NationStates Jolt Archive

Which would you say is predominant, and why:
Economic freedom
OR
Economic equality?

Classic liberals or Rawls type liberals?

Which would you say is predominant, and why:
Economic freedom
OR
Economic equality?

predominant where? Globally? Nationally? Regionally?

Is that the word you intended to use?

how can either have predominance when they tend to go hand in hand-ish :confused:

I'd hazard at economic freedom because consumerism powers the world and the alternative reeks of unfairness

i like a blend of the 2.

unfettered capitalism leads to too much suffering in the working class.

too much government control for the purpose of "equality" stifles the economy.

striking a balance between the 2 maiximizes prosperity while minimizing exploitation.

What a poorly phrased question.

What a poorly phrased question.

Be fair, I think it is true that there is a lot of ambiguity around what type of economics those who call themselves liberals support.

Be fair, I think it is true that there is a lot of ambiguity around what type of economics those who call themselves liberals support.

I don't think the question is asking what he thinks it's asking. I think he wants to know which should take precedent, not which is predominant.

Be fair, I think it is true that there is a lot of ambiguity around what type of economics those who call themselves liberals support.

well yes, if we use the different ideologies and identities, one group of "liberals", the social liberals or "left wing" liberals tend to be far more socialist in their thinking than the "economic" liberals who are far more in favor of free market capitalism.

none of which changes the fact that his question, as written, likely doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

striking a balance between the 2 maiximizes prosperity while minimizing exploitation.

git off mah fence!

I don't think the question is asking what he thinks it's asking. I think he wants to know which should take precedent, not which is predominant.


none of which changes the fact that his question, as written, likely doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

Well let's wait and see then.

Which would you say is predominant, and why:
Economic freedom
OR
Economic equality?
Well I love both freedom and equality. So there we go. Which do you hate?

Well I love both freedom and equality.

Hippy

Well, economic equality doesn't exist anywhere, and economic freedom exists is Somalia, so I guess it's economic freedom that's predominant?

a blend

i like a blend of the 2.

unfettered capitalism leads to too much suffering in the working class.

too much government control for the purpose of "equality" stifles the economy.

striking a balance between the 2 maiximizes prosperity while minimizing exploitation.
Ditto, because this is my thought exactly, and I'm too lazy to type it over in my own words.

Well, economic equality doesn't exist anywhere, and economic freedom exists is Somalia, so I guess it's economic freedom that's predominant?
Also ditto this, in strict answer to the OP as written.

Depending on what you mean by 'freedom', the two could quite easily be the same thing, and it is difficult to separate the questions.

In my opinion, pure capitalism does not provide freedom in the economic sphere, unless you mean the 'freedom to starve'. I'd put the most 'free' point somewhere in the middle i.e. social democracy, allowing limited market freedom while ensuring people don't die from absolute poverty and grow up without any opportunities because selfish rich kids don't want to pay taxes. In my view, you can't have freedom without some redistributive mechanism aimed at ensuring greater equality than an unregulated market.

Of course. That isn't liberalism, because its social democracy, but silly people like to pretend they're the same thing, when for a liberal the answer would be 'economic freedom' every time, even if they accept a basic safety net.

Which would you say is predominant, and why:
Economic freedom
OR
Economic equality?

Just like general "liberty and equality": the two contradict. The only thing we can do is try to draw a compromise we are all fairly happy with. I suppose a rule of thumb is: Grant as much freedom as possible without allowing the freedom to oppress.

You know what's nice? An author that's interested enough in their thread to come back and clear up any misconceptions that have arisen...

Full economic freedom gives you this guy:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Q/K/bush_lordoftherings.jpg

Full economic equality gives you this guy:
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/stalin.jpg

...I'll stand somewhere between the extremes, thanks.

Which would you say is predominant, and why:
Economic freedom
OR
Economic equality?

Economic equality, because "economic freedom" as the term is usually used has no value at all.

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/stalin.jpg

...I'll stand somewhere between the extremes, thanks.

You just made everyone with even a meager understanding of history facepalm. Stalin? SERIOUSLY?

You just made everyone with even a meager understanding of history facepalm. Stalin? SERIOUSLY?

Well, he did scrap the NEP.

You just made everyone with even a meager understanding of history facepalm. Stalin? SERIOUSLY?

Indeed; he lived pretty luxuriously amid obscenely poor subjects.

You just made everyone with even a meager understanding of history facepalm. Stalin? SERIOUSLY?

Was it any more realistic to have Bush as some sort of representative of economic freedom?

You see, this is why I shouldn't post when I just woke up.

Still, extreme ANYTHING is bad. Even if I can't come up with decent examples.

Which would you say is predominant, and why:
Economic freedom
OR
Economic equality?

I'm more concerned about social freedom and that's best accomplished with a economic happy medium.

Which would you say is predominant, and why:
Economic freedom
OR
Economic equality?

in america: economic freedom
in (western) europe: social freedom

equality is not very predominant anywhere, though looking at the GINI index or the lorenz curve will help answer part of your question. it must be possible to plot that against a measure of economic freedom (i would imagine them to be inversely proportional, or something)

You just made everyone with even a meager understanding of history facepalm. Stalin? SERIOUSLY?

It's not like Bush was exactly the epitome of economic freedom either, but I don't really care.

It's not like Bush was exactly the epitome of economic freedom either, but I don't really care.

I guess your point was that Stalin and Bush both espoused extreme ideologies on the subject, and that they're bad, so an extreme position on the subject is bad?

I can agree almost, but I don't think being very in favor of a free market or very in favor of controls is inherently Bush-like or Stalinistic, or bad. Those examples illustrate the danger of hypocrites using some ideology to their own foolish ends, rather than the ideology itself. That no-one opposed them sufficiently however, might be more condemning.

I guess your point was that Stalin and Bush both espoused extreme ideologies on the subject, and that they're bad, so an extreme position on the subject is bad?

I can agree almost, but I don't think being very in favor of a free market or very in favor of controls is inherently Bush-like or Stalinistic, or bad. Those examples illustrate the danger of hypocrites using some ideology to their own foolish ends, rather than the ideology itself. That no-one opposed them sufficiently however, might be more condemning.

Well I didn't make that post, so fgsfds.

Which would you say is predominant, and why:
Economic freedom
OR
Economic equality?

The opposite of one doesn't automatically mean none of the other. So-called economic freedom is usually a nice way of promoting either government-by-chaos/anarchy or state asset stripping. It usually winds up with lots of dead people killed by easily preventable poverty, disease or lack of infrastructure (i.e. Indonesia, Somalia, Philippines).

economic equality usually winds up with a world turned upside down and lots of people dying of bullet wounds instead of the above. (I.e. Mao's China, Cambodia)

Freedom. While equality is a utopia, considering that every person has unique capabilities, deficiencies and needs, freedom is a clear path.

As a side note, capitalism (as applied by various governments) is merely using the word "freedom" as a pretext to reach the goals of those financial cartels in power. Same with socialism and "equality".

I have to ask my liberal betters. They will tell me where I stand and then I will vote accordingly.

I want a world where there is economic freedom but one where the basic needs of the world's citizens are met.

Getting there is a path beset with problems, however because so much stands in the way:
Corruption (governmnet plus other)
Illiteracy and ignorance
Racism and Greed
Over-population
etc,

(feel free to add....)