Do you prefer freedom over equality?

Or equality over freedom?

This I tell ya Brother
You can't have 1 without the other.

Sister, actually.

I think you can have one without the other but maybe I'm wrong.

LOL I wasn't assuming your gender. I was using a line from a song.

Oh, it rhymes! =)

Freedom should imply equality but it sometimes doesn't. Take for example the Native American. They were given their freedom when the Constitution was signed but never were treaded with equality. Just as the slaves weren't either after they were set free .

That statement implies a severely limited "freedom".

Freedom please. Equality is for Communists who hate Mother Nature.

Freedom please. Equality is for Communists who hate Mother Nature.
It's better when capitalists freely arrive at methods of hating Mother nature.

It's better when capitalists freely arrive at methods of hating Mother nature.

Quoted For Truth, my brother.

Freedom should imply equality but it sometimes doesn't. Take for example the Native American. They were given their freedom when the Constitution was signed but never were treaded with equality. Just as the slaves weren't either after they were set free .

Giving so-called freedom on paper has nothing to do with actual freedom.
In fact, putting it on paper implies that one is living within a system in which it does not apply.

Equality does not imply freedom, nor does freedom imply equality. You can be equal to your fellow citizens while you stand on a bread line; you could also be free to do whatever it is you wish while not sharing some of the same benefits of those who live in the same place you do.

Consider homosexuals today, or blacks 50 years ago, or women before that. These were free people that could not say they were equal.

They were not free - as they did not have the same ability as everyone else to have a say in the government which controlled many aspects of their lives.

Freedom implies self-determination.
Laws are inherently restrictive.
If you have no say in the creation of laws you have less freedom than those wo do.

They were not free - as they did not have the same ability as everyone else to have a say in the government which controlled many aspects of their lives.

Freedom implies self-determination.
Laws are inherently restrictive.
If you have no say in the creation of laws you have less freedom than those wo do.

If you look at it that way, there are only a half-dozen free people in the world.

Stop playing semantics and contribute. For once. Please.

Freedom!

Neither. Freedom is silly and equality doesn't exist.

If you look at it that way, there are only a half-dozen free people in the world.

Stop playing semantics and contribute. For once. Please.

I'm not playing semantics at all, I am making a point about the relative aspect of freedom in real life.
Aside from the hermit, no one is truly free - such is the nature of living with others and having one's decisions and actions affect the liberty of the others.

The point of democratic systems, in part, is to work towards the ideal of freedom and equality for all. We take steps toward that ideal by affording people a greater degree of control over the factors which determine the quality of their lives and the measure of their liberty.

If you limit one's ability to vote in a democratic system, you reduce their level of freedom, as compared to those who do have the right to vote.
If you limit self-determination and control over one's own destiny, you limit freedom.
You give one group the right to determine the laws which affect the other group, in effect, giving one group more freedom than the other.

As I said, freedom implies self-determination and control over one's own destinty.
If one person can vote and another can not, the person who can vote and determine laws not only has a greater meaure of personal freedom than the other by being allowed to make decisions about the factors which affect his life, but he has a greater measure of control over the other's life as well, as he makes decisions for him.

You can not have freedom without equality.

Neither. Freedom is silly and equality doesn't exist.

How is freedom silly?

There's nothing silly about freedom.

How is freedom silly?

There's nothing silly about freedom.

Civil liberties aren't silly, because without them there'd be no point in living

Political freedoms are silly though

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/braveheart.jpg

You can not have freedom without equality.
If you mean equality before the law, fine. But otherwise I couldn't disagree more. A free economic system will always result in inequalities. Frankly, the only way to ensure true equality is to crush all freedom and force everyone to live as peasants. Miserable, but equal. This Rush song illustrates the point nicely:
There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvQ2JF-glvw

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/braveheart.jpg
There I fixed your code

If you mean equality before the law, fine. But otherwise I couldn't disagree more.
...


Completely correct.

'Freedom', beyond any specific legal definition, cannot mean anything beyond anarchic behaviour (which, I believe is personally untenable... strictly speaking).

However, 'equality' is an even more problematic predicate. As applied to human individuals, equality is impossible. Or, at the very least, can apply only if one elects to ignore all elements that are specific to an individual. For all intents and purposes, making use of the word equality with respect to persons is utterly meaningless.



p.s.: mad, nice Rush reference. :-)
Cheers.

If you mean equality before the law, fine.

I do.

I get the distinct feeling that Norse has never left the confines of his little hometown.

What hometown?

What hometown?

Who knows? I'm assuming he lives in a tiny little town in the Midwest. You know, a place where gays don't exist (even though he probably knows about 9 gays, they're just too afraid of being beaten to death to come out), and where the only person of color is whoever is in the holding cell?

And I'm not flaming him here. His opinions and positions really seem to come from a small-town, isolated mentality.

Actually I live in Grand ol' Texas, in the fourth largest city in the US and a state where marriage is legally defined as between man and woman.

Actually I live in Grand ol' Texas, in the fourth largest city in the US and a state where marriage is legally defined as between man and woman.

Just as good. Texas is one of the most racist, sexist, and homophobic states in the nation. No wonder you are the way you are.

Marriage simply means joining together. Same with wedding. Everywhere on Earth thru most of history, people cohabited for various reasons having little to do with religion & nothing to do with law or government. Churches & governments got involved in order to further control people & get more money out of them.
OUAT, blacks & whites couldn't legally marry. That was horrible & so is this. Letting the government tell any adults they cannot marry means that you are letting the government control you too. If any adults are denied permission & you are given permission, you are both being controled in something which should be entirely up to you.
If anything lessens the value of marriage, it's having to apply for, pay for & get a LICENSE.

You have to balance both with the goal of maximizing both. If everyone is free to do whatever they want - even if only economically - you will quickly end up with massive inequality. On the other hand, trying to make everyone completely equal would quickly destroy freedom. Fortunately it's not a zero-sum game; a small decrease in freedom can result in a large increase in equality. For example, saying that a single firm can't completely dominate a vital market through anti-competitive behavior is a reduction in freedom that's so small as to be meaningless to the vast majority of people - but it results in a very noticeable increase in equality for everyone.

Just as good. Texas is one of the most racist, sexist, and homophobic states in the nation. No wonder you are the way you are.

No wonder you are the way you are, then, from whatever shithole you are from.

No offense.

No wonder you are the way you are, then, from whatever shithole you are from.

No offense.

Not from a shithole at all. I'm from a place that has far less racial tension and governmental homophobia than your neck of the woods. It should come as no surprise that a bigot would call Texas home, considering how you people operate.

Marriage simply means joining together.

I agree. What I find the most hysterical (and sad, really) is that so many Christians (especially the Evangelicals) seem to believe that they invented marriage, or that marriage is at worst an Judaic institution. They have no idea why marriage exists, where it came from, or how long it has been around, in one form or another, in civilization. And it is this false claim of ownership that empowers them to make outrageous demands like not allowing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Not from a shithole at all. I'm from a place that has far less racial tension and governmental homophobia than your neck of the woods. It should come as no surprise that a bigot would call Texas home, considering how you people operate.

I'm from a place that is moral and righteous

I'm from a place that is moral and righteous

Texas?

Maybe selfrighteous.

Texas?

Maybe selfrighteous.

At least it isn't infested with lib'rals like wherever JDawg is from

At least it isn't infested with lib'rals like wherever JDawg is from

Oh, you mean the parts of the country where the cows don't outnumber the people?

Oh, you mean the parts of the country where the cows don't outnumber the people?

Or rather the parts of the country with crazy lib'rals

You know you are outnumbered, right? "Crazy lib'rals", as you put it, are the majority.

You know you are outnumbered, right? "Crazy lib'rals", as you put it, are the majority.

Where?

Where?

In the most populated areas of this nation.

In the most populated areas of this nation.

Really? The Republican party is pretty large. Besides everyone knows US politics are centre-right

Really? The Republican party is pretty large. Besides everyone knows US politics are centre-right

Everyone knows this? Just like "everyone knows" homosexuality is immoral, I assume?

Will the newest guy on my ignore list please stand up?


(Norse, that's you...)

What a severely limited freedom that would be.

Really? The Republican party is pretty large. Besides everyone knows US politics are centre-right
In a sense, I agree.
Though the number of poeple who call themselves "Democrats" far outnumber those who call themselves "Republicans" in this country...

Barry Goldwater was seen by many as far too conservative for the Republican Party and almost didn't get the nomination in 1964.

If you look at his policies today, they would be fairly mainstream for a Democrat.

In a sense, I agree.
Though the number of poeple who call themselves "Democrats" far outnumber those who call themselves "Republicans" in this country...

Barry Goldwater was seen by many as far too conservative for the Republican Party and almost didn't get the nomination in 1964.

If you look at his policies today, they would be fairly mainstream for a Democrat.

I think that is because our society today is far more liberal than it used to be, and the trend has almost always been that way. Today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives, after all.

Freedom requires equality before the law.

I think it's a question of how much the individual is willing to give up to ensure equality.

From where I stand, It's not much.
You cannot have one without the other. Freedom for all means equality for all.
I'm sure theres problem in there somewhere.

While I haven't read all the posts in this thread, there seems to be a error in the way the original post is interpreted by y'all. For some reason, y'all seem to be assuming that the question is about all humans everywhere. That's not what the OP asked as I see it.

Do you prefer freedom over equality? Or equality over freedom?

It asks "Do YOU prefer...." It didn't say anything like, "For the whole freakin' human race, do you prefer...."

So, in answer to the question, I personally prefer freedom for myself .....I don't much give a big rat's ass about people on the other freakin' side of the world that I don't even know ...some of whom hate me just 'cause I'm American. So, ....fuck 'em!

Baron Max

I sure would love fairness in freedom. Equality basically means sameness and that goes against individuality, not something the liberal would want. Individuality and equality are impossible like dividing x number by 0.

..., not something the liberal would want.

Well, around here, the liberal doo-gooders out-number conservatives/realists about 10,000 to 1 or more!

If ya' want to get along around here, learn to sing "Kum Ba Yi" in the proper key and proclaim the greatness of all humans.

Baron Max

It is unfortunate that idiots can always screw up a democracy for everyone else just by being loud, stubborn and repetitious.