NationStates Jolt Archive

Based on an idea which just popped into my head twenty seconds ago, the governments of modern, industrialized countries have two main ways of improving life: preserving freedom and insuring equality. These are not (fixed) automatically mutually exclusive, but policies that want to make things more equal often do so at the cost of freedom, and vice versa.
Having said that, which do you think is the more important of the goals: equality or freedom? You don't need to assume it is an either-or scenario, but I'm guessing most people have a preference.

Estara un sondeo. (Spanish speakers, is that right?)
Se hará una encuesta (fixed)

Freedom.
Any reason? (And there will be a poll soon, I promise.)

Since equality is subjective, I'll go with freedom. Some free people choose to be unequal (think dom/sub relationships and the like), but being forced to be equal is no sure path to freedom (see Harrison Bergeron).

Freedom.

Both are manifestations of the same idea. Freedom presupposes an equality of decision making capability, irrespective of a person's individual abilities. And equality presupposes that individuals are free to do as they choose so long as it doesn't harm others. Anyone who can prevent them from doing as such is by definition more equal then them.

In short, we cannot have one without the other.

Any reason? (And there will be a poll soon, I promise.)

Yes. I'll have to think on it for a bit and put into words, first.

Maybe because of rising populations in cities, freedom was too expensive an option whereas equality was slightly easier.
That and the idea of Freedom is not solid, so the government could make any number of measures and say they're helping it.
Equality is easier to gain because that involves changing the way people think.
Freedom is hard to gain because that involves space and resources, if you don't have space and resources it's unlikely you'd get anywhere near the common concept of 'Freedom'.

So if possible i'd go with Freedom because then Equality would be far easier to enforce (with more resources to do so), and people would be happier thus nicer to others.
In reality neither is attainable, for as long as even one despotic government, or a government that doesn't listen to it's people exists, you immediatly have a situation that will decrease both Freedom and equality which is why upcoming governments try to promise these to aim for an ultimate goal.
Well that's what i think.

Based on an idea which just popped into my head twenty seconds ago, the governments of modern, industrialized countries have two main ways of improving life: preserving freedom and insuring equality. These are automatically mutually exclusive, but policies that want to make things more equal often do so at the cost of freedom, and vice versa.
Having said that, which do you think is the more important of the goals: equality or freedom? You don't need to assume it is an either-or scenario, but I'm guessing most people have a preference.

Define freedom.

People should not be "free" collect billions of dollars/pounds/etc. while the people woh earn it for them starve. Nor should people be "free" to deny work or housing to someone without just cause. I hope that answers your question

Meh, in my case it's rather obvious. I think I've probably used 10,000 or so of my post on figuring out and explaining my reasons, and I'm not up for repeating it this morning.

Meh, in my case it's rather obvious. I think I've probably used 10,000 or so of my post on figuring out and explaining my reasons, and I'm not up for repeating it this morning.

So I'll put you down for equality then? :p

Define freedom.

Freedom, noun: Nothing left to lose.

Real answer--
Freedom, noun: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint" (from the Oxford American Dictionary)

The extreme free government would be anarchy, where there is no restraint on anything. I guess the extreme equal government would be a true communist state, although I'm sure plenty of people on this forum will correct me.

Bullshit. Your poll fails for lacking a "both" option.

That's actually a typo. I meant to say, "They are not automatically exclusive." Thank you for your correction. Now perhaps you would care to explain your position, and how the third choice does not meet your "both" answer.

Assuming everyone has selfish motives (because that makes this easier), I'll have to go for the one that would make me happier, so the answer only depends on where you are on the class ladder.:)

It seems to me that freedom means different things in different cultures.

In the US, freedom definitly seems to mean economic freedom, property rights, freedom from taxes etc as with capitalism.

Personally, I don't care much about that freedom. I do care about the freedom to get a high standard of healthcare, education etc. I do care about the freedom to be able to have a living income and a reasonable standard of living. I do care about the freedom to not be controlled by corporations, at the beck and call of people who care about profit and nothing else. And so on and so forth.

By that definition, I don't need total equality - I want the kind of freedom I've just described, which ties in with some levels of equality.

These are automatically mutually exclusive

Bullshit. Your poll fails for lacking a "both" option.

"Which should be a government's top priority (of the two)?"

"Neither" as an answer to that question means they should not be top priorities, but both lesser.

Fixed.

I put the parenthesis in purposely, so no one would be confused.

Bullshit. Your poll fails for lacking a "both" option.

"Neither, they should both be treated completely equally."

And equality presupposes that individuals are free to do as they choose so long as it doesn't harm others. Anyone who can prevent them from doing as such is by definition more equal then them.

In short, we cannot have one without the other.
If that was as far as anyone ever took equality, I think we'd have many fewer arguments around here.

"Neither, they should both be treated completely equally."

"Which should be a government's top priority?"

"Neither" as an answer to that question means they should not be top priorities, but both lesser.

Biopower!!!!!

If there is no restraint on anything than there is nothing to stop you from restraining others. If you're restraining others than those who are being restrained cannot be free.

It's not a perfect definition, but in this context I mean restraint from the government, and only the government. For example, a government that censored speech would be less free than one that didn't. A government that regulated business would be less free than an anarcho-capitalist paradise. There's some gray area (such as a government that bans slavery), which is why I'll leave the final definition up to whatever you think it should be.

Freedom, noun: Nothing left to lose.

Real answer--
Freedom, noun: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint" (from the Oxford American Dictionary)

The extreme free government would be anarchy, where there is no restraint on anything. I guess the extreme equal government would be a true communist state, although I'm sure plenty of people on this forum will correct me.

If there is no restraint on anything than there is nothing to stop you from restraining others. If you're restraining others than those who are being restrained cannot be free.

It's not a perfect definition, but in this context I mean restraint from the government, and only the government. For example, a government that censored speech would be less free than one that didn't. A government that regulated business would be less free than an anarcho-capitalist paradise. There's some gray area (such as a government that bans slavery), which is why I'll leave the final definition up to whatever you think it should be.

Doesn't seem like we're comparing apples with apples. Does the "equal" government only have to be non-discriminatory?

It is my understanding that freedom and equivilence are default states of a community and that government's responsibility is not to uphold them but to act to resolve disputes, manage resources and provide a framework for dialog without diminishing them. It is not the government's place to "prioritise", or even to claim to "protect" these necessities. If it is somehow necessary to compromise freedom or equality in pursuit of government, then the government has failed in its primary responsibility.

People should not be "free" collect billions of dollars/pounds/etc. while the people woh earn it for them starve.
Even if those people voluntarily agreed to the arrangement?
Nor should people be "free" to deny work or housing to someone without just cause. I hope that answers your question
There's a differrence between action and inaction.

If equality only means that we can't act in ways that harm each other, I don't think anyone would object. If, however, it requires that we do act in all cases where failing to do so would leave people in a lesser position than they would otehrwise be, then we have a disagreement.

Doesn't seem like we're comparing apples with apples. Does the "equal" government only have to be non-discriminatory?

Here are examples of what I was thinking. I haven't really thought of general definitions for either, just specific instances of both.

Freedom: In the US, the First Amendment. Economic freedom is another one, freedom to create a business and run somewhat independently of the government.
Equality: In the US, all the civil rights legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment. Due process for all citizens. Voting with one vote per citizen.

If anyone can think of examples outside the US, that would be much appreciated. I know for a fact they exist, but I can't think of any actual legislation off the top of my head.

Both. Freedom in a political context is impossible without some basic shared sense of autonomy, of responsibility to the obligations of citizenship, and that all members of a political community are equitably invested in the stake of their political future. Put more simply, to have freedom in a political state requires that citizens are assumed to be equal under law and in society. There is a reason why the democratic revolutions in France and the democratic revolutions in America resulted in wildly diverging senses of freedom for their citizenry, and that has a great deal to do with the fact that France at that time was structurally built and culturally inclined to believe in fundamental inequality of its citizens.

how the third choice does not meet your "both" answer.

It should say "Neither, they should both be treated completely equally and freely", otherwise you're being biased.

policies that want to make things more equal often do so at the cost of freedom

Name one. That's not a challenge; I'm more interested in understanding exactly where you're coming from with your uses of "freedom" and "equality."

My answer, if I have any kind of grasp of the sense of "freedom" being used here, is equality--chiefly because that's the only way to preserve genuine freedom within society.

Whle ideally freedom would be made available to everyone equally, if I'm forced to choose between granting freedom only to some people (thus, no equality) or depriving all people of freedom (thus equality), I'm forced to choose the former and opt for some freedom and no equality over total equality with no freedom.

Furthermore, as long as the population isn't homogenous no system of equality can truly be equal without preserving freedom.

Here are examples of what I was thinking. I haven't really thought of general definitions for either, just specific instances of both.

Freedom: In the US, the First Amendment. Economic freedom is another one, freedom to create a business and run somewhat independently of the government.
Equality: In the US, all the civil rights legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment. Due process for all citizens. Voting with one vote per citizen.

If anyone can think of examples outside the US, that would be much appreciated. I know for a fact they exist, but I can't think of any actual legislation off the top of my head.

Okay, so you don't mean "freedom" as in government actions that ensure that people in society are more free, you mean it in terms of a lack of interference?

I think that's a different from freedom. Maybe you wanted to ask "Laissez faire or equality?" but I don't see why freedom from interference is more of a freedom than freedom from discrimination.

Freedom only means something when everyone is equal; after all, every king in history has been free.
Equality only means something when everyone is free; see 1984 and Stalinist Russia.

Neither, in truth. I'd sooner have prosperity, comfort, education, personal responsibility and the apparatus of civilisation than any abstraction, however, if I were to make a choice, I'd sooner have freedom than equality.

I'd say ensuring freedom is the primary... Because if everyone is free, then equality is automatic, since everyone is in possession of the same freedoms... If equality is put before freedom, you automatically loose your purpose of ensuring equality, since enforced equality ususally means you're denying particular freedoms to one group in order to ensure it in another, and therefore enforced equality is automatically self-defeating.

Equality IS freedom.

Freedom is the condition of being free of restraints according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1st definition).

Equality is being impartial; just; equitable according to the American Heritage Dictionary (5th definition).

Therefore, you cannot have freedom without equality.

ideally freedom would be made available to everyone equally...
...and equality would be made available to everyone freely!

Freedom: In the US, the First Amendment.

What if someone else's usage of free speech rights intimidates me? What if verbal hatred and prejudice suffusing the media marginalizes me, makes it impossible for me to develop a healthy sense of self-worth and participate fully in society?

Is that not a matter of freedom? Is not the person taught by society to hate herself, who is compelled by social prejudice to hide and to repress herself, unfree? Is it really so clear that absolute free speech rights, insofar as they expand the capacity of society to do that sort of thing to people, are truly always manifestations of freedom when their full effects are taken into account? (I do not, of course, say that their effects actually amount to this in today's society, or that restricting them would necessarily be justified. I'm speaking in the abstract.)

A consideration for equality, of course, immediately recognizes the problem here: we have in effect denied someone, based on her arbitrary membership in a group, the equal right to participate in society. Perhaps at first glance this is a case of equality and freedom conflicting, but I don't think so. I think it's a case of equality and freedom agreeing--it's just that most of the time our formulations of freedom don't take this angle into account sufficiently.

Economic freedom is another one, freedom to create a business and run somewhat independently of the government.

Some people used to have the freedom, if not (always) to create countries, at least to run them somewhat independently of a democratic government. But we didn't call that freedom. ;)

Perhaps we didn't because it meant, as private ownership and management of businesses at least can mean, that other people are deprived of their right to participate in management decisions that affect them. Again, it's that kind of hierarchy that equality tells us is wrong--and again, on the final analysis I think freedom agrees.

Equality: In the US, all the civil rights legislation.

If I'm excluded from participating in large sectors of the economy because of my race, gender, or sexual orientation, am I truly free? Haven't authority figures (employers, landlords) objectively deprived me of a great deal of my capacity to control my own life?

The Fourteenth Amendment.

Equality under law is, within a democratic society, perhaps the best guarantor of freedom there is beyond basic political equality.

If a democracy can meaningfully speak of being an expression of freedom, it can only do so only insofar as it claims to be everyone ruling everyone: we all exercise our right to self-determination by making laws for all of us. A lack of equality under law turns that into tyranny of the majority: some of us make laws for others, and impose them upon them.

Due process for all citizens.

Surely this is a matter of freedom, too? Has not the innocent person punished because her due process rights were violated been deprived of freedom?

Voting with one vote per citizen.

If we do not exercise equal political power, then some of us exercise more political power than others. That means that some of us are, in effect, ruling over others--that those of us with less political power are being deprived of our right to choose what kind of society we want to live in. That seems pretty clearly a violation of freedom to me.

To maximize freedom for all, everyone must be equal. As such, both are important.
Well naturally, but if one can only maximise freedom generally in the absence of equality, then you're forced to choose.

To maximize freedom for all, everyone must be equal. As such, both are important.

Okay, so you don't mean "freedom" as in government actions that ensure that people in society are more free, you mean it in terms of a lack of interference?

I think that's a different from freedom. Maybe you wanted to ask "Laissez faire or equality?" but I don't see why freedom from interference is more of a freedom than freedom from discrimination.

Mmmmaybe? Now that you're asking me questions I'm becoming less sure of what I was asking.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't thinking laissez faire, though. Maybe it will be easier if I break freedom down further.
It seems there are three ways government can mess with society: political, economic, and social. There are three freedoms associated with these. (I don't know if any of this is true, but it most closely matches what I was thinking when I said freedom.) Political freedom is the ability to choose who runs the government. Voting is a political freedom. Economic freedom is the ability to choose how to make a living as well as what products to buy. The "free" market is an economic freedom. Social freedom is the ability to choose how to worship, what to say, whom to associate with, etc. Most of what is in the First Amendment are social freedoms.

Something like the ability to enslave others, which can occur without government interference, I would classify as a social freedom. Same goes for murder, rape, etc.
When I say "freedom," I am thinking of almost complete political and economic freedom, with some social freedom. For the sake, of simplicity, assume it's just political and economic. Deciding what the "some social freedom" would include is far too much for my little head.

Neither, in truth. I'd sooner have prosperity, comfort, education, personal responsibility and the apparatus of civilisation than any abstraction
Hmmm. I think this is the best answer I've seen yet. That's a little weird, because I never agree with anything you say. Ever.

Mmmmaybe? Now that you're asking me questions I'm becoming less sure of what I was asking.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't thinking laissez faire, though. Maybe it will be easier if I break freedom down further.
It seems there are three ways government can mess with society: political, economic, and social. There are three freedoms associated with these. (I don't know if any of this is true, but it most closely matches what I was thinking when I said freedom.) Political freedom is the ability to choose who runs the government. Voting is a political freedom. Economic freedom is the ability to choose how to make a living as well as what products to buy. The "free" market is an economic freedom. Social freedom is the ability to choose how to worship, what to say, whom to associate with, etc. Most of what is in the First Amendment are social freedoms.

Something like the ability to enslave others, which can occur without government interference, I would classify as a social freedom. Same goes for murder, rape, etc.
When I say "freedom," I am thinking of almost complete political and economic freedom, with some social freedom. For the sake, of simplicity, assume it's just political and economic. Deciding what the "some social freedom" would include is far too much for my little head.

Doesn't it seem a little arbitary to exclude a lack of education as something that inhibits freedom? Why is a free market more of a freedom than freedom from hunger? Why is freedom of speech more of a freedom than freedom from offence? I'm not saying that you can't answer those questions, but I am saying that before you deem "freedom" to encompass one kind of freedom and not another you've got to justify why.

'Freedom' is subjective and based on material realities (ie class), so to the capitalist 'freedom' means freedom of enterprise, trade and exchange, in short freedom for exploitation, so in essence right-wing freedom is just like Athenian 'freedom' or 'democracy', that is freedom for slave-owners.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

Subjective class-based selfishness lies at the heart of all right-wing based 'freedom' arguments.

Doesn't it seem a little arbitary to exclude a lack of education as something that inhibits freedom? Why is a free market more of a freedom than freedom from hunger? Why is freedom of speech more of a freedom than freedom from offence? I'm not saying that you can't answer those questions, but I am saying that before you deem "freedom" to encompass one kind of freedom and not another you've got to justify why.

See, that's the problem with the word. You can take anything and make a phrase, "freedom of [something]" or "freedom from [something]." In my (granted) arbitrary definition, I included what I though the government could insure with only legislation. Assuming the government practices what it preaches, just by passing a law it can allow everyone to vote, or promise it will not interfere with business. It takes more than a law to educate people, or feed them. So here is my new, revised definition of freedom:

Freedom, noun: Like the old definition, but easy.

I don't think those are the two main jobs of the government. In fact, I think preserving freedom is opposite the job of the government. Governments create security, usually at the expense of freedom. People are naturally free until governments take away freedoms in order to protect society. Most laws fall under this category. I guess there are laws that don't quite follow this description, like Affirmative Action, which creates equality at freedom's expense. But even that could be construed that way.

So, other than political freedom, what can the government "ensure with only legislation" that wouldn't fall under the banner of a hypothetical laissez faire government?
A freedom that does not exist in the US is the freedom for two people of the same sex to marry (each other, that is). A law could easily change this.

I suppose one could say that the only reason this freedom does not exist is because the government took it away. But for marriage to be official, it pretty much requires the consent of the state, and the state does not necessarily have to give this freedom.

See, that's the problem with the word. You can take anything and make a phrase, "freedom of [something]" or "freedom from [something]." In my (granted) arbitrary definition, I included what I though the government could insure with only legislation. Assuming the government practices what it preaches, just by passing a law it can allow everyone to vote, or promise it will not interfere with business. It takes more than a law to educate people, or feed them. So here is my new, revised definition of freedom:

Freedom, noun: Like the old definition, but easy.

So, other than political freedom, what can the government "ensure with only legislation" that wouldn't fall under the banner of a hypothetical laissez faire government?

Sorry, I meant laissez faire in the more general sense rather than its specific economic meaning.

Maybe we could perhaps categorise it as "libertarian". Which, if that encompasses all that you mean, would make the original question "libertarianism or equality?".
That's probably the best way to phrase it, even if it contains the provocative word "libertarian."

What do we mean by "equality?" I will never be the equal of Mike Tyson or Stephen Hawking, nor will they ever be the equal of each other, no matter how much the government spends. These inherent inequalities all have an effect on the inequalities of life. You can never completely make up for them.

What do we mean by "freedom?" Can you ever be "free" if you rely on other people? We rely on others for so much, freedom is an illusion. If freedom ends where others' begin, fredom must always be limited. If you decide that you require the government to recognize your marriage, are you increasing your freedom, or ultimately decreasing it?

I think these questions have to be more thoroughly examined before a reasonable answer can be expected.

In Firstistan, one is free to the extent that one can tell others to **** off and die. :sniper:

A freedom that does not exist in the US is the freedom for two people of the same sex to marry (each other, that is). A law could easily change this.

I suppose one could say that the only reason this freedom does not exist is because the government took it away. But for marriage to be official, it pretty much requires the consent of the state, and the state does not necessarily have to give this freedom.

Sorry, I meant laissez faire in the more general sense rather than its specific economic meaning.

Maybe we could perhaps categorise it as "libertarian". Which, if that encompasses all that you mean, would make the original question "libertarianism or equality?".

Doesn't it seem a little arbitary to exclude a lack of education as something that inhibits freedom? Why is a free market more of a freedom than freedom from hunger? Why is freedom of speech more of a freedom than freedom from offence? I'm not saying that you can't answer those questions, but I am saying that before you deem "freedom" to encompass one kind of freedom and not another you've got to justify why.

I think you've at least partially highlighted the difference between the two classes, "freedom of" vs. "freedom from"... In any connection to a "freedom from" something, relative judgments are passed upon the action/speech of others... "freedom of" is based upon liberty of the individual, while "freedom from" is based upon the restriction of the individual... Freedom of religion, for example ensures that all people are free to believe/profess, whereas freedom "from" religion automatically denies the liberty of others beliefs/professions... freedom of does not deny anyone the liberty of belief.... freedom of speech ensures the liberty of the individual in their political speech, freedom from offense in others speech denies the liberty of speech... Who is to define what is offensive? If everyone is given a freedom from offense, then no one may speak freely, because just about ANYTHING could be classified as "offensive" to someone...

For example, should someones freedom to marry be trumped by a "freedom from offense"? It seems like segments of soceity consider this perfectly valid (the religious right for example, is effectively denying the right of same-sex marriage because they find it offensive... So should they possess a valid freedom from being offended by same-sex marriage, or should individual liberty trump such?)

"freedom of" is based upon liberty of the individual, while "freedom from" is based upon the restriction of the individual...

"Freedom of x" and "freedom from being denied x" are the same thing. That's a non-distinction.

Freedom of speech, for instance, means nothing if it doesn't entail the freedom from having my speech forcibly restricted... but that necessarily means that no one else has the freedom to restrict my speech.

Within society, individual "private" freedom is always competitive in this sense: enhancing it in certain aspects necessarily entails restricting it in others. Our true freedom as a society lies in our capacity to freely make decisions about which kinds of freedom are more valuable. Any such decision is necessarily political--and attempting to secure some spheres of human life from politics on principle necessarily impairs our ability to exercise that capacity. (We can, of course, decide as a society that certain kinds of freedom are so important as to merit safeguards from a bad majority decision, but that is a different sort of decision.)

Freedom because no one is equal.

Freedom because no one is equal.

I don't think anybody's talking about "equality" in the sense of "sameness."

We can be equal politically, economically, and socially without having the same characteristics.

I don’t accept that either freedom or equality is the priority of any government.

The priority of all governments is to maintain power.

In a democracy this means getting re-elected. Freedom and equality are only important if they are important to voters. Often, indeed usually, voters have higher priorities like health, education, employment, etc.

The focus should be on equality. Complete freedom is pointless if you're being shot, starving to death, getting raped, etc. There's a nice balance that favors equality.

Libertarianism is simply the political outgrowth for the development of bourgeois economic relations, it represents nothing but the interests of and material relations of that class. Trying to place 'libertarianism' outside a material context leads to the abstract and idealistic liberal concepts of 'rights', which correspond to nothing in reality.

In short, libertarianism represents the feel-good self-gratifying claptrap of the intellectual bourgeois to pull the wool over exploitation.

I say Freedom because I would rather be as free as I can than to be forced to be equal by Gov Co.

Inequality is perfectly fine so long as it makes things better for the least-well-off.

Freedom and equality have almost nothing to do with each other.

Inequality is perfectly fine so long as it makes things better for the least-well-off. Better than what?

Inequality is perfectly fine so long as it makes things better for the least-well-off.

Freedom and equality have almost nothing to do with each other.

Oh, so you support the 'flick a penny to the beggar' system, how 'compassionate' of you....:rolleyes:

Oh, so you support the 'flick a penny to the beggar' system, how 'compassionate' of you....:rolleyes:

And you support the equal compensation for unequal contribution system, how 'compassionate' of you...:rolleyes:

And you support the equal compensation for unequal contribution system, how 'compassionate' of you...:rolleyes:

Nice one, though I'd personally have gone with the simple 'mass murder'.

Nice one, though I'd personally have gone with the simple 'mass murder'.

But that's simply not true, the reports of 'murders' by the enlightened regimes of the world (Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, etc.) are simply lies made up by the fascists. :rolleyes:

And you support the equal compensation for unequal contribution system, how 'compassionate' of you...:rolleyes:

No, because social parasitism does not exist, and those who try to leech off the labor of others ultimately must give back what they took from society in labor reeducation.

But that's simply not true, the reports of 'murders' by the enlightened regimes of the world (Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, etc.) are simply lies made up by the fascists. :rolleyes:
Well where is your evidence, the evidence for China is completely non-existant, and for the Soviet Union the only source is the 'Black Book of Communism'. I for one do not accept emotionalist right-wing rhetoric as fact, maybe you do however.

No, because social parasitism does not exist, and those who try to leech off the labor of others ultimately must give back what they took from society in labor reeducation.

I'm sorry, I thought you were the same Andaras who was a staunch supporter of Stalin's Soviet Union, obviously I was mistaken, there must be two Andaras' on the forums. :rolleyes:

Well where is your evidence, the evidence for China is completely non-existant, and for the Soviet Union the only source is the 'Black Book of Communism'. I for one do not accept emotionalist right-wing rhetoric as fact, maybe you do however.

As far as China, I will admit I have no evidence either way, although Tianemen (sp?) square provides a hint.


As far as the Soviet Union, I will get back to you on that, I don't have the info handy and its 0200 where I am and I'm heading off to bed.

Freedom and equality have almost nothing to do with each other.

Haha... I suggest you re-read A Theory of Justice. ;)

Better than what?

Better than it would otherwise be.

The point is that inequality is not wrong in itself, and increasing inequality is in fact a duty if it will make things better for the least well off.

Better than it would otherwise be.

The point is that inequality is not wrong in itself, and increasing inequality is in fact a duty if it will make things better for the least well off.

I am glad people like you only exist on the internet.

The point is that inequality is not wrong in itself, and increasing inequality is in fact a duty if it will make things better for the least well off.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged choice between equality and freedom.

Incidentally, most egalitarians accept the difference principle as a legitimate basis for inequality in resources--which is not necessarily the same thing as "inequality." The difference principle itself demands a certain kind of equality: it is necessarily founded on the idea that inequality must be justified in terms of the welfare of all, not just some who are judged to be superior.

I am glad people like you only exist on the internet.
New Granada is exactly correct.
Incidentally, most egalitarians accept the difference principle as a legitimate basis for inequality in resources--which is not necessarily the same thing as "inequality." The difference principle itself demands a certain kind of equality: it is necessarily founded on the idea that inequality must be justified in terms of the welfare of all, not just some who are judged to be superior.
What do you have against those who are superior?

Better than it would otherwise be.

The point is that inequality is not wrong in itself, and increasing inequality is in fact a duty if it will make things better for the least well off.

I am glad people like you only exist on the internet.

I don't see what's wrong with this. Something that pops in game theory is Pareto efficiency; an outcome is more Pareto efficient if at least one person is better off and no one is worse off. I don't begrudge Bill Gates his wealth, as long as it doesn't hurt me.
Of course, it is rare that I can give something to A without indirectly hurting B. But in theory I see nothing wrong with it.

Well where is your evidence, the evidence for China is completely non-existant, and for the Soviet Union the only source is the 'Black Book of Communism'. I for one do not accept emotionalist right-wing rhetoric as fact, maybe you do however.

30 million dead in China seems pretty existant to me. Perhaps you need a larger number to be convinced?

Anyway, my opinion on the matter is that you can have freedom without equality (although a rather bastardized version of it), but you can't have equality without freedom. Or at least meaningful equality.

Though to operate at optimal levels, the two have to be together.

I don't see what's wrong with this. Something that pops in game theory is Pareto efficiency; an outcome is more Pareto efficient if at least one person is better off and no one is worse off. I don't begrudge Bill Gates his wealth, as long as it doesn't hurt me.
Of course, it is rare that I can give something to A without indirectly hurting B. But in theory I see nothing wrong with it.

So you're against say cutting social programs to lower Bill Gates' taxes? Its Pareto inefficient after all.

30 million dead in China seems pretty existant to me. Perhaps you need a larger number to be convinced?

Anyway, my opinion on the matter is that you can have freedom without equality (although a rather bastardized version of it), but you can't have equality without freedom. Or at least meaningful equality.

Though to operate at optimal levels, the two have to be together.

That figure is completely arbitrary, the 'evidence' for the 'BBC' claim is non-existent, in fact that book made up the statistics for the 'deaths of communism' and then exaggerated the figures they made up, just to make it to the 100 million to make it sound worst. Those figures, if they exist, have been locked up in China for decades, and you can't prove squat. The same goes for the Soviet Union. I do not accept emotional right-wing diatribes with completely fabricated 'evidence'. Fail.

So you're against say cutting social programs to lower Bill Gates' taxes? Its Pareto inefficient after all.

Yes, I am against cutting social programs to lower Bill Gates' taxes. However, Pareto efficiency isn't even a huge deal here, because as I said later it is nearly impossible in the real world to give a boost to one person and leave everyone else untouched.

Better than it would otherwise be.

The point is that inequality is not wrong in itself, and increasing inequality is in fact a duty if it will make things better for the least well off.So can we extrapolate a general principle from this? - 'X' is perfectly fine so long as it makes things better than they otherwise would be for the least-well-off.

Not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are mutually dependent. For inequality to exist, someone has to be unfree. For there to be no freedom, there must be a group of people with more access to power/wealth/etc. (inequality). If you don't have one, you don't really have the other.

Unlike many people think freedom and equality are not opposite, but you cannot have one without having the other.

If you don't have equality, or at last a fair deal of it, you can't have real freedom, you can only have theorical freedom. You may have "freedom of press", but what's the point if people don't know how to read and write ? And even if they can, but if for economical reasons, you cannot publish anything without approval from one of a few media corporation, there is censorship as much as if the law was doing it. You may have "freedom to study", but what's the point when fees are so high that most of population cannot afford it ? You may have "freedom to travel", but what's the point for those who can't afford to take holidays or to pay for plane/train/car ?

The same apply in almost all other fields. If you don't have equality, many people (and often the majority of them) will be unable to make use the "freedom" you theorically grant them. And if you don't have equality, you have people who are in position to coerce others, to force consent, to dissuade them of acting. So you don't have real freedom.

And the same is true is the other way around, if you want to restrict freedom, you'll need people to enforce those restrictions, and those people will no longer be "equal" to the rest of the population.

So, you cannot have one without the other. Opposing them is usually done by those who want neither of them to exist, but who claim they reduce one in order to defend the other. Nowadays, it's mostly used by neoliberal who want to destroy any form of equality, and at the same time, to destroy freedom for the majority, granting all powers to the minority who control the economy.

Based on an idea which just popped into my head twenty seconds ago, the governments of modern, industrialized countries have two main ways of improving life: preserving freedom and insuring equality. These are not (fixed) automatically mutually exclusive, but policies that want to make things more equal often do so at the cost of freedom, and vice versa.
Having said that, which do you think is the more important of the goals: equality or freedom? You don't need to assume it is an either-or scenario, but I'm guessing most people have a preference.

Estara un sondeo. (Spanish speakers, is that right?)

Freedom to (live, work, think, speak, etc) trumps equality. Freedom from (blacks, accountability, inconvenience, homosexuality, etc) does not.

Edit: A bit more after thinking about this:

I think the knee-jerk reaction of "RAWR FREEDOM" is unnecessary sometimes. We do have hate speech laws here in Canada, for instance, and some might consider that infringement on freedom of speech. But y'know what? Fred Phelps can't set foot in this country without getting arrested. I think I'm willing to sacrifice my freedom to hurl racial slurs if it means keeping nut jobs like that out of my back yard.

I think the knee-jerk reaction of "RAWR FREEDOM" is unnecessary sometimes. We do have hate speech laws here in Canada, for instance, and some might consider that infringement on freedom of speech. But y'know what? Fred Phelps can't set foot in this country without getting arrested. I think I'm willing to sacrifice my freedom to hurl racial slurs if it means keeping nut jobs like that out of my back yard.
And I'm not. The problem with hate speech laws here in Canada is that while folks like Fred Phelps can't enter the country (a positive consequence), I'm not allowed to criticise or offend Syed Soharwardy without getting brought up on charges.

I'm of the mind that there are no such things as freedom and equality.

*flees thread*

What do you have against those who are superior?

Nothing. It is impossible to have anything against entities that do not exist.

Equality and freedom are very importantnt. Why assign a level of importance to them in a poll. They should be both treated equally.

Equality and freedom are very importantnt. Why assign a level of importance to them in a poll. They should be both treated equally.

No, you idiot - they should both be treated freely!

"But all men are not born free, they are not born equal, they are not born fraternal: just ask any mother of two boys!" -- Winston Churchill

Nothing. It is impossible to have anything against entities that do not exist.
Then there's no reason to worry about then benefitting from or creating inequality.

I'm of the mind that there are no such things as freedom and equality.

You're right.

Freedom and equality are ambiguous terms. I especially reject the notion of freedom, it cannot exist in a pure form. Freedom again should be looked in terms of "freedom of" and "freedom from" Freedom for one is slavery for the other in a societal context (eg. having laws create the freedom from harm, but also limit freedom through punishment should a law be broken). and freedom goes farther in the sense that since humans are animals, we do have instincts and emotions we adhere to without having the freedom to choose whether or not to.

Equality is a crock of shit. If I bust my ass to earn a million why should I have to give some to someone else who was too lazy to get of his ass to earn a dollar. It's no one else's responsibility but your own to live your own life. Instead of hiring thugs (politicians) to steal from others go get your own. If you don't have enough drive to fight for your own life then you don't deserve it.

That figure is completely arbitrary, the 'evidence' for the 'BBC' claim is non-existent, in fact that book made up the statistics for the 'deaths of communism' and then exaggerated the figures they made up, just to make it to the 100 million to make it sound worst. Those figures, if they exist, have been locked up in China for decades, and you can't prove squat. The same goes for the Soviet Union. I do not accept emotional right-wing diatribes with completely fabricated 'evidence'. Fail.



Are you actually arguing against that the Soviet Union and Red China killed millions of people?

I like you, youre silly.

No, you idiot - they should both be treated freely!

There was no need to be insulting. And I wrote that freedom and equality should be treaded the same, because they're both very important...:)

Then there's no reason to worry about then benefitting from or creating inequality.

I said "judged to be." I didn't say anything about them actually being superior.

I think the terms are interpreted differently by different people.

Equality, for instance, can mean "provided the same level of material reward" or it can mean "given identical treatment under the law".

And the meanings change, issue to issue. I don't think gay Americans want the material equality, considering that on average they are ahead of the pack.

And freedom can mean "more choices" or it can mean "Less restrictions".
If you don't own a home, the freedom to paint your living room any color you want is kind of meaningless, isn't it? So in one sense, you increase someone's freedom if you provide them with a home.

But on the other hand, providing that home means that someone else must provide it, and if this is a result of the government giving commands, then that someone else is having their own freedoms reduced!

We must be wary of freedoms that are actually obligations for others. It is wrong, for example, to interpret "Freedom of Speech" as "Others must be forced to subsidize my artistic urges". But never say never, there is a time and a place for everything, and if it's a matter of reducing freedoms a little so the most needy can have their basic freedoms (like, freedom to eat) maintained, then it is a different thing.

Fuzzy, gray areas. Beware of absolute answers, they are usually dangerous. There is no perfect boundary between freedom and equality.

This is my favorite topic and was the subject of my fasvorite political science class. Although I am not sure that the topic heading for this discussion phrases the question of competing democratic values right, the original post phrases it well.

Much of our economic policies are a compromise of liberty and equality. It is central to understanding our history of social welfare, progressive income tax, antitrust, and inheritance tax policies.

Generally, in order to promote liberty a government does not have to do very much. Economic liberty pretty much needs more governmental inaction than action. Economic equality tends to require more government action espescially. This is especially the case where economic policy goes beyond setting up a laissez-faire economy.

Mainstream American conservatism (the same idea is called liberalism in Europe) goes beyond the economic liberty and equality debate by not only emplsizing the importance of liberty at the expense of equality in economic terms, but recognizes that governmental inaction in all areas is preferable when reasonable arguments can be made in favor of action or inaction. This tends to promote liberty at the expense of everything else.

For example it is easy to see how social welfare is a clear conflict between liberty and equality. Abortion, however, is a bit different. There really is not much of an equality aspect to the discussion except perhaps on the anti-abortion side where the idea is that the unborn have unequal protection of their right to life than the born when abortion is legal.

Aside from that argument, the dispute becomes one not so much of liberty versus equality but liberty versus the moral values of society. Here, the conservative view is to side with the individual. The liberal or "big government" view is to side with the right of the majority (assuming that the majority of Americans are anti-abortion which I think is actually false).

The conservative liberty promoters versus the liberal equality promoters is such a major focus of our law and politics that conservatism for better or worse is strongly if not primarily identified with "small government" even in areas like abortion that do not have much to do with the debate between which principle to emphasise when they conflict.

Some people get confused about this because of the association with Rebublicans as conservative centrists and Democrats as liberal centrists because of their positions on economic policy issues. The Republican Party has positions that are typically conservative (i.e. little government and freedom promoting) on economic issues but has liberal (bigger government involvement) positions on social issues. The opposite is true for the Democrat Party.

I for one agree that there is a lot credibility with the idea that a government governs best that governs least. In areas where there are dilemnas that need to be addressed by the law, I believe that liberty should be the prime factor in the analysis of how to addresss the dilemna.

GF where do you get the idea that conservativism equals classical liberalism? Conservatives in the popular sense at least have always supported abortion bans, bans on homosex, censorship, and the like. Do you have a source that shows this has been historically otherwise?

Generally, in order to promote liberty a government does not have to do very much.

Nonsense. Governments have always had to be active to maintain liberty. That is why we institute them in the first place.

Economic liberty pretty much needs more governmental inaction than action.

Look, even if you make the absurd equivalence between what is called "laissez-faire" and "economic liberty", this still isn't true. Free markets require constant government intervention to preserve property rights, enforce contracts, protect life and (a certain conception of) liberty, and so forth.

It only makes sense to call it "laissez-faire" relative to a free-market default; beyond setting up free markets, the government leaves society alone. If our default is government passivity, then free markets represent a radical interventionist departure from that stance.

Economic equality tends to require more government action espescially.

Actually, economic equality would be far more likely in the absence of political order. It might be an equality in poverty, but without a government enforcing property rights, good luck trying to maintain vast inequalities in wealth.

but recognizes that governmental inaction in all areas is preferable when reasonable arguments can be made in favor of action or inaction. This tends to promote liberty at the expense of everything else.

You're making the stupid assumption that government intervention always interferes with liberty, and government inaction always protects it. That's transparently false. (Murder? Rape? Even more disputed cases like economic exploitation of the sort that deprives the worker of her autonomy?)

What if our "reasonable arguments" are about whether a given instance of government action enhances liberty? If you choose to err on the side of inaction, there is no reason to assume that your rule will tend to increase liberty any more than the opposite rule would.

For example it is easy to see how social welfare is a clear conflict between liberty and equality.

Not to me. Expanded social welfare both concretely expands the freedom of the poor and enhances economic equality. Assuming it is approved through legitimate democratic means, it does not violate any consideration of collective political freedom either.

Here, the conservative view is to side with the individual.

Maybe your view. I see no reason to believe that this is or has ever been the mainstream conservative view.

The liberal or "big government" view is to side with the right of the majority

Perhaps this is the view of some of your opponents. I see no reason to believe that this is or has ever been the mainstream liberal view.

The Republican Party has positions that are typically conservative (i.e. little government and freedom promoting) on economic issues but has liberal (bigger government involvement) positions on social issues.

Only if you define the terms as you find convenient, instead of actually examining their meanings in present political discourse (or even historic.)

I for one agree that there is a lot credibility with the idea that a government governs best that governs least.

At one point, perhaps, this was true. Unfortunately, in a society like ours, we are too dependent on each other and too vulnerable to the depredations of private power to accept such nice-sounding formulations. The aggressive and interventionist exercise of collective freedom through democratic political institutions is ultimately the only way we can effectively protect a whole range of goods, among them individual freedom.

Equality is a crock of shit. If I bust my ass to earn a million why should I have to give some to someone else who was too lazy to get of his ass to earn a dollar. It's no one else's responsibility but your own to live your own life. Instead of hiring thugs (politicians) to steal from others go get your own. If you don't have enough drive to fight for your own life then you don't deserve it.

I am not so sure that you should disparage equality. However, you are right that the type of equality that you are talking about is a bunch of garbage. Although you and I both believe that equal pay for everyone is stupid, I hope that ypou would agree that our economic policies promote equal opportunities.

Civilisation.

Equality means servants are impossible to come by and Freedom means lunatics are given public voice.

Equality means servants are impossible to come by

That's the point. And that's why freedom-lovers should believe in equality.

Equality is a crock of shit. If I bust my ass to earn a million why should I have to give some to someone else who was too lazy to get of his ass to earn a dollar. It's no one else's responsibility but your own to live your own life. Instead of hiring thugs (politicians) to steal from others go get your own. If you don't have enough drive to fight for your own life then you don't deserve it.

I try to avoid listening to those voices.
Because one day a voice i had similar to that one told be to burn the house down.
So you're arguing Survival of the fittest then? Shaky ground there.
you also committed the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, 'because people don't have enough drive to fight for their life', doesn't directly follow to 'you don't deserve it'.
And your statement is also a circular argument, you say equality is bad, that those below should work hard which leads to equality being bad.

If I bust my ass to earn a million why should I have to give some to someone else who was too lazy to get of his ass to earn a dollar.

Because society has no right to make that kind of decision--"You're too lazy to live a dignified existence"--about someone else's life.

You are not entitled to something by right simply because it is your pre-tax income. Indeed, if the person in your example is a reasonable person at all, he would recognize that he would be taxed before taking the job... and would know that he would not actually get one million.

GF where do you get the idea that conservativism equals classical liberalism? Conservatives in the popular sense at least have always supported abortion bans, bans on homosex, censorship, and the like. Do you have a source that shows this has been historically otherwise?

I should dig up my wonderful old textbook from my American Political Thought class in college. It may be in there. Classical liberalism and American conservatism are similar although the classical liberalism is probably a bit more laissez-faire than American conservatism which took classical liberalism and sought reforms to promote meritocracy which I think is also called natural aristocracy. Regardless of what the terms are the idea is that people should not have their property interfered with by the government (except for eminent domain of course) for their lifetimes but their estate should be heavily taxed so that we can have a society where people with great wealth typically earned it as opposed to inherited it.

I do not think it is at all contraversial that this is considered a conservative economic view in the USA. I know that there are many conservatives that are classical liberals in that they think that inheritance taxes should be abolished.

The abortion, censorship, etc. is not primarily economic and accordingly we do not see the same interesting discussion of liberty vs. equality because it really comes down to liberty vs. state action. Should the government's role be so huge that it has the power to enact human reproduction policies? This is certainly an expanded role of government and is therefore a bigger government.

I do not think it is a contraversial statement to say that conservatives seek smaller government involvement. Where I think you became confused is that you associated conservative with "religious". Certain religions have believers who believe that abortion, homosexuality, and or obsenity must be criminalized. This religion-oriented mentality is not a conservative mentality at all because it seeks a larger role of government.

Although, my religious beliefs influence how I believe on one of those issues, I recognize that this goes against my conservative views. I have conservative and religious viewpoints on abortion as I believe that there is probably nothing sinful in a woman getting an abortion. I have a religious liberal viewpoint on homosexuality because of my understanding of the Torah's explanation that bad things happen to societies that are ok with male homosexuality. I personally am kinda ok with homosexuality but I feel obligated to advance laws that keep gay men down.

Republicans have a christian political element that is part of their coalition. The mere fact that a right of center party has a christian viewpoint does not make that christian viewpoint a conservative view.

Unlike Israel and many other multi-party systems, the coalition forming in the two major parties is quite subtle. Other countries have coalitions of several parties that form a government. Here we have coalitions of interest groups behind two parties, one of which forms the government of any of the two democratic branches at any particular time.

If we were in a multi-party system we could expect to see a coalition of divergent ideas like the "christian moral majority" and the right of center centrists and it would be more clear to the average guy that a policy advanced by the governing coalition might be a right of center centralist policy or a religious policy that was needed to be reached as part of the compromise negotiations needed to form a government. The same thing goes on in the USA in how parties come up with platforms but it is much more subtle and hence the confusion.

I do not think it is a contraversial statement to say that conservatives seek smaller government involvement.

I do, if the statement is supposed to apply to all policies. Sometimes, conservatives seek smaller government. Sometimes, they don't.

I don't understand why you're so opposed to using the term "conservative" as it is commonly and has historically been used, especially since it appears from this post that you are not a libertarian and have no ideological reason to advance that argument.

Also, for what it's worth, your conception of "liberal" as "always in favor of big government" makes even less sense. No one is pro-government intervention on principle. People are always in favor of government intervention for certain reasons, to pursue certain ends. US liberals are in favor of government intervention to achieve certain particular objectives, but do not at all back it in all cases or on principle. Indeed, in several respects they are at the forefront of opposing it.

This religion-oriented mentality is not a conservative mentality at all because it seeks a larger role of government.

You're just begging the question. You have yet to give us a good reason to accept your definition of "conservative" as "always supporting smaller government" even as most people self-identifying as conservatives (and labeled by others as conservative) do not meet that definition.

I personally am kinda ok with homosexuality but I feel obligated to advance laws that keep gay men down.

Your generosity is appreciated. :rolleyes:

Based on an idea which just popped into my head twenty seconds ago, the governments of modern, industrialized countries have two main ways of improving life: preserving freedom and insuring equality. These are not (fixed) automatically mutually exclusive, but policies that want to make things more equal often do so at the cost of freedom, and vice versa.
Having said that, which do you think is the more important of the goals: equality or freedom? You don't need to assume it is an either-or scenario, but I'm guessing most people have a preference.

Estara un sondeo. (Spanish speakers, is that right?)

I have to say that I'd put equality just a tiny little little itty bitty bit higher than freedom, purely because I wouldn't like myself or anyone I love to be at a disadvantage in society. Freedom is important too.... Gee, I never really thought about this until now.

sorry, I double posted

Freedom. Why? Simple, really. See, I'm above the mean on most things that measure good stuff. Height, affluence, shoe size, academic intelligence, and athletic ability. Freedom means I keep this. Equality means I lose this. I'm in favor of equality only so much as I believe in providing an equally free environment to excel. But since I'm rather tall, I'm already more than equal (based on the statistical advantages of height in the business world), and I want to be free to keep that advantage.

Freedom means I keep this.

Not if it interferes with other people's freedom.

I should dig up my wonderful old textbook from my American Political Thought class in college. It may be in there. Classical liberalism and American conservatism are similar although the classical liberalism is probably a bit more laissez-faire than American conservatism which took classical liberalism and sought reforms to promote meritocracy which I think is also called natural aristocracy. Regardless of what the terms are the idea is that people should not have their property interfered with by the government (except for eminent domain of course) for their lifetimes but their estate should be heavily taxed so that we can have a society where people with great wealth typically earned it as opposed to inherited it.

I do not think it is at all contraversial that this is considered a conservative economic view in the USA. I know that there are many conservatives that are classical liberals in that they think that inheritance taxes should be abolished.

The abortion, censorship, etc. is not primarily economic and accordingly we do not see the same interesting discussion of liberty vs. equality because it really comes down to liberty vs. state action. Should the government's role be so huge that it has the power to enact human reproduction policies? This is certainly an expanded role of government and is therefore a bigger government.

What does it matter whether social issues are economic when they are examples of government interference in people's lives? How aren't they economic when they result in they effect businesses? Censorship and banning limits what products can be distributed. Anti-abortion laws violate one's property rights to one's own body? Why don't these things limit liberty?

Social conservatism, which combined with fiscal conservatism is just plain conservatism, means to be in favor of state interference in people's concerning social, ie civil right, issues.


I do not think it is a contraversial statement to say that conservatives seek smaller government involvement. Where I think you became confused is that you associated conservative with "religious". Certain religions have believers who believe that abortion, homosexuality, and or obsenity must be criminalized. This religion-oriented mentality is not a conservative mentality at all because it seeks a larger role of government.

Although, my religious beliefs influence how I believe on one of those issues, I recognize that this goes against my conservative views. I have conservative and religious viewpoints on abortion as I believe that there is probably nothing sinful in a woman getting an abortion. I have a religious liberal viewpoint on homosexuality because of my understanding of the Torah's explanation that bad things happen to societies that are ok with male homosexuality. I personally am kinda ok with homosexuality but I feel obligated to advance laws that keep gay men down.

Republicans have a christian political element that is part of their coalition. The mere fact that a right of center party has a christian viewpoint does not make that christian viewpoint a conservative view.

Unlike Israel and many other multi-party systems, the coalition forming in the two major parties is quite subtle. Other countries have coalitions of several parties that form a government. Here we have coalitions of interest groups behind two parties, one of which forms the government of any of the two democratic branches at any particular time.

If we were in a multi-party system we could expect to see a coalition of divergent ideas like the "christian moral majority" and the right of center centrists and it would be more clear to the average guy that a policy advanced by the governing coalition might be a right of center centralist policy or a religious policy that was needed to be reached as part of the compromise negotiations needed to form a government. The same thing goes on in the USA in how parties come up with party platforms but it is much more subtle and hence the confusion.

I see conservatives as being "traditional". Homosexuality is bad, the nuclear family is good, ect, There is some degree of of correlation between believing in traditional values, and government enforcement thereof, and membership in religious groups.

Nonsense. Governments have always had to be active to maintain liberty. That is why we institute them in the first place.

Look, even if you make the absurd equivalence between what is called "laissez-faire" and "economic liberty", this still isn't true. Free markets require constant government intervention to preserve property rights, enforce contracts, protect life and (a certain conception of) liberty, and so forth.

It only makes sense to call it "laissez-faire" relative to a free-market default; beyond setting up free markets, the government leaves society alone. If our default is government passivity, then free markets represent a radical interventionist departure from that stance.



Actually, economic equality would be far more likely in the absence of political order. It might be an equality in poverty, but without a government enforcing property rights, good luck trying to maintain vast inequalities in wealth.



You're making the stupid assumption that government intervention always interferes with liberty, and government inaction always protects it. That's transparently false. (Murder? Rape? Even more disputed cases like economic exploitation of the sort that deprives the worker of her autonomy?)

What if our "reasonable arguments" are about whether a given instance of government action enhances liberty? If you choose to err on the side of inaction, there is no reason to assume that your rule will tend to increase liberty any more than the opposite rule would.



Not to me. Expanded social welfare both concretely expands the freedom of the poor and enhances economic equality. Assuming it is approved through legitimate democratic means, it does not violate any consideration of collective political freedom either.



Maybe your view. I see no reason to believe that this is or has ever been the mainstream conservative view.



Perhaps this is the view of some of your opponents. I see no reason to believe that this is or has ever been the mainstream liberal view.



Only if you define the terms as you find convenient, instead of actually examining their meanings in present political discourse (or even historic.)



At one point, perhaps, this was true. Unfortunately, in a society like ours, we are too dependent on each other and too vulnerable to the depredations of private power to accept such nice-sounding formulations. The aggressive and interventionist exercise of collective freedom through democratic political institutions is ultimately the only way we can effectively protect a whole range of goods, among them individual freedom.

Yes. This you are absolutely right that governments are necessary to maintain liberty. I never said anything to the contrary. My point is that the government action required to maintain liberty is usually less than to provide for equality in economic policy. Clearly, contractual enforcement is vital to protect liberty. However, wealth redistribution requires a lot more governmental power and an expansion of the government's role.

I never said anything about particular government actions. I was talking about governmental action in the broad sense of the role of government and in the context of where an added role of government conflicts with the liberty of the individual and reasonable agruments can be made for inaction and action. A government may obviously take the action of reducing its role in society and enhancing liberty.

It is easy for me to see why redistributive policies like social welfare are an infringement on personal liberty. If we did not have social welfare a taxpayer could choose to give money to a charity that gives money to poor people. Now the taxpayer has no choice. Some of his taxes go to poor people. This is the expansion of governmnetal power at the expense of liberty.

You seem to talk in terms of conservatives and liberals as indivdual people. I think that this is the source of your confusion. I am talking in terms of whether a policy is conservative or liberal. I really do not think that there is such a thing as a liberal or a conservative other than to say that on most issues I have a conservative apporach or a liberal one. Even the two main US political parties are each conservative on some issues and liberal on others.

Both liberalism and conservatism share a lot in common including the recognition of the importance of equality and liberty. However, in circumstances where reasonable arguments contravert and a dilemna exists between a pro-liberty argument and a pro-equality argument, conservative approaches are those that tend to side with the pro-liberty argument and liberal approaches tend to side with the ideal of equality.

What does it matter whether social issues are economic when they are examples of government interference in people's lives? How aren't they economic when they result in they effect businesses? Censorship and banning limits what products can be distributed. Anti-abortion laws violate one's property rights to one's own body? Why don't these things limit liberty?

Social conservatism, which combined with fiscal conservatism is just plain conservatism, means to be in favor of state interference in people's concerning social, ie civil right, issues.



I see conservatives as being "traditional". Homosexuality is bad, the nuclear family is good, ect, There is some degree of of correlation between believing in traditional values, and government enforcement thereof, and membership in religious groups.

Abortion clearly violates liberty although since we outlawed slavery it is odd to talk about people as property. I sort of see your point though. I recall a lecture about substantive due process that was fascinating in which it is difficult to say if a government employee's job could only be removed after due process of law. Life, liberty, and property is protected and can only be removed with the due process of law. Is an employee's job his life, liberty, or property? The professor concluded that it was a wierd amalgam of all three.

I think that smaller government is conservative and that larger government is liberal when it is within the liberal democratic framework. Totalitarianism (giant role of government) is not democratic and is therefore beyond any discussion of liberalism and conservatism. The same can be said for anarchism (no government).

Conservative policies maximize the people's right to make their own choices. A truly conservative view is libertarianism. A government that regulates in areas of aestheticism, does a lot of interfering with people's sexuality, or forcibly takes citizens money to give to other citizens without the the other citizens paying anything to the government is quite liberal.

Saying that a nuclear family is a good thing is not conservative and it is not liberal. Requiring people to live in any particular familial relationship is pretty liberal. Objecting to homosexuality is a matter of conscience. Seeking a constitutional amendment of the constitution to prevent gay marriage is liberal.

There are nonpolitical conservative or liberal views of the policies of one's congregation that comply with your idea that traditional = conservative, breaking away from a tradition = liberal. It just does not make much sense in the political sphere of life.

Are you actually arguing against that the Soviet Union and Red China killed millions of people?

I like you, youre silly.

Prove me wrong then.

Oh wait, you can't.

I don't understand why you're so opposed to using the term "conservative" as it is commonly and has historically been used, especially since it appears from this post that you are not a libertarian and have no ideological reason to advance that argument.

Also, for what it's worth, your conception of "liberal" as "always in favor of big government" makes even less sense. No one is pro-government intervention on principle. People are always in favor of government intervention for certain reasons, to pursue certain ends. US liberals are in favor of government intervention to achieve certain particular objectives, but do not at all back it in all cases or on principle. Indeed, in several respects they are at the forefront of opposing it.



You're just begging the question. You have yet to give us a good reason to accept your definition of "conservative" as "always supporting smaller government" even as most people self-identifying as conservatives (and labeled by others as conservative) do not meet that definition.



Your generosity is appreciated. :rolleyes:

American Conservatism is a liberal democratic theory that emphasizes the conservative use of governmental power and is similar to classical liberalism. The basic idea is that private enterprise is the most powerful force for good and that it should be interfered with as little as possible. A corollary beilef is that if something can be accomplished without governmental involvement it will probably be accomplished more efficiently without major governmental involvement.


American Liberalism is a liberal democratic theory that emphasizes the use of governmental power to bring about good results.

I do, if the statement is supposed to apply to all policies. Sometimes, conservatives seek smaller government. Sometimes, they don't.

I don't understand why you're so opposed to using the term "conservative" as it is commonly and has historically been used, especially since it appears from this post that you are not a libertarian and have no ideological reason to advance that argument.

Also, for what it's worth, your conception of "liberal" as "always in favor of big government" makes even less sense. No one is pro-government intervention on principle. People are always in favor of government intervention for certain reasons, to pursue certain ends. US liberals are in favor of government intervention to achieve certain particular objectives, but do not at all back it in all cases or on principle. Indeed, in several respects they are at the forefront of opposing it.



You're just begging the question. You have yet to give us a good reason to accept your definition of "conservative" as "always supporting smaller government" even as most people self-identifying as conservatives (and labeled by others as conservative) do not meet that definition.



Your generosity is appreciated. :rolleyes:

Why do you think that I am not a libertarian? I am actually a pretty libertarian guy although I am not 100% libertarian.

Abortion clearly violates liberty although since we outlawed slavery it is odd to talk about people as property. I sort of see your point though. I recall a lecture about substantive due process that was fascinating in which it is difficult to say if a government employee's job could only be removed after due process of law. Life, liberty, and property is protected and can only be removed with the due process of law. Is an employee's job his life, liberty, or property? The professor concluded that it was a wierd amalgam of all three.

Well its more like one's body is one's property, To force one to bear a child is forced use of one's body, which is one's property.

I think that smaller government is conservative and that larger government is liberal when it is within the liberal democratic framework. Totalitarianism (giant role of government) is not democratic and is therefore beyond any discussion of liberalism and conservatism. The same can be said for anarchism (no government).

I've never heard of conservatism equaling noninterfernece by the government. As I see it big government is a perjoritive for government that one doesn't believe in. So banning certain activies because they're immoral isn't, but massive increases in military spending isn'y? One never hear's letting gays marry, getting the goverment out of interfering the freedom to associate, as being a conservative position,

Conservative policies maximize the people's right to make their own choices. A truly conservative view is libertarianism. A government that regulates in areas of aestheticism, does a lot of interfering with people's sexuality, or forcibly takes citizens money to give to other citizens without the the other citizens paying anything to the government is quite liberal.

What's your source? Social conservatism is recognized as government interference in social issues.

Saying that a nuclear family is a good thing is not conservative and it is not liberal. Requiring people to live in any particular familial relationship is pretty liberal. Objecting to homosexuality is a matter of conscience. Seeking a constitutional amendment of the constitution to prevent gay marriage is liberal.

By saying the nuclear family is good I meant pursue policies that make divorce difficult or impossible and stigmitize nonnuclear families. Objecting to homosexuality is a matter of conscience but getting the government to ban homosex or gay marriage is government interfernece and to do so is a conservative stance.

What source do you have that banning gay marriage is a liberal policy while allowing gays to marry would be a conservative one?

However, wealth redistribution requires a lot more governmental power and an expansion of the government's role.

In a narrow monetary sense, yes--enforcing free market requirements is less expensive than social equality measures--but if we are concerned with a standard like "how much control the government has over our lives", that is far from obvious.

It is only because of government enforcement of property rights and the like that we have a free market in the first place. In that sense, every consequence of the free market--and those consequences thoroughly affect our lives--is an instance of government intervention.

Free markets, thus, entail massive government intervention into people's lives. It is misleading to talk about them as instances of "small government" policy. You must actually defend free markets on their own merits, not on their relationship to the level of government intervention.

A government may obviously take the action of reducing its role in society and enhancing liberty.

Obviously. But that tells us absolutely nothing, except that you like liberty.

Great. So do I. I think it can be very often secured by an expanded government role in some respects. Sure, "where an added role of government conflicts with the liberty of the individual", instituting that role restricts liberty... that's tautological. But it tells us very little about how much particular government actions actually enhance or restrict liberty, and that is the real question.

Now the taxpayer has no choice. Some of his taxes go to poor people.

Freedom is only about "choice" in the loosest of senses. I cannot "choose" how you spend your money, but most likely that is a fairly minor restriction on my liberty.

Taxes, of course, are society's money... and when they go to transfer payments, the effect of such a policy is for one individual to have the choice about how the money is spent rather than another individual. The money the taxpayer can choose how to spend is reduced by x amount, and the money someone else can choose how to spend is increased by x amount.

All else being equal, this is an exchange of equivalents: excepting bureaucratic costs and possible losses to economic efficiency, we have what appears to be a reduction of freedom for one individual and an increase in freedom for another. The "sum" of freedom for society as a whole remains the same.

But as a matter of fact the same quantity of money does not always "buy" the same quantity of freedom. The above analysis holds if we are speaking of people with equivalent income, but if instead we speak of redistributive policies, matters are different. The same quantity of money means much more in terms of freedom for a poor person than it does for a rich person. At least in a society like ours, to be truly free a person needs to have the money for it--the money to exercise meaningful control over her own life, and not to be at the mercy of those upon whom she is economically dependent. A rich person already has the money for this in most respects, and does not need the extra in question; a poor person does not, and can use the transfered money.

Thus, redistributive policies increase the substantive freedom of individuals within society.

You seem to talk in terms of conservatives and liberals as indivdual people. I think that this is the source of your confusion.

No. When virtually everyone but you uses terms like "liberal" and "conservative", they are talking about actual ideologies (or at least broad political allegiances) that actual people actually subscribe to. If you are arbitrarily throwing out the common understanding and usage of those terms, I think it is your confusion, not mine.

I am talking in terms of whether a policy is conservative or liberal.

But you really mean whether a policy is "big government" or "small government", with "small government" used in the right-wing libertarian sense.

The terms are not synonymous.

Both liberalism and conservatism share a lot in common including the recognition of the importance of equality and liberty.

Now you're talking about them as if they were actual ideologies again....

However, in circumstances where reasonable arguments contravert and a dilemna exists between a pro-liberty argument and a pro-equality argument, conservative approaches are those that tend to side with the pro-liberty argument and liberal approaches tend to side with the ideal of equality.

And those of us who do not buy into the "liberty/equality" dichotomy that you are trying to draw? Where do we fall?

American Conservatism is a liberal democratic theory that emphasizes the conservative use of governmental power and is similar to classical liberalism. The basic idea is that private enterprise is the most powerful force for good and that it should be interfered with as little as possible.

Yes, private enterprise... with "enterprise" used in the narrow economic sense of "business", and traditionally with "interference" defined in a way that prohibits minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws, but allows restrictions on, say, the sale of drugs or pornography.

That's what people who call themselves conservatives, and who are called by others conservatives, have actually advocated in this country. I don't know why you want to change the meaning of the word.

American Liberalism is a liberal democratic theory that emphasizes the use of governmental power to bring about good results.

No. American Liberalism is a liberal democratic theory that combines an emphasis on personal freedoms with a recognition of a broad role for government in regulating capitalism and making it more "fair".

It does not emphasize "the use of governmental power to bring about good results" in any general sense.

Why do you think that I am not a libertarian?

Well, the fact that you want to keep gay men "down" because your holy text says so was kind of indicative.

Based on an idea which just popped into my head twenty seconds ago, the governments of modern, industrialized countries have two main ways of improving life: preserving freedom and insuring equality. These are not (fixed) automatically mutually exclusive, but policies that want to make things more equal often do so at the cost of freedom, and vice versa.
Having said that, which do you think is the more important of the goals: equality or freedom? You don't need to assume it is an either-or scenario, but I'm guessing most people have a preference.

Estara un sondeo. (Spanish speakers, is that right?)

¨Se hará una encuesta¨, would be more accurate. I mean, that´s to make a poll. Of course, assuming that´s what you wanted to imply when you asked the Spanish-speaking members that.

Not if it interferes with other people's freedom.

What do you mean? Most of what I have came from lucky genes, personal achievements in school, and the rest from the legal and ethical successes of my parents' careers. As such, I interfered with nobody's freedom by being tall, smart and good looking. Equality means we're all the same height, the same look, and the same intelligence. Explain this: how am I interfering with anybody else's freedom by thinking?

What do you mean? Most of what I have came from lucky genes, personal achievements in school, and the rest from the legal and ethical successes of my parents' careers. As such, I interfered with nobody's freedom by being tall, smart and good looking. Equality means we're all the same height, the same look, and the same intelligence. Explain this: how am I interfering with anybody else's freedom by thinking?

Here's a look at various meaning people use when they are talking about equality in a polical sense (http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/equality/)

People who praise it[equality] or disparage it disagree about what they are praising or disparaging.

But as a matter of fact the same quantity of money does not always "buy" the same quantity of freedom. The above analysis holds if we are speaking of people with equivalent income, but if instead we speak of redistributive policies, matters are different. The same quantity of money means much more in terms of freedom for a poor person than it does for a rich person. At least in a society like ours, to be truly free a person needs to have the money for it--the money to exercise meaningful control over her own life, and not to be at the mercy of those upon whom she is economically dependent. A rich person already has the money for this in most respects, and does not need the extra in question; a poor person does not, and can use the transfered money.

Thus, redistributive policies increase the substantive freedom of individuals within society.

I find this particular line of argument specious. By the same token, one could argue that a teacher could "redistribute" grades in a class, randomly assigning a grade to a particular student, as the overall "sum" would remain unaltered. However, one fundamental freedom you would negate by employing such a process is that of a student to reap the rewards of his own individual labor. Similarly, the heinous process of forcibly appropriating the earnings of the rich and lathering it upon the poor would negate that essential liberty in our society.

There was no need to be insulting. And I wrote that freedom and equality should be treaded the same, because they're both very important...:)

Because you said freedom and equality should be treated equally, I joked that they should be treated freely. It wasn't meant to be insulting.

Equality is a crock of shit. If I bust my ass to earn a million why should I have to give some to someone else who was too lazy to get of his ass to earn a dollar. It's no one else's responsibility but your own to live your own life. Instead of hiring thugs (politicians) to steal from others go get your own. If you don't have enough drive to fight for your own life then you don't deserve it.

You can work hard and be poor and be lazy and be rich. Hard work /= wealth.

Freedom. Why? Simple, really. See, I'm above the mean on most things that measure good stuff. Height, affluence, shoe size, academic intelligence, and athletic ability. Freedom means I keep this. Equality means I lose this. I'm in favor of equality only so much as I believe in providing an equally free environment to excel. But since I'm rather tall, I'm already more than equal (based on the statistical advantages of height in the business world), and I want to be free to keep that advantage.

Haha, shoe size. Good luck with that massive advantage, I'm sure you'll go far in life.

Equality isn't about squashing you down to the average of 5'10 and stretching smaller guys up to it.

Did you know that there is a correlation between child poverty and adult height? Child poverty and adult affluence? Child poverty and academic success? Most of what you tout as your own natural ability to succeed is to do with the luck of being born into the right family.

Inequality as touted by Art Vandelay above ensures that you think of that luck as your own hard work and we enter a classic self fulfilling prophecy whereby you label the poor as lazy and then say the lazy don't deserve education. So now the poor don't succeed because they're uneducated, but that's no surprise because they're too lazy to be wealthy.

Most of what I have came from lucky genes, personal achievements in school, and the rest from the legal and ethical successes of my parents' careers.

So?

As such, I interfered with nobody's freedom by being tall, smart and good looking.

Obviously not. The question deals with the consequences of that.

Economic inequality can interfere with other people's freedom. It can deprive those on the lower end of the resources they need to be substantively free, and it can lead to power differences that marginalize and subordinate some for the benefit of others.

Equality means we're all the same height, the same look, and the same intelligence.

No, it doesn't. Difference is not inequality.

Because you said freedom and equality should be treated equally, I joked that they should be treated freely. It wasn't meant to be insulting.

No offense taken.:)

Because a lot of people are 'exceptionally' stupid. That's why.

Estara un sondeo. (Spanish speakers, is that right?)Si se puede :D

Soheran,

I wish I knew how to separate your responses in single quoted segments so I could address each of them the way that you did with my posts.

I do not know how much longer that this thread will be around but I am going to look through my attic for a book that I may use as my source. However, I do recognize that the majority of people misuse the meaning of conservatism and liberalism and you raise a great point that meaning is democratic and if most people are confused as to the meaning of a word then their understanding is the correct one.

Even assuming that I am the only one who believes that conservatism means the conservative use (very little or no governemntal action) of governmental power in situations where a dilemna exists between liberty and equality, and that liberalism is the opposite, I still think that this is a much better definition because it allows conservatism and liberalism to have a much more understandable meaning. It makes little sense for a theory on the proper relationship between the rights of the citizen and the power or rights of the state to have one meaning in economic matters and another in social matters.

As far as me being a libertarian, the homosexuality issue is one of three main ways that I am not a libertarian and there are probably 100 or more reasons why I am libertarian. The other two reasons have to do with libertarian international relations and might be more of a disagreement with the US Libertarian Party's planks than a fundamental disagreement with libertarian political ideas. I believe that tariffs need to be used strategically to aid the US economy. I also believe that our military must not be allowed to sit idly for as long as there are major violations of international law in such areas as the environment, endangered species, and human rights.

I define my libertarian beliefs (apart from my stance on homosexuality which is completely unlibertarian) as favoring governmental action only in areas that cannot be handled by private enterprise, the recognition that it is best for policy to be oriented to do the greatest good for the greatest number and the greatest number is one i.e. the rights and liberty of the private citizen, and that human rights and endangered species are worth the use of military force to protect and that we should be doing so with mercenaries and public volunteer miltary forces.

On military forces, I believe that military service should be less restricted and there should be greater flexibility in enlistment programs in terms of space and time. I am not a fan of conscription unless it involves the raising of a force to repel a direct attack on the United States or US Territory or territorial waters.

I find this particular line of argument specious. By the same token, one could argue that a teacher could "redistribute" grades in a class, randomly assigning a grade to a particular student, as the overall "sum" would remain unaltered. However, one fundamental freedom you would negate by employing such a process is that of a student to reap the rewards of his own individual labor. Similarly, the heinous process of forcibly appropriating the earnings of the rich and lathering it upon the poor would negate that essential liberty in our society.

I agree. There is something strange about talking of the liberty of the majority to opress or steal from a minority. It seems to be a case of tyranny by the majority which although I abhor in real life it is my NS goal to have my country become a tyranny by the majority.

By the same token, one could argue that a teacher could "redistribute" grades in a class, randomly assigning a grade to a particular student, as the overall "sum" would remain unaltered.

That's right, you could. But the point of grades is not to maximize the sum. In the case of freedom, however, it is generally agreed that more is better.

However, one fundamental freedom you would negate by employing such a process is that of a student to reap the rewards of his own individual labor.

That's not an argument from "freedom" at all; it doesn't affect my capacity to control my actions or my life. It's an argument from desert or entitlement. You have to make that one independently.

We all acknowledge that freedom is good. But I do not think that the distribution of free-market capitalism has any intrinsic value to it on grounds of desert or entitlement.

That's right, you could. But the point of grades is not to maximize the sum. In the case of freedom, however, it is generally agreed that more is better.



That's not an argument from "freedom" at all; it doesn't affect my capacity to control my actions or my life. It's an argument from desert or entitlement. You have to make that one independently.

We all acknowledge that freedom is good. But I do not think that the distribution of free-market capitalism has any intrinsic value to it on grounds of desert or entitlement.

What do you mean by "desert"?

I think that you cannot subtract private liberty and have it balanced out by anything other than private liberty. A government does not have a liberty interest except against other governments perhaps.

I wish I knew how to separate your responses in single quoted segments so I could address each of them the way that you did with my posts.

After you hit "quote" on someone's post, just separate out the segments with [ quote ] and [/ quote ] tags, only with the spaces eliminated.

For instance: [ quote ]I like pie [/ quote ] (Again, with the spaces eliminated.)

It makes little sense for a theory on the proper relationship between the rights of the citizen and the power or rights of the state to have one meaning in economic matters and another in social matters.

Sure it makes sense. You're just trying to impose your own assumptions about the basic dichotomies of politics on everyone else.

I'm pretty far to the left, so by your categorization I fit into the "liberal" category, but I don't subordinate freedom to equality. Rather, I think that pursuit of political, economic, and social equality tends to increase freedom.

So my political framework could reasonably be summed up as such: I believe in freedom. Because I believe in freedom, I believe in economic, political, and social equality, and I advocate public institutions that pursue those ends. There's nothing nonsensical about that.

I don't see politics in terms of "life, liberty, and property" (in the capitalist libertarian understanding of those terms) versus "state power", so the fact that I fall on different sides of that spectrum in different circumstances doesn't matter to me.

The basic worldview of conservatism is somewhat more difficult to grasp... though perhaps I only say so because I am not a conservative. Perhaps it could be argued that just as leftists tend to be advocates of equality, and see political questions in terms of equality, non-libertarian rightists tend to be opponents of equality--not all kinds of equality, of course, at least not among the conservatives in modern liberal democratic societies, but some of them.

They tend to think that there is at least a "natural" economic aristocracy, and to interfere with its development causes social harms: reduction in personal responsibility, weakening of the work ethic, economic inefficiency, and so forth. (They do not, however, come to that position from the free-market capitalist idea of individual freedom you have defended. Their basis is different.)

They tend also to believe in a kind of moral hierarchy, and in accordance with this they find the sorts of cultural pluralism and individual-oriented liberty leftists and libertarians defend to be dangerous; to them it undermines the notion that some behaviors and lifestyles are better than others, and should be recognized as such. Just as with "artificial" economic equality, they argue that that kind of pluralism undermines the idea of personal responsibility: if you are "equal" however abhorrent and sinful your lifestyle is, you are being excused from your rightful penalty.

What do you mean by "desert"?

What people deserve. What should justly go to them on the basis of their merit.

Desert and entitlement, it is important to note, are different. "I worked hard, and should be compensated for it" is an argument from desert, because it argues that the person is worthy of that compensation by virtue of her actions. "It was transferred to me by a rightful owner" is an argument from entitlement, because it does not assert any worthiness: I should have it because someone gave it to me, not because I am a particularly worthy person.

Arguments for the justice of free-market capitalist distribution must, in the final analysis, be arguments from entitlement, because people who work equally hard routinely get vastly different levels of remuneration due to factors beyond their control (and thus factors that cannot indicate their desert.)

I think that you cannot subtract private liberty and have it balanced out by anything other than private liberty.

I think this ignores the nature of public liberty (just a collection of private liberties, all of which are enhanced by it), but even ignoring that issue, private liberty is being balanced out by private liberty. It's a transfer payment. The government isn't spending the money; the recipient of welfare is.

The basic worldview of conservatism is somewhat more difficult to grasp... though perhaps I only say so because I am not a conservative.

i don't know, they themselves seem to have some difficulty expressing it most of the time.

i don't know, they themselves seem to have some difficulty expressing it most of the time.

Well, I was trying to be charitable.

That's the point. And that's why freedom-lovers should believe in equality.

Why can you not be free and be a servant?

People should not be "free" collect billions of dollars/pounds/etc. while the people woh earn it for them starve. Nor should people be "free" to deny work or housing to someone without just cause. I hope that answers your question

Sure they should. And the poor should be free to load up into a minivan and go aviking in nearby rich neighborhoods. It's basically the same thing, just more fun.