed rights

You are still keeping to a capitalist framework.
No I'm not. I'm describing a pre-industrial society, which is where sweatshops tend to appear.
Being mugged might be better than being shot - but why tolerate a system that will do either?
Because your alternative produces widespread starvation.
Freedom is a pretty significant difference, though I don't know if you consider it "material."
How is one freedom when the other isn't? Under the capitalism I've described, either you grow your own food or you work to produce something someone else wants in order to earn food.

Under your socialism either you produce your own food or you work to produce something someone else wants in exchange for their production of food on your behalf.

The only difference is whether we're exchanging property or labour, and I don't see what difference it makes.
Firstly, even if you don't replace capitalism with anything, the option of producing your own food is more plausible than it is in a world where land and resources are owned.
Though a world without incentives to produce makes the availability of resources significantly less likely.
Secondly, replacing capitalism with something else - say, anarchist socialism - could involve exchange and the division of labor while also minimizing exploitation, expanding both freedom and equality.
What harm does "exploitation" actually do? If it doesn't have any measureable impact on my life, why should I care that I'm being exploited? As far as I can tell, the absence of expliotation is all your socialism does for me, while at the same time it dramatically reduces overall production, thus increasing the risk that I won't get enough to eat.

as long as I dont have to bend over and take it up keister every day to get some sort of shitty, meaningless pay check. Fuck I hate capitalism.

to refuse to do this is to face starvation, and that is a punishment.


Not having someone work for your personal benfit to provide YOU with a non mutually beneficial (therefore coerced) service is a punishment?

It's the same word.

nonsense....the people are more than effective enough at removing each other's freedoms. look at america....the vast majority of voters support one of the parties that looks to suppress the freedoms of others.....they just pick the party that suppresses the rights that they don't exercise, so they don't think other people need them. you get enough different blocks of people fighting to suppress one right or another, and soon enough you get a variety of suppressed rightsAnd who watches people to make sure that they're not doing things they're not supposed to? And who watches the watchers?

A problem made possible because of capitalism.

Even without capitalism they would be still at it, they would just go about it in different ways to achieve the same end.

it's easy, jello.....there is only one possible way to ever have freedom for everyone.....and that is to have an entire world of people that do not wish to take the freedom of others. it's not likely to happen any bloody time soon....not without some major evolution of mankind, but until it does happen, there will always be oppressed people. just like war, there will always be war as long as there are some people that wish to wage it.

And who watches people to make sure that they're not doing things they're not supposed to? And who watches the watchers?
That's what the constitution is for.

Unlimited democracy removes that safeguard.

it's easy, jello.....there is only one possible way to ever have freedom for everyone.....and that is to have an entire world of people that do not wish to take the freedom of others. it's not likely to happen any bloody time soon....not without some major evolution of mankind, but until it does happen, there will always be oppressed people. just like war, there will always be war as long as there are some people that wish to wage it.Or, you could make it incredibly difficult to remove the freedom of someone else.

That's what the constitution is for.

Unlimited democracy removes that safeguard.I don't argue in favor of unlimited democracies. Incidentally, the existence of a constitution is more of an argument against what The Forever Dusk was saying than what I was saying.