Equality vs Liberty

[LongSilence]

Which is worse?

Sexism and Racism seem to be tiring out so I thought I'd introduce the next fight on the cards.

[Madrigal]

Liberty and equality for whom? If you say everyone I'm not playing.

[Anonymous]

Liberty and equality for whom? If you say everyone I'm not playing.

Agreed, although if it is for everyone, I'm inclined to say equality. Liberty is great with a lot of things, but if everyone were equal at one point or another, all it would take is one group to gain a slight advantage before chaos ensues and we go back to something like a monarchy.

Also, I assume were speaking in terms of a social/political setting?

[LongSilence]

Hey, quit trying to make this fight primarily about the audience. It's about our fine fighters: one says things should be free, the other that they should be equal.

[Ariel]

I think that we should have the freedom to do whatever we want without as long as we don't inhibit other people's liberties in the process. Society needs homeostasis in this regard. Law should be the "negative feedback" that maintains our individual freedoms.

[booyalab]

Equality is less accessible than liberty. It's also boring.

[Karl]

You can't have one without the other.

[Lateralus]

You can't have one without the other.
You can't?

[LongSilence]

You can't fully have one without the other mucking things up is surely what you must have meant, Karl?

If all things must be treated equal, then they're not really free. If they truly are completely equal then there is no freedom because everyone thinks and acts in unison.

If all things are free then it opens up possibilities for unequal behaviour and attitudes.

[rhinosaur]

I'm a greater fan of liberty than equality.

[cjs55]

Both aren't necessarily good, but equality is necessarily bad. Harrison Bergeron-style, at least. Liberty is only good in small doses. Let people run wild libertarian style and you have severe tragedy-of-the-commons issues. That said, liberty provides room for great people to grow, and is important in the sense that government has no place in most personal matters.

Real egalitarian society isn't really possible without government programs pulling people down or up extensively. I think that's pretty shitty. Equality of opportunity can only last so long until stratification occurs. The trick I think is making sure the necessary lower castes are treated with respect and dignity for the role they play in society. This is possible when self-worth isn't based on income and the average lower class person doesn't make enough to survive working 40 hours a week.

[Karl]

You can't fully have one without the other mucking things up is surely what you must have meant, Karl?


No, I meant the lack of one will muck up the one you do have.

I like to view equality, in a practical sense, as having equal political, social, and economic opportunities.

So if a certain strata of society is able to monopolize on one, they can and eventually will restrict liberty to make themselves stronger.

If there's no liberty, then you have to understand that something restricting that liberty, and is effectively above the people, meaning a lack of equality. Even if things are pretty equal, whoever is doing the restricting is eventually going to be someone who restricts it for a certain strata's gain, creating inequality.

[immortalmack]

Trying to make everyone equal will eventually begin to infringe on liberties. Some people want to take the world by storm others want to make love and have picnics. How can you make these two desires equal. You can't, so give them the liberty to be who or what hey want to be.

[Ferrus]

Try looking up postive vs. negative freedom. Then post your thoughts. Good, good.

[Karl]

Trying to make everyone equal will eventually begin to infringe on liberties. Some people want to take the world by storm others want to make love and have picnics. How can you make these two desires equal. You can't, so give them the liberty to be who or what hey want to be.

How are they not equal?

[LastRailway]

How are they not equal?

I think he 's right. People can be equal without having enough liberty

[Karl]

I think he 's right. People can be equal without having enough liberty

Okay, who is enforcing this lack of liberty?

[stopharian]

Being a communist you certainly must understand this Charlie........


The commies are all for equality and against liberty. Thats how they roll.

[LastRailway]

Being a communist you certainly must understand this Charlie........


The commies are all for equality and against liberty. Thats how they roll.

I wanted to say something similar and was trying to express it.

[pangolin]

Ultimately, people are not equal in their capabilities, however, they should be given equality of opportunity, which is a positive liberty, and should be given liberty of action, so long as they are not infringing on other persons or society at large, which is a negative liberty.

Equality of opportunity requires sustenance by the government, and should not be allowed to play out into perfectly stratified classes. There will be stratified classes with blurry lines, but occasionally, due to differential breeding, a particular family line may rise or fall based on ability.

I should also note that both equality of opportunity and the limit on personal freedom more or less entail that the highest earners not make more than some particular magnitude (like possibly two orders of magnitude, for instance) more than the lowest earners, because no matter how smart/skillful you are, there's not really a reasonable way for there to be more than that much discrepancy between how much quality/effort one individual can provide compared to another. Additionally, creating such huge discrepancies in economic power creates virtual monarchies, and is unhealthy for the economy (and probably ecology) at large.

[Ariel]

I'm shocked that there are so many votes going to equality...

Consider slavery. Some individuals lose all of their rights, priviledges, and freedoms so another group can reap the benefits and gain more power.

"Give me liberty or give me death!" is right, but not in the way it is intended to be. In the case of slavery, as was aforementioned, "death" entails the loss of power and autonomy of the slaves, whereas all the "liberty" goes to the slave-owners.

If we are talking about law and government here, then I'd much rather live in a restrained world (where I can only do so much to satisfy my whims) instead of a world in which struggle and social cannibalism are the norms.

Complete liberty is definately the greater evil.

[booyalab]

How are they not equal?

In order to promote equality, freedom of choice must be infringed upon.

"A more equal society is a better society even if its citizens prefer inequality."-Ronald Dorkin


And we know that not everyone prefers equality because so many people choose inequality. That's why government has to step in and alter incentives so people don't choose things that make society less equal.

[Lateralus]

Complete liberty is definately the greater evil.
This depends entirely on your perspective. You sound like someone who leans towards collectivism, to me.

[LastRailway]

This depends entirely on your perspective. You sound like someone who leans towards collectivism, to me.

Is collectivism incompatible with liberty? :mellow:

[Lateralus]

Is collectivism incompatible with liberty? :mellow:
Collectivism inevitably leads to reduced liberty in an effort to increase equality.

[LastRailway]

Collectivism inevitably leads to reduced liberty in an effort to increase equality.

There are libertarian views of collectivism.
On a second thought, why you say she leans towards collectivism, of any form?


If we are talking about law and government here, then I'd much rather live in a restrained world (where I can only do so much to satisfy my whims) instead of a world in which struggle and social cannibalism are the norms.

I cannot draw the same conclusion, based on that at least

[Lateralus]

There are libertarian views of collectivism.
On a second thought, why you say she leans towards collectivism, of any form?

I cannot draw the same conclusion, based on that at least
Hmmm, I don't see how you couldn't come to my conclusion. I didn't call her a raging commie.

[LastRailway]

Hmmm, I don't see how you couldn't come to my conclusion. I didn't call her a raging commie.

Well, the description of a society restrained by law and government fits more to the current societies, which have not much of collectivism, in my opinion

[Lateralus]

Well, the description of a society restrained by law and government fits more to the current societies, which have not much of collectivism, in my opinion
What? Read Ariel's statement more closely. She was juxtaposing two extreme scenarios in order to make a point. She was basically saying that she would prefer pure collectivism over anarchy. Look at her final sentence, "Complete liberty is definitely the greater evil".

[booyalab]

The rule of law could be argued as the one way in which government intervention increases liberty. There are so many more things you can do when you don't have to cower in fear by your front door, waiting for someone to break in and murder you.

[Lurker]

Pure liberty has more destructive potential.

[LongSilence]

It may be more destructive of culture and society. But pure equality is more destructive of our humanity...

[Lateralus]

Pure liberty has more destructive potential.
The reason I say this depends on perspective is that I have confidence in my abilities to be successful in the case of a complete societal collapse. From my perspective, there is always hope unless I find myself in some sort of Orwellian society where equality is guaranteed, but liberty is non-existent. Losing hope would be devastating for me, which is one of the fundamental reasons I find extreme collectivism so repulsive.

[Lateralus]

It may be more destructive of culture and society. But pure equality is more destructive of our humanity...
Yep, that's why this essentially comes down to a personal preference, collectivism or individualism.

[Lurker]

It may be more destructive of culture and society. But pure equality is more destructive of our humanity...

Pure liberty would also be destructive of our humanity. Human nature is generally vicious, greedy, and brutal; it [human nature] must be kept in check somehow, or the vulnerable would be trampled on and brutalized to no end.

Of course, pure equality would result in an unnatural suppression of rights.

I abstain from this poll! (not really)

[Lateralus]

Pure liberty would also be destructive of our humanity. Human nature is generally vicious, greedy, and brutal; it [human nature] must be kept in check somehow, or the vulnerable would be trampled on and brutalized to no end.

Of course, pure equality would result in an unnatural suppression of rights.

I abstain from this poll! (not really)
Pure liberty leads us toward a more natural state. Mankind might feed on itself, but I believe would come out stronger in the end. Pure equality would lead to our extinction.

[booyalab]

Pure liberty would also be destructive of our humanity. Human nature is generally vicious, greedy, and brutal; it [human nature] must be kept in check somehow, or the vulnerable would be trampled on and brutalized to no end.


that's why I made the point about the rule of law.

The problem with collectivism is that it is not run by rule of law but rule by law, which can be no better than anarchy in some cases.

[LastRailway]

Pure liberty leads us toward a more natural state.

That's something I 'd have to agree with

[Lurker]

The reason I say this depends on perspective is that I have confidence in my abilities to be successful in the case of a complete societal collapse. From my perspective, there is always hope unless I find myself in some sort of Orwellian society where equality is guaranteed, but liberty is non-existent. Losing hope would be devastating for me, which is one of the fundamental reasons I find extreme collectivism so repulsive.

Good points, but how realistic is your confidence in your abilities? In a completely free society, you would be vulnerable in ways you have never before experienced.

Also, was Orwellian Society really equal? I don't think it was, being a dystopian nightmare scenario. Maybe that's an unflattering way to view pure equality. In my opinion, genuine equality could only be practiced on a very small scale (i.e. communes, villages); whenever you have "leaders," equality (and by extension, liberty) is compromised.

[LongSilence]

Pure liberty would also be destructive of our humanity. Human nature is generally vicious, greedy, and brutal; it [human nature] must be kept in check somehow, or the vulnerable would be trampled on and brutalized to no end.

Of course, pure equality would result in an unnatural suppression of rights.

I abstain from this poll! (not really)

While a mankind unleashed upon itself would be cruel and brutal, it would continually test itself and certain individuals would probably find ways to survive: sometimes by fighting, sometimes by fleeing.

A mankind forced to be equal would suppress all its energies till it either collapsed under its own burgeoning weight of its homogenized masses or turned inward upon itself.

[Lurker]

Pure liberty leads us toward a more natural state. Mankind might feed on itself, but I believe would come out stronger in the end. Pure equality would lead to our extinction.


that's why I made the point about the rule of law.

The problem with collectivism is that it is not run by rule of law but rule by law, which can be no better than anarchy in some cases.


That's something I 'd have to agree with

I'm trying to steer this away from Communism as we have heard about it in the Soviet Union. No doubt that was a failure because it was *not* equal.

Moving away from the dichotomy, I think liberty *and* equality suffer under a large population.

[Lateralus]

Good points, but how realistic is your confidence in your abilities? In a completely free society, you would be vulnerable in ways you have never before experienced.
I think my confidence is pretty realistic. I'm a pretty resourceful person. ;)


Also, was Orwellian Society really equal? I don't think it was, being a dystopian nightmare scenario. Maybe that's an unflattering way to view pure equality. In my opinion, genuine equality could only be practiced on a very small scale (i.e. communes, villages); whenever you have "leaders," equality (and by extension, liberty) is compromised.
That's true about an Orwellian society, but I don't think pure equality is actually attainable while maintaining a functioning society, except on a small scale (as you mentioned). Insect colonies don't have pure equality, either. They still have a queen, workers, etc. I know I've argued this before, but this is why I believe collectivist ideologies can only be successful on a small scale. Mankind, as a species, rejects it. Any attempt to impose pure equality, on a large scale, will always lead toward a totalitarian state because mankind is too individualistic.

[Lurker]

A mankind forced to be equal would suppress all its energies till it either collapsed under its own burgeoning weight of its homogenized masses or turned inward upon itself.

Why do you think this?

[C.J.Woolf]

Pure liberty leads us toward a more natural state.
Like the ape-men in 2001: A Space Odyssey? I prefer civilization, thankyouverymuch. It suppresses some of our worst impulses and channels others to benefit society as well as the individual.

Lateralus, you want pure liberty because you believe you'd be one of humanity's winners without all those constraints on you. But it's more likely that a Genghis Khan or John D. Rockefeller would come along and force you to submit or die.

[Lateralus]

Moving away from the dichotomy, I think liberty *and* equality suffer under a large population.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Mankind evolved in small groups (tribes). Our actions had meaning. In the enormous societies we have today, our lives are meaningless by comparison.

[Lurker]

Those of you who have such confidence probably have it as a result of living your lives under relative equality.

[LastRailway]

I..Moving away from the dichotomy, I think liberty *and* equality suffer under a large population.


...That's true about an Orwellian society, but I don't think pure equality is actually attainable while maintaining a functioning society, except on a small scale (as you mentioned)...

But if liberty, and offcourse (how on earth do you write this correctly?), equality can function in a small scale, let's say, small communities or something, then it could be applied in a larger scale too?

[Lurker]

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Mankind evolved in small groups (tribes). Our actions had meaning. In the enormous societies we have today, our lives are meaningless by comparison.

Yes! For this reason, I'm highly suspicious of nationalism. Really, I have no allegiance to a country, I have allegiance to those who are closest to me.

[LongSilence]

Why do you think this?

Because true equality depends upon everyone suppressing their differences and not working off them. Also when everyone's equal a big question comes up: "What is it that people work for?" With no particular definition of their very selves you kinda remove the primary driving force behind all action that we have seen at work previously. Something must command the people to act. If not, they will not act. Imagine a creature with a million hands but no head: what drives the hands to act?

[Lateralus]

Like the ape-men in 2001: A Space Odyssey? I prefer civilization, thankyouverymuch. It suppresses some of our worst impulses and channels others to benefit society as well as the individual.
We're talking about extremes here. I don't think anyone would argue that we don't desire a little of both.


Lateralus, you want pure liberty because you believe you'd be one of humanity's winners without all those constraints on you. But it's more likely that a Genghis Khan or John D. Rockefeller would come along and force you to submit or die.
I don't want pure liberty, but if I had to choose, I'd choose it over pure equality. While pure liberty might be riskier, at least in the short term, I'd rather have that hope over the complete and overwhelming hopelessness of a society of pure equality. That would be so boring, I would rather be dead.

[booyalab]

Those of you who have such confidence probably have it as a result of living your lives under relative equality.
confidence in liberty? equal to what/whom?

[Lateralus]

But if liberty, and offcourse (how on earth do you write this correctly?), equality can function in a small scale, let's say, small communities or something, then it could be applied in a larger scale too?
I believe this is a false assumption.

[Lurker]

Because true equality depends upon everyone suppressing their differences and not working off them. Also when everyone's equal a big question comes up: "What is it that people work for?" With no particular definition of their very selves you kinda remove the primary driving force behind all action that we have seen at work previously. Something must command the people to act. If not, they will not act. Imagine a creature with a million hands but no head: what drives the hands to act?

Why does true equality necessitate these conditions? I don't see it. I think the mere word "equality" is charged with connotations that don't reflect its true meaning. From my perspective, if everyone was equal then there would be less energy wasted on suffering and hate....individuals would be free to pursue their own interests, hence they would be more productive and creative.

[C.J.Woolf]

We're talking about extremes here. I don't think anyone would argue that we don't desire a little of both.
Yes, I think the OP's question is a false dichotomy. A more useful question is, how much liberty results in a powerful few depriving the many of their liberty? That is, how much must we constrain the liberty of the powerful to protect the liberty of the less powerful?


I don't want pure liberty, but if I had to choose, I'd choose it over pure equality. While pure liberty might be riskier, at least in the short term, I'd rather have that hope over the complete and overwhelming hopelessness of a society of pure equality. That would be so boring, I would rather be dead.
Again, I hold that "pure liberty" soon results in no liberty for most people. Do you still prefer it on those terms?

[LastRailway]

I believe this is a false assumption.

No, actually I was not clear enough.
What I mean is that, let's say liberty/equality can be obtained in a small scale. (small communities). In today's world, they should obligatory interact with eachother and have exchanges, maybe some communities would even depend from others, for not having sufficient means for feeding all the members, or producing things like clothes, etc.
That interaction between communities, would obligatory threaten each community's freedom?

[Lurker]

confidence in liberty? equal to what/whom?

I'm assuming that everyone posting in this thread has never lived under a repressive regime that denied them equal rights compared to others living in said regime.

Most African countries are a great example. Many of those countries have great wealth that is snatched up by the few and/or shipped out to Europe, while the rest of the population suffers on a daily basis. None of us have been on the shitty end of that stick. We live in conditions that foster confidence in most able people.

[LongSilence]

Why does true equality necessitate these conditions? I don't see it. I think the mere word "equality" is charged with connotations that don't reflect its true meaning. From my perspective, if everyone was equal then there would be less energy wasted on suffering and hate....individuals would be free to pursue their own interests, hence they would be more productive and creative.

Where do these "own interests" come from exactly? And where do they lead? Do they not make people unequal in some ways? How do these interests not lead to influencing the way people are governed so that everyone can be equal?

[booyalab]

Why does true equality necessitate these conditions? I don't see it. I think the mere word "equality" is charged with connotations that don't reflect its true meaning. From my perspective, if everyone was equal then there would be less energy wasted on suffering and hate....individuals would be free to pursue their own interests, hence they would be more productive and creative.
The definition from your perspective doesn't reflect the true meaning either. Equality could just as well mean that everyone is suffering and filled with hate as it could mean that everyone is pursuing their own interests.

[LongSilence]

I'm assuming that everyone posting in this thread has never lived under a repressive regime that denied them equal rights compared to others living in said regime.

Most African countries are a great example. Many of those countries have great wealth that is snatched up by the few and/or shipped out to Europe, while the rest of the population suffers on a daily basis. None of us have been on the shitty end of that stick. We live in conditions that foster confidence in most able people.

Almost entirely irrelevant.

[LastRailway]

Yes, I think the OP's question is a false dichotomy. A more useful question is, how much liberty results in a powerful few depriving the many of their liberty? That is, how much must we constrain the liberty of the powerful to protect the liberty of the less powerful?

As Lateralus said, I think we are rather talking about extremes. Liberty without equality is not a desirable situation. Neither is equality without liberty, in my opinion

[booyalab]

I'm assuming that everyone posting in this thread has never lived under a repressive regime that denied them equal rights compared to others living in said regime.


how is that relevant? this thread isn't equality vs repressive regimes.

[Lateralus]

Yes, I think the OP's question is a false dichotomy. A more useful question is, how much liberty results in a powerful few depriving the many of their liberty? That is, how much must we constrain the liberty of the powerful to protect the liberty of the less powerful?
I think the intent, originally, was to be facetious.


Again, I hold that "pure liberty" soon results in no liberty for most people. Do you still prefer it on those terms?
This depends entirely on how many people there are. With 6.5 billion people on this planet, certainly anarchy would be devastating, but it would eventually reach an equilibrium once the population was reduced to a certain level. I would still choose it over an Orwellian dystopia (which is where extreme collectivism leads).

[Lurker]

how is that relevant? this thread isn't equality vs repressive regimes.

It's relevant because it explains why some people exhibit inflated and unrealistic confidence in their abilities -- they were raised in an atmosphere conducive to this way of thinking.

Repressive regimes stand as an illustrative comparison.

[Lateralus]

It's relevant because it explains why some people exhibit inflated and unrealistic confidence in their abilities -- they were raised in an atmosphere conducive to this way of thinking.
Eh, I think you're putting too much emphasis on my statement about confidence. What is more important is hope.

[LastRailway]

It's relevant because it explains why some people exhibit inflated and unrealistic confidence in their abilities -- they were raised in an atmosphere conducive to this way of thinking.

Repressive regimes stand as an illustrative comparison.

We are not talking about personal abilities, I believe.
And people who actually have lived in repressive regimes, have a lot of possibilities to develop a way of thinking more leaning towards equality/liberty, especially if they have the opportunity to see how functions the world in non-repressive-regimes

[Ashi, K?]

Any attempt to make assertions on the basis of the "true" meaning of either word in an exercise in absurdity.

Either word taken literally is meaningless, one anarchy, the other a mass of identical people.


If equality is taken to mean a universal set of rights, and opportunities rather than the false equality of imposed levels of property and/or wealth, then we may begin to discuss something meaningful.

Similarly if liberty is taken to mean that one if free of oppressive restrictions rather than possessing the ability to do anything as one so pleases, then it too may be useful.


Never mind the difference between either term in the person sense versus in the communal sense, yet another aspect not defined by the OP, yet happily set by assumption in the replies.


Perhaps some basic aspects should be discuss be we start attacking one another for failing to grasp the subtitles of our unspoken assumptions.

[Lurker]

Where do these "own interests" come from exactly? And where do they lead? Do they not make people unequal in some ways? How do these interests not lead to influencing the way people are governed so that everyone can be equal?

Sure, people will try to gain power and exploit others. That's human nature, which leads back to the need for suppression of certain liberties.

As for interests in general, where do any interests come from? Not all interests are financially motivated -- but again, I don't want this to veer off into discussion of Communism because of all the baggage associated with the idea.


The definition from your perspective doesn't reflect the true meaning either. Equality could just as well mean that everyone is suffering and filled with hate as it could mean that everyone is pursuing their own interests.

You are correct. I'm working the best I can within the constraints of the word "equality," and I am only addressing the positive side of it.


Almost entirely irrelevant.

Entirely relevant.

Read back through the thread. I addressed inflated confidence levels and tried to explain why they might exist. It helps to give perspective outside our narrow, limited experience.

[Ariel]

Almost entirely irrelevant.I wouldn't say so.

I agree with Lurker. I think he is calling you naive, but in a polite way.

Equality... Under what terms are we talking about it? Equality, to me, simply means that we all have the same rights and restrictions. Who ever said that equality equated homogeny or monotony? Human nature is what drives this argument, so we cannot go so far as to assume that either equality or liberty, in their purest forms, are devoid of it (and that is why I make my argument against liberty). Considering this, there is no reason that equality amongst peoples would mean that talents, strengths, weaknesses, and inherent 'differences' be pulled out of the picture. History has shown that attempts to do this generally fail; human nature inevitabley expresses itself.

Though two people may be equal under legal or economic or under any other formal standard, they can and will have entirely different outlooks, opinions, mannerisms, talents, and personalities. These factors cannot be ruled out even if we are talking about extremes. They make even the "worst" equality diverse and multifarious.

But I am going off on a tangent.

In general, life is considered to be a good thing. Someone here said that they would rather die and be quashed under vehement liberty rather than bear to live in a system of "total" equality. I shake my head. By nature, humanity is both greedy and empathetic at the same time. Even without any liberty at all, one comes to appreciate the simple nicities of being alive-- in beauty, in comradery, in whatever may be your calling. When Lurker brought in the example of African countries, he was comparing the miserable lives of people who are barred from these simple pleasures, to us. I think that this is a profound allegory. Those people, suffering and oppressed by the supposed "liberties" of other, would much rather be living "quiet and unextraordinary" existances even in places that destroy creativity and drive, but protect their rights to survive.

[LongSilence]

I think the intent, originally, was to be facetious.


Well, yes. And it was meant to demonstrate that certain ideas have more pitfalls than expected... and that others like sexism and racism have more benefits than it first seems. Also certain aspects of human behaviour and society cannot be excised without other ramifications just as others cannot be implemented.

Besides, it does demonstrate how people immediately attune to or repulse themselves from an idea.

And Ariel, this is a very fixed question. It requires an either / or answer with a posited quantifer of which is 'worse': no mish-mashing allowed here. With regard to equality- you dismantle the idea of why there must be total homogeny without addressing the issue of how the true equality is enforced. Who enforces it?

[Ariel]

And Ariel, this is a very fixed question. It requires an either / or answer with a posited quantifer of which is 'worse': no mish-mashing allowed here. With regard to equality- you dismantle the idea of why there must be total homogeny without addressing the issue of how the true equality is enforced. Who enforces it?

I said in an earlier post that government should enforce it (representative would be good) but aren't you "mish-mashing" now that you've asked?

I do not think that I was muddling things up at all. I merely argued that equality should be subjected to human nature just as liberty is in our arguments. Since complete homogeny is impossible (as there is no legitimate way to erase conflicting interests or ideas from peoples heads except perhaps by fear-- which is an issue related more to liberty), I wanted to express the fact that we are only speculating on the bases of what we know of humanity; to consider this argument without the human perspective is pointless (or are you really disputing ideals?).

[Karl]

In order to promote equality, freedom of choice must be infringed upon.

"A more equal society is a better society even if its citizens prefer inequality."-Ronald Dorkin


And we know that not everyone prefers equality because so many people choose inequality. That's why government has to step in and alter incentives so people don't choose things that make society less equal.


I'm having to disagree. Equality doesn't mean everyone does the same thing, just that they could. The fact that people want to do different things is what makes equality work. If everyone was doing the same thing, nothing would work. Equality is dependent on people wanting to do different things, and being allowed to pursue them.

I am not saying that you can have equality without liberty, I'm saying they're co-dependent.


Being a communist you certainly must understand this Charlie........


The commies are all for equality and against liberty. Thats how they roll.


Stophorian: I must ask that you stop responding to my name and start responding to my posts.

[stopharian]

I'm having to disagree. Equality doesn't mean everyone does the same thing, just that they could. The fact that people want to do different things is what makes equality work. If everyone was doing the same thing, nothing would work. Equality is dependent on people wanting to do different things, and being allowed to pursue them.

I am not saying that you can have equality without liberty, I'm saying they're co-dependent.



Stophorian: I must ask that you stop responding to my name and start responding to my posts.

Im gonna have to ask you to stop asking that......

[Ariel]

Stophorian: I must ask that you stop responding to my name and start responding to my posts.

...:theclap:

[Karl]

So you're basically saying that you're saying criticisms of me without regard to the post I have made?

[Lateralus]

I'm having to disagree. Equality doesn't mean everyone does the same thing, just that they could. The fact that people want to do different things is what makes equality work. If everyone was doing the same thing, nothing would work. Equality is dependent on people wanting to do different things, and being allowed to pursue them.
Can you give me an example of where this actually works, in practice, because I just don't see it. It requires traits that humans don't have, or rather, the lack of certain traits that humans do have.

[Karl]

This topic is not about the concrete realizations of equality and liberty, to any degree. When you talk about that, you get very political. I don't feel the need to derail another thread into communism.

You are, however, free to ask me at the following topic about how equality and liberty can be achieved.
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=24314

[djm]

Equality of opportunity is very important, however equal opportunities do not produce equal distribution as people are not equal.

The current UK government (and it's rivals) are obsessed with trying to produce equality, and in order to do so are happy to ride roughshod over equal opportunities by introducing discriminatory policies.

[Lateralus]

This topic is not about the concrete realizations of equality and liberty, to any degree. When you talk about that, you get very political. I don't feel the need to derail another thread into communism.

You are, however, free to ask me at the following topic about how equality and liberty can be achieved.
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=24314
I didn't expect you to be able to answer, because there are no examples. And the reason there are no examples is because it will never work. Collectivism only works on a small scale. It creates more problems than it solves when it's implemented on a large scale.

[LastRailway]

This topic is not about the concrete realizations of equality and liberty, to any degree. When you talk about that, you get very political. I don't feel the need to derail another thread into communism.

You are, however, free to ask me at the following topic about how equality and liberty can be achieved.
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=24314

I take it you voted liberty is worse

[Karl]

Lateralus: You are not saying something new. I will not talk about the same thing in every topic.


I take it you voted liberty is worse

I did not vote because I disagree with the premise that we can have one without the other.

[intpgolfer]

Equality and Freedom are like the MBTI quandry:

1. Should Thinkers feel?
2. Should Intuitives, sense?
3. Should Introverts, extrovert?
4. Should judgers, Perceive?

i.e. is freedom too powerful to even ponder equality?

e.g does equality vanish - with any level of freedom?

[MacGuffin]

"Harrison Bergeron" (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html) by Kurt Vonnegut.

[HilbertSpace]

"Harrison Bergeron" (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html) by Kurt Vonnegut.

:highfive:

[cjs55]

I think an interesting point of that, the most wonderful of anti-egalitarian short stories, is the only person with any power left was the handicapper, and they could only use their power for that one purpose, probably because they were too scared to do anything else.

Nietzche would be saying 'omg christianity' right there.