Freedom vs Equality

[Prometheus85]

Freedom and equality exist in the state of tension, but they also mutually dependent on each other's as without freedom equality is meaningless and without equality there will be no real freedom.

Thoughts?

 

[Jollybear]

Freedom and equality exist in the state of tension, but they also mutually dependent on each other's as without freedom equality is meaningless and without equality there will be no real freedom.

Thoughts?

If you HAD TO choose, would you choose to be taken care of by universal income through government, where everyone gets the same income. Or would you rather work in order to gain a larger sum of money then this universal income would provide?

 

[Samana Johann]

Do your work right. No other way.

 

[LiveBetterLife]

Freedom and equality exist in the state of tension, but they also mutually dependent on each other's as without freedom equality is meaningless and without equality there will be no real freedom.

Thoughts?

Real freedom requires a sustained state of total anarchy.

Equality requires totalitarian social welfare and justice.

Freedom > Equality.

 

[LiveBetterLife]

Excellent thread.

 

[Prometheus85]

If you HAD TO choose, would you choose to be taken care of by universal income through government, where everyone gets the same income. Or would you rather work in order to gain a larger sum of money then this universal income would provide?

How do u define equality and freedom?

 

[Jollybear]

How do u define equality and freedom?

I asked you a question first.

 

[Prometheus85]

I asked you a question first.

I need to know how you define the two I’m order to better understand your question...

As you can see in my op I said without freedom equality is meaningless and without equality there will be no real freedom.

So why are u asking me to choose between the two?

 

[Jollybear]

I need to know how you define the two I’m order to better understand your question...

As you can see in my op I said without freedom equality is meaningless and without equality there will be no real freedom.

So why are u asking me to choose between the two?

My question is straight forward, is not hid under any euphemism. Its clear and easy to comprehend. A child could understand it.

Answer it and ill then answer your question.

 

[Sunstone]

If you HAD TO choose, would you choose to be taken care of by universal income through government, where everyone gets the same income. Or would you rather work in order to gain a larger sum of money then this universal income would provide?

No one is proposing that. All proposed Universal Guaranteed Income programs allow people to both work and receive a UGI, if that's what they want to do. You might as well be asking whether you favor roasting marshmallows or hotdogs over your campfire on Mars.

 

[LiveBetterLife]

without equality there will be no real freedom.

If you look at things from a transcendent, rather than an anthropocentric point of view, inequality is intrinsic to true freedom and not necessarily an ugly or undesirable state of affairs.

 

[Sunstone]

Demanding equality can be a way of knocking down the rich and powerful who would otherwise rob you of your freedoms. Freedom and equality can thus be compatible.

 

[LiveBetterLife]

Demanding equality can be a way of knocking down the rich and powerful who would otherwise rob you of your freedoms. Freedom and equality can thus be compatible.

Disagreed.

 

[Jollybear]

No one is proposing that. All proposed Universal Guaranteed Income programs allow people to both work and receive a UGI, if that's what they want to do. You might as well be asking whether you favor roasting marshmallows or hotdogs over your campfire on Mars.

No one? You may not, but i dont know if no one is.

 

[Prometheus85]

My question is straight forward, is not hid under any euphemism. Its clear and easy to comprehend. A child could understand it.

Answer it and ill then answer your question.

It is indeed a loaded question. Because not only are you not being clear in your question, you’re also assume equality means government taking care of people and freedom means less government and people working hard until they hit jack pot with no evidence to back up those assumptions whatsoever.


You’re also trying to get me to admit to an opinion or fact that I do not share.

 

[sun rise]

Freedom and equality exist in the state of tension, but they also mutually dependent on each other's as without freedom equality is meaningless and without equality there will be no real freedom.

There word "equality" can mean many things. Equal outcomes can be utterly separate from equal opportunity. Equal opportunity and freedom are totally linked because if you don't have equal opportunity, freedom is restricted.

Equal opportunity insists that the children of the super rich should not have uncounted amounts of greater freedom than the children of the very poor.

 

[Jollybear]

Demanding equality can be a way of knocking down the rich and powerful who would otherwise rob you of your freedoms. Freedom and equality can thus be compatible.

Why knock down the ritch to help the poor? That then makes both the ritch and poor more poor. Why not elavate the poor to where the ritch are?

If it wernt for the ritch, the poor would be even poorer.

Its not "the ritch get ritcher and the poor get poorer. No, the ritch get ritcher and the poor get ritcher.

When wealth is created, it helps everyone get elavated.

 

[Jollybear]

It is indeed a loaded question. Because not only are you not being clear in your question, you’re also assume equality means government taking care of people and freedom means less government and people working hard until they hit jack pot with no evidence to back up those assumptions whatsoever.


You’re also trying to get me to admit to an opinion or fact that I do not share.

Dude, your reading into the question way more then whats in it.

Its a simple question. Answer it and ill answer yours.

 

[sun rise]

Why knock down the ritch to help the poor? That then makes both the ritch and poor more poor. Why not elavate the poor to where the ritch are?

If it wernt for the ritch, the poor would be even poorer.

Its not "the ritch get ritcher and the poor get poorer. No, the ritch get ritcher and the poor get ritcher.

When wealth is created, it helps everyone get elavated.

The rich get tax breaks while the poor get screwed by cuts to programs that help them. That is not wealth creation - it's wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

The same process is happening in corporations where executives get higher and higher salaries while benefits are cut to workers. Wealth transfer to the rich.

If you work hard for a living your income is taxed at a higher rate than the rich who have people invest in stocks for them. More wealth transfer to the rich.

 

[Jollybear]

The rich get tax breaks while the poor get screwed by cuts to programs that help them. That is not wealth creation - it's wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

Then the poor that work should get tax breaks as well as the ritch.

The same process is happening in corporations where executives get higher and higher salaries while benefits are cut to workers. Wealth transfer to the rich.

The poor can move up the ladder.

If you work hard for a living your income is taxed at a higher rate than the rich who have people invest in stocks for them. More wealth transfer to the rich.

I dont know much about stocks, but i do know the more you earn, the higher percent in tax you must pay. Thats how it currently is. Although i disagree with it. I think it should be a fair flat tax. In fact, not even an income tax. Abolish income tax for ritch and poor.