Freedom vs Equality

[Prometheus85]

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

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

With all do respect jollybear. I refuse to answer your question because it’s not an honest question.

Your questions is a loaded question and is a question with a false and questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.

Since your question is a yes and no answer
there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I choose to be taken care of by government
2. No, I would rather work in order to gain a larger sum of money then this universal income would provide?

Thus, either direct choice entails that I agree with something that I actually don’t agree with.

 

[Shadow Link]

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?

The "individual freedom state" reveals that the problem with the imagined injustice of the "equality state" should be researched from the "mental aptitude state."

 

[Jollybear]

With all do respect jollybear. I refuse to answer your question because it’s not an honest question.

There is no "all due respect" in your statement at all. Dont lie to yourself.

Your questions is a loaded question and is a question with a false and questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.

There is no presupposition that your reading into it. Its just a hypethetical situation with a question attached to it. You can answer one way or the other. Whats so dam hard about that?

Since your question is a yes and no answer
there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I choose to be taken care of by government
2. No, I would rather work in order to gain a larger sum of money then this universal income would provide?

Duh, right, so hurry up and pick one for goodness sakes.

Thus, either direct choice entails that I agree with something that I actually don’t agree with.

No it dont mean you are agreeing with anything "hidden" in the question. It just simply means you choose either to have universal income through government or you choose to work in order to gain more income then the universal amount.

Its not hard man. Which one?

 

[Ponder This]

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?

What about equality of freedoms?
For example, everyone has the same right to speech and no one has more right to speech than anyone else, but they are free to speak.

 

[Audie]

Real freedom requires a sustained state of total anarchy.

Equality requires totalitarian social welfare and justice.

Freedom > Equality.

We believe that there is no freedom without
responsibility.

 

[Audie]

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.

When / how then is wealth generated?

 

[Prometheus85]

There is no "all due respect" in your statement at all. Dont lie to yourself.



There is no presupposition that your reading into it. Its just a hypethetical situation with a question attached to it. You can answer one way or the other. Whats so dam hard about that?


Duh, right, so hurry up and pick one for goodness sakes.



No it dont mean you are agreeing with anything "hidden" in the question. It just simply means you choose either to have universal income through government or you choose to work in order to gain more income then the universal amount.

Its not hard man. Which one?

You still don’t get it. Your question is a trick question, because the way u set it up is in your favor not mines.

For example.

The choice: would you choose to be taken care of by universal income through government is a loaded question, because it presupposes that I want the government to take care of me even tho I never said that. But it’s obvious that’s how u define equality.

And your second choice: would you rather work in order to gain a larger sum of money then this universal income would provide? Is the choice that you you agree with.

So if I choose the first one. It’s gonna make it look like I want government hand outs and if I choose the second one it’s going to make "YOU" look right and me wrong. It’s a lose lose situation for me.

This type of question puts the person who is being questioned in a disadvantageous and defensive position, since the assumption in the question could reflect badly on them or make them feel forced them to pick an answer which they would not pick otherwise.

Which is why I refuse to answer it because it’s an extremely dishonest question.

 

[Jollybear]

You still don’t get it. Your question is a trick question, because the way u set it up is in your favor not mines.

Its only in my favor IF YOUR NOT HONEST in what your trying to tell the world and me in your views. Its as simple as that.

For example.

The choice: would you choose to be taken care of by universal income through government is a loaded question, because it presupposes that I want the government to take care of me even tho I never said that.

It does not presupose i believe you want government to take care of you. Its ASKING YOU if you would want that or want the other choice.

But it’s obvious that’s how u define equality.

The word equality can be used in MANY, MANY contexts. In this case, universal income where everyone gets paid the same, thats called EQUAL INCOME. But the word equality can apply in other areas as well. Like equal opertunity. Equal strength, ect. But, who cares. In this situation, if you had to choose, what would you choose, universal equal income or work to gain more then that income would grant? Its a simple question that requires a simple answer.

And your second choice: would you rather work in order to gain a larger sum of money then this universal income would provide? Is the choice that you you agree with.

And? So what if i agree with that choice? Im proud to admit choosing to work to gain more income then the universal one from government could give me. Why cant you answer the question and be equally proud of your answer?

So if I choose the first one. It’s gonna make it look like I want government hand outs and if I choose the second one it’s going to make "YOU" look right and me wrong. It’s a lose lose situation for me.

No, its not a lose lose situation for you because if you answer honestly and thats your real answer, ok, fine, thats your answer. That dont make you lose. What makes you lose OR WIN is what happens AFTER that. How do you defend your choice being the better over the other. Thats where things get real interesting. But, you waste so much time getting to whats the most interesting.

This type of question puts the person who is being questioned in a disadvantageous and defensive position, since the assumption in the question could reflect badly on them or make them feel forced them to pick an answer which they would not pick otherwise.

Think about it like this: if someone gave me a "trick" question, it would NOT put me in that defensive state because i dont fear questions posed against my view because im confident of my view. Further, if i am wrong, ok, ill change my view.

Which is why I refuse to answer it because it’s an extremely dishonest question.

No, its extremely dishonest AND INSECURE to not answer the question.

 

[osgart]

How about universal basic income provided to only those who choose to work. A lot of important jobs do not make enough to fully support themselves.

And disability for the truly disabled and not loafers.

And stricter policy enforcement.

 

[Sunstone]

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

Please don't be shy Jollybear. If you know of anyone proposing that a condition of receiving a guaranteed income be that one cannot work to earn more than the income alone, by all means, name names an provide links.

 

[Sunstone]

When / how then is wealth generated?

About 70% of the US economy is created by consumer demand, if that's what you're asking. On the other hand, if you are asking for a more profound answer than that, then the key to increasing wealth is to increase productivity. But one needs to be cautious about trying to fit that fact into any ideology -- either of the left or of the right. Increasing productivity to increase wealth in itself says nothing about how that wealth is distributed. Basically how it is distributed is more decided by politics, than by economics.

 

[Shad]

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?

Freedom includes the ability to think people are not equal thus are not treated equal. Forms of equality contradict this hence why there is tension. Freedom does not require equality just a lack of enforced oppression and restrictions place on the individual by an external force.

 

[Audie]

About 70% of the US economy is created by consumer demand, if that's what you're asking. On the other hand, if you are asking for a more profound answer than that, then the key to increasing wealth is to increase productivity. But one needs to be cautious about trying to fit that fact into any ideology -- either of the left or of the right. Increasing productivity to increase wealth in itself says nothing about how that wealth is distributed. Basically how it is distributed is more decided by politics, than by economics.

I was askin' the socio economic sage to whom
I asked that question of to.

 

[Sunstone]

I was askin' the socio economic sage to whom
I asked that question of to.

Ooops! Sorry about that.

 

[Audie]

Ooops! Sorry about that.

No prob, they might read and learn tho the ideology
mist be thick about them.

 

[Sunstone]

When wealth is created, it helps everyone get elavated.

As it happens, that view is superficial and shallow. The creation of wealth only helps to "elevate" everyone if the new wealth is more or less equitably distributed. Contrary to the "wisdom" of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, the creation of wealth does not automatically get more or less equitably distributed. I know of Japanese school children as young as eight years old who understand the truth of what I just said. There is absolutely no excuse for an adult to have a shallow understanding of that truth. No excuse!

(In Japan, they teach economics in grade school, hence the reference to Japanese school children.)

 

[Prometheus85]

Its only in my favor IF YOUR NOT HONEST in what your trying to tell the world and me in your views. Its as simple as that.



It does not presupose i believe you want government to take care of you. Its ASKING YOU if you would want that or want the other choice.



The word equality can be used in MANY, MANY contexts. In this case, universal income where everyone gets paid the same, thats called EQUAL INCOME. But the word equality can apply in other areas as well. Like equal opertunity. Equal strength, ect. But, who cares. In this situation, if you had to choose, what would you choose, universal equal income or work to gain more then that income would grant? Its a simple question that requires a simple answer.



And? So what if i agree with that choice? Im proud to admit choosing to work to gain more income then the universal one from government could give me. Why cant you answer the question and be equally proud of your answer?



No, its not a lose lose situation for you because if you answer honestly and thats your real answer, ok, fine, thats your answer. That dont make you lose. What makes you lose OR WIN is what happens AFTER that. How do you defend your choice being the better over the other. Thats where things get real interesting. But, you waste so much time getting to whats the most interesting.



Think about it like this: if someone gave me a "trick" question, it would NOT put me in that defensive state because i dont fear questions posed against my view because im confident of my view. Further, if i am wrong, ok, ill change my view.



No, its extremely dishonest AND INSECURE to not answer the question.

Cut the bull. You read my OP, so therefore U know my position on freedom and equality.

So why you asking me to make a choice between the two?

You define equality as having universal income provided by the government And freedom as working hard and no government.

The real question should be, how the heck did u come to those beliefs about freedom and equality?

 

[Prometheus85]

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 create jobs argument...

To suggest that the rich (who make up 3% of the population) alone are responsible for the jobs that sustain the other 300 million Americans is the height of self-importance and delusion.

So, if rich people do not create the jobs and what does?

A healthy economic ecosystem - one in which most participants (especially the middle class) have plenty of money to spend.

 

[Jollybear]

Please don't be shy Jollybear. If you know of anyone proposing that a condition of receiving a guaranteed income be that one cannot work to earn more than the income alone, by all means, name names an provide links.

Its a question, not a statement.

If this was the situation what would you choose?

Go ahead.

As it happens, that view is superficial and shallow. The creation of wealth only helps to "elevate" everyone if the new wealth is more or less equitably distributed. Contrary to the "wisdom" of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, the creation of wealth does not automatically get more or less equitably distributed. I know of Japanese school children as young as eight years old who understand the truth of what I just said. There is absolutely no excuse for an adult to have a shallow understanding of that truth. No excuse!

(In Japan, they teach economics in grade school, hence the reference to Japanese school children.)

Yea and just because you say it and its taught to school children dont make it true.

So, how is the wealth equitably distributed?

Also why doesnt it get circulated by sales, wages and the market?

Increasing productivity to increase wealth in itself says nothing about how that wealth is distributed. Basically how it is distributed is more decided by politics, than by economics.

Decided by politics you say? So, wer not free to decide how our money is used?

 

[Jollybear]

Cut the bull. You read my OP, so therefore U know my position on freedom and equality.

Oh yes, but i dont know your position on my question.

Furthermore, your views cannot go unchallenged.

So why you asking me to make a choice between the two?

Because i want to know what your choice would be in that situation.

You define equality as having universal income provided by the government And freedom as working hard and no government.

Thats just one context for the words equality and freedom.

The real question should be, how the heck did u come to those beliefs about freedom and equality?

Ill answer your question once you stop wasting both our times and finally get to answering my question.

The rich create jobs argument...

To suggest that the rich (who make up 3% of the population) alone are responsible for the jobs that sustain the other 300 million Americans is the height of self-importance and delusion.

So, if rich people do not create the jobs and what does?

A healthy economic ecosystem - one in which most participants (especially the middle class) have plenty of money to spend.

And where do the middle class get money to spend? There jobs. And where do they get there jobs? A business man. And how did the business man provide those jobs? Wealth had to be created. Hence, wealth makes the ritch ritcher and the poor get ritcher.