Freedom vs. Equality

[dyanaprajna2011]

This is something I've been thinking about for awhile, so I decided to post my thoughts and see what other people think about it.

Think about this: freedom and equality cannot co-exist. At least not absolute freedom and absolute equality. If you try to have both, at least one is going to suffer deficiency. I think the best example, and the one I've put thought into, is capitalism versus socialism. Capitalism believes in the complete freedom of people to make their own economic choices without any help from the government, to make as much money as they can, in whatever way they can that doesn't go against the law (even though people still try to circumvent this). Socialism believes that all people should make about the same amount of money, while making sure that everyone has at least the basic necessities for life. (And I do realize these 'definitions' are oversimplifications, but they serve the purpose for this discussion)

Now, capitalism, by it's very nature, leads to a caste system that separates the rich from the poor. This leads to inequality. Socialism leads to a person not being able to make as much as they can, having to share it with the less fortunate. This leads to less freedom. Now, this is just one example, from economics; there are many other examples I could give, such as religious. But I think it gets my point across.

So, the question is, is there any way to reconcile the two? Can we have both complete freedom and complete equality, or are the two mutually exclusive? If we cannot have it both ways, which one is better, and why?

 

[9Westy9]

we might do one day. We'll need new systems though

 

[Falvlun]

So, the question is, is there any way to reconcile the two? Can we have both complete freedom and complete equality, or are the two mutually exclusive? If we cannot have it both ways, which one is better, and why?

I don't think they are mutually exclusive, since in some cases, freedom is enhanced by equality (for example, abolishing slavery) and equality is enhanced by freedom (capitalistic notions which allow you to move up a ladder, rather than being stuck at one point.)

I'm not sure if we can have absolute freedom or absolute equality. Actually, absolute freedom seems impossible in and of itself: If I have the freedom to go kill people, then you don't have the freedom to walk outside without fear. Absolute equality seems a bit impossible too, since after all, people are born with different talents and predispositions from the get-go.

I think the best we can do is find the best mixture of the two, which is what modern cultures are attempting to do. We're trying to get the percentage right; but we probably aren't quite there yet.

If I had to choose between one or the other, I think I'd go freedom. Even with the worst excesses of freedom, there is still the hope that you could change your own predicament. With the worst excesses of equality, there is stagnation, and the hopelessness that comes with it.

 

[Octavia156]

I think absolute equality is impossible and not something that is utopian or to be desired in any way. Aiming to make everyone equal is pointless, idealistic and childish

If we were all the same there'd be no evolution. We are simply not born equal to each other, we all display unique characteristics and tendencies which make absolute equality inconceiveable.

We should be aiming for Freedom and Equality of Opportunity, where everyone's able to make free choices and is not restricted from attaining any goal.

You can't force it though.. people make choices that have consequences. some people people are born poor and die rich, some people are born rich and die poor, some people work their ***** off, some epople are cowards, some people take risks, some are lucky, some are stupid.
human variation is simply not compatible with absolute equality, therefore I'd take any position that promotes freedom, even if it does lead to an unequal society. as long as opportunity is there for all thats all that is important.

 

[Taka]

I think this is pretty much what most political ideology boil down to: The conflict between freedom and equality (or the well being of people in general). Everybody draws the line between the two at different places, placing different levels of importance on each thing.

I think a mixed economy is the only way to sustain a society in the long run, so complete freedom and equality is out of the question. Capitalism is the best way of generating wealth, but elements of socialism are good once you recognize that certain services should not be left completely to the free market. Certain government regulations are preferable as well.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think both 'freedom' AND 'equality' are over emphasised; instead it should be 'common respect' and 'equity'

 

[Mathematician]

Fairness seems more of an institutional concern than either,

 

[Mister Emu]

Think about this: freedom and equality cannot co-exist. At least not absolute freedom and absolute equality. If you try to have both, at least one is going to suffer deficiency. I think the best example, and the one I've put thought into, is capitalism versus socialism.

I think, especially with the situation you use, that there are two separate forms of equality. Equality of outcome(as you show with your "socialism") and that of opportunity(found in capitalism, where there is nothing legally holding you back from improving your situation).

 

[Sunstone]

I think, especially with the situation you use, that there are two separate forms of equality. Equality of outcome(as you show with your "socialism") and that of opportunity(found in capitalism, where there is nothing legally holding you back from improving your situation).

So far as I know, Mr. Emu, socialism has nothing to do with bringing about "equality of outcome." Instead, socialism is about who owns the means of production. I think you have fallen victim to some misinformation.

 

[Sunstone]

Ironically, absolute freedom is most likely to end in tyranny. Give people unrestrained freedom to compete with each other and a process of winnowing out the weaker people will take place -- after which one or a few people will rise above the rest and end up holding all the power. In effect, tyranny.

The antidote to that scenario is action taken to restore some measure of equality between people, instead of allowing a few to dominate the vast majority of people.

Thus, it can be seen that the freedom of the majority of people ironically depends on equality.

 

[Storm]

I think, especially with the situation you use, that there are two separate forms of equality. Equality of outcome(as you show with your "socialism") and that of opportunity(found in capitalism, where there is nothing legally holding you back from improving your situation).

Pure capitalism introduces a plethora of institutional hurdles having nothing to do with law.

Also, as Sunstone mentioned, your definition of socialism is totally off.

 

[zenzero]

Friend dhyanaprajna,

Freedom vs. Equality

The ideal situation is total freedom and equality.
This is only possible when individually and collectively humans are free from thoughts and only then true freedom is realized and automatically due to absence of thoughts equality too comes on its own.
Existence is balanced always in harmony and every being is free and equal and lives in harmony but it is the human mind [thoughts] that makes things unequal and deprive other beings of their freedom to be. They are killed, butchered, put in captivity etc. etc. So we have zoos instead of forests. We have pets. Now only humans see the world through the eyes of satan and forgot how it can be balanced.

Love & rgds

 

[Guerilla]

Think about this: freedom and equality cannot co-exist. At least not absolute freedom and absolute equality.

Freedom and equality are subjective ideas, and in order to protect the freedom of the many you sometimes need to curtail the freedom of the few, i.e. curtailing the freedom of the government to pass laws.

The worst sort of equality is also that which tries to make the unequal 'equal' through social engineering. This is also an obstacle to freedom.

 

[nnmartin]

For sure, capitalism does not produce equality for all, but only 'equality for those that can afford it'.

Strangely enough, this is very much like the maxim from Animal Farm in which it was said 'everyone is equal but some are more equal than others', referring to Stalin.

Equality of Opportunity does not work either because these supposed opportunities are only open to those with the correct attributes whether they be skills, aptitudes, personal dispositions or physical features.

The only way to try to move towards freedom and equality at the same time is to attack the greed within the individual.

Capitalism feeds off greed - this is why it works. But it also encourages more greed and ends up in its own vicious circle of bigotry, arrogance, segregation and war.

All major industries should be nationalised.

A private market may exist but there would have to be a maximum wage, over which any profits would need to go back to the State.

I believe a system of this kind will gradually develop as the world finally wakes up to its culture of avarice, baseness and destruction of the soul.

 

[Mister Emu]

So far as I know, Mr. Emu, socialism has nothing to do with bringing about "equality of outcome." Instead, socialism is about who owns the means of production. I think you have fallen victim to some misinformation.

That is why I put socialism in quotations... I know that socialism isn't about equality of outcome.

from the OP " Socialism believes that all people should make about the same amount of money".

 

[Storm]

That is why I put socialism in quotations... I know that socialism isn't about equality of outcome.

from the OP " Socialism believes that all people should make about the same amount of money".

Ah, sorry.