Full Version: What freedom counts?
Hi, I've been reading a thread here about whether pure equality is right (or something along those lines) and it struck me that there seems to be an acceptance that economic freedom - or the freedom to make as much money as you can, more accurately - seems to be accepted as the main form of freedom someone can have. Since the poster who initated the discussion led from that perspective that's fair enough.
However, it seems to me that in a more general sense, people sacrifice some freedoms in favour of other freedoms, so I'd like to know whether there are freedoms that you consider more important than economic freedom as defined by raking in as much cash with as little impediemnt as you can manage?
However, it seems to me that in a more general sense, people sacrifice some freedoms in favour of other freedoms, so I'd like to know whether there are freedoms that you consider more important than economic freedom as defined by raking in as much cash with as little impediemnt as you can manage?
QUOTE(aines @ Jul 30 2003, 07:03 AM)
Hi, I've been reading a thread here about whether pure equality is right (or something along those lines) and it struck me that there seems to be an acceptance that economic freedom - or the freedom to make as much money as you can, more accurately - seems to be accepted as the main form of freedom someone can have. Since the poster who initated the discussion led from that perspective that's fair enough.
However, it seems to me that in a more general sense, people sacrifice some freedoms in favour of other freedoms, so I'd like to know whether there are freedoms that you consider more important than economic freedom as defined by raking in as much cash with as little impediemnt as you can manage?
However, it seems to me that in a more general sense, people sacrifice some freedoms in favour of other freedoms, so I'd like to know whether there are freedoms that you consider more important than economic freedom as defined by raking in as much cash with as little impediemnt as you can manage?
I think that I am the poster that you are referring to. I think you have me wrong, I think that economic freedom, while very important, is only just as important as personal freedom.
CP
Well, I didn't really mean to take one person's view specifically, it just occured to me that there was no discussion about what freedoms might be compromised by focussing on economic freedom, there was just this general acceptance that if you do not have complete economic freedom then you don't have freedom at all.
Since it was coming to a discussion between socialism and capitalism, I was wondering why no-one was asking which freedoms would be better served by socialism and whether they were worth having if economic freedom was compromised.
Just curious, why do you consider personal and economic freedom to be equal?
Since it was coming to a discussion between socialism and capitalism, I was wondering why no-one was asking which freedoms would be better served by socialism and whether they were worth having if economic freedom was compromised.
Just curious, why do you consider personal and economic freedom to be equal?
QUOTE(aines @ Jul 30 2003, 08:37 AM)
Well, I didn't really mean to take one person's view specifically, it just occured to me that there was no discussion about what freedoms might be compromised by focussing on economic freedom, there was just this general acceptance that if you do not have complete economic freedom then you don't have freedom at all.
Since it was coming to a discussion between socialism and capitalism, I was wondering why no-one was asking which freedoms would be better served by socialism and whether they were worth having if economic freedom was compromised.
Just curious, why do you consider personal and economic freedom to be equal?
Since it was coming to a discussion between socialism and capitalism, I was wondering why no-one was asking which freedoms would be better served by socialism and whether they were worth having if economic freedom was compromised.
Just curious, why do you consider personal and economic freedom to be equal?
Because while personal freedoms can be sacrifised for say, security, ect., economic freedom is needed, money is needed [I know I'm sounding materialistic right now, but here me out.] to support a family, to buy things nessesary for life to go on. Unfortunately, money is a nessesary evil, without it we cannot support ourselves or others.
CP
I think it seems that each party picks and chooses the freedoms that pertain (well maybe excepting libertarians) that they feel most strongly about and bases their "platform" on those freedoms.
For me, personal freedoms that effect the greater community (speech, religion, voting - I would consider voting a "freedom" for this discussion, etc.) are of more "value" than economic freedoms. To others, the opposite is true. It's all a matter of perspective. Some do seem to think certain freedoms are more important across the board, though.
Sorry, I can't seem to add anything else to this right now (my daughter smacked me right in the face with a hard headed baby doll while she was trying to get out of bed, so I think my brain is a little shaken up
). I will come back and add more if I think of anything else once my brain settles.
For me, personal freedoms that effect the greater community (speech, religion, voting - I would consider voting a "freedom" for this discussion, etc.) are of more "value" than economic freedoms. To others, the opposite is true. It's all a matter of perspective. Some do seem to think certain freedoms are more important across the board, though.
Sorry, I can't seem to add anything else to this right now (my daughter smacked me right in the face with a hard headed baby doll while she was trying to get out of bed, so I think my brain is a little shaken up
). I will come back and add more if I think of anything else once my brain settles.
Kmsouthern, I hope you are OK! I would tend to agree with you that personal freedoms are more important than economic ones, I suppose as you say, it's a matter of personal taste, but I am very interested to know what the rationale behind opinions other than mine is!
Conservpat, I agree, you do need a certain amount of money to guarantee freedom. But imagine a basic income scenario, where everyone started out with just enough (but not more) to secure a decent (but not extravagant) life. Under those circumstances, I personally would think that the freedoms available to people would far outweigh the financial curtailments that would be necessary.
It seems to me that prioritising economic freedom above all others actually creates a tyrant for every person in a society to live under, particularly where terms like 'hardworking' and 'industrious' are taken as a shorthand for 'decent' and 'honourable'. It seems to me that many people have traded in their right to a fulfilled life in order to make money for other people.
Conservpat, I agree, you do need a certain amount of money to guarantee freedom. But imagine a basic income scenario, where everyone started out with just enough (but not more) to secure a decent (but not extravagant) life. Under those circumstances, I personally would think that the freedoms available to people would far outweigh the financial curtailments that would be necessary.
It seems to me that prioritising economic freedom above all others actually creates a tyrant for every person in a society to live under, particularly where terms like 'hardworking' and 'industrious' are taken as a shorthand for 'decent' and 'honourable'. It seems to me that many people have traded in their right to a fulfilled life in order to make money for other people.
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 30 2003, 08:39 AM)
while personal freedoms can be sacrifised for say, security, ect., economic freedom is needed, money is needed [I know I'm sounding materialistic right now, but here me out.] to support a family, to buy things nessesary for life to go on. Unfortunately, money is a nessesary evil, without it we cannot support ourselves or others.
I take exactly the opposite view. Curtailing economic freedom does not mean throwing everyone onto the street and letting them starve to death. IMO personal freedoms - e.g. free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion - are far more important than economic freedom. I don't think I'm alone in that, either; I think it's why personal freedoms are protected by the Bill of Rights while economic freedom is never even mentioned. Wage/price controls, even rationing, would be much less offensive than the wholesale attack on personal rights that we've been seeing lately.
QUOTE(aines @ Jul 30 2003, 08:56 AM)
Kmsouthern, I hope you are OK! I would tend to agree with you that personal freedoms are more important than economic ones, I suppose as you say, it's a matter of personal taste, but I am very interested to know what the rationale behind opinions other than mine is!
Conservpat, I agree, you do need a certain amount of money to guarantee freedom. But imagine a basic income scenario, where everyone started out with just enough (but not more) to secure a decent (but not extravagant) life. Under those circumstances, I personally would think that the freedoms available to people would far outweigh the financial curtailments that would be necessary.
It seems to me that prioritising economic freedom above all others actually creates a tyrant for every person in a society to live under, particularly where terms like 'hardworking' and 'industrious' are taken as a shorthand for 'decent' and 'honourable'. It seems to me that many people have traded in their right to a fulfilled life in order to make money for other people.
Conservpat, I agree, you do need a certain amount of money to guarantee freedom. But imagine a basic income scenario, where everyone started out with just enough (but not more) to secure a decent (but not extravagant) life. Under those circumstances, I personally would think that the freedoms available to people would far outweigh the financial curtailments that would be necessary.
It seems to me that prioritising economic freedom above all others actually creates a tyrant for every person in a society to live under, particularly where terms like 'hardworking' and 'industrious' are taken as a shorthand for 'decent' and 'honourable'. It seems to me that many people have traded in their right to a fulfilled life in order to make money for other people.
I see where you're coming from, however setting up total equality would be rewarding not nessesarily hardworking people with money they don't earn. I think I'm going off topic, sorry administration. Aines, we have another thread going on "Is perfect equality fair?" I'll debate you there if you want.
CP
I agree with KMsouthern that personal freedoms are more important, but accept that economic freedom is needed as well. people should get money (or reward of some sort) we don't really have economic freedom though (at least how aines defines it) because not every one is able to "rake in the dough" and under capitalism we have no real economic freedom. you either start out fairly well of, or get lucky. most americans are barely scraping by at the age of twenty and they end up in "survive mode" and are so busy trying to just get by they can't make tons of money, which is what I get people define as economic freedom.
capitalism also tends trample personal freedoms. wal-mart, for instance, shut down their entire meat cutting department (in ALL stores) when the workers at one store tried standing up for themselves and making a union. it laid all it's meat cutters off, and started buying meat from outside
and this isn't the first time big companies have tried trampling workers rights. (think 1930's america's union riots, or current day third world plants, such as Nike)
in conclusion, I feel that first your personal freedoms are far more important then being able to earn obscene amounts of money, which some people (bill gates for example) will never be able to spend completely.
capitalism also tends trample personal freedoms. wal-mart, for instance, shut down their entire meat cutting department (in ALL stores) when the workers at one store tried standing up for themselves and making a union. it laid all it's meat cutters off, and started buying meat from outside
QUOTE
The only union success at a Wal-Mart branch was short-lived. In 2000, staff in the butcher's department at a store in Jacksonville, Texas, voted to join the UFCW. Shortly afterwards, in what Wal-Mart insists was an unrelated move, it closed the department.
Wal-Mart 'is anti-union and has used sweatshops' Wal-Mart Butchers Force Anti-Union Retailer to Eat Crow (July 7, 2003) Wal-Mart's Texas union-busting tactics and this isn't the first time big companies have tried trampling workers rights. (think 1930's america's union riots, or current day third world plants, such as Nike)
in conclusion, I feel that first your personal freedoms are far more important then being able to earn obscene amounts of money, which some people (bill gates for example) will never be able to spend completely.
Hi Aines, Welcome to the debate!
I feel that economic freedom is the basis for other kinds of freedom. The very indigent of the world have very little freedom, even if their government does not restrict their freedom, per se.
Who is concerned about free speech or freedom of religion when they are mired in poverty?
Now I would not phrase it as "freedom to make as much money as you can" but as a freedom to keep the fruits of your labors. Without the freedom to keep what you earn, all other freedoms seem trivial.
I feel that economic freedom is the basis for other kinds of freedom. The very indigent of the world have very little freedom, even if their government does not restrict their freedom, per se.
Who is concerned about free speech or freedom of religion when they are mired in poverty?
Now I would not phrase it as "freedom to make as much money as you can" but as a freedom to keep the fruits of your labors. Without the freedom to keep what you earn, all other freedoms seem trivial.
I can not comprehend how economic freedom is being thought of as being separate from personal freedom.
To me, your definition would be akin to defining religious freedom as the ability to do anything you want as long as your religion says it is OK. Through such a definition, people could decide religious freedom is a bad thing. That would be a poor conclusion.
QUOTE
I'd like to know whether there are freedoms that you consider more important than economic freedom as defined by raking in as much cash with as little impediemnt as you can manage?
I do see your definition. I would define economic freedom as the ability to engage in trades with others without the interference of a third party. Your definition puts an extreme color on the term which leads to poor conclusions. I do not have a desire to rake in as much cash as I possibly can but I do have a desire to earn money and spend it as I wish without it being taken from me by a third party.To me, your definition would be akin to defining religious freedom as the ability to do anything you want as long as your religion says it is OK. Through such a definition, people could decide religious freedom is a bad thing. That would be a poor conclusion.
Hi Amlord, and thanks!
I didn't really want to think very much about absoloute poverty and freedom - which I know is a terrible cop out! - I just want to understand what freedoms people see as prior to others where all things are equal. Economic freedom (which seems always to be just for some) appears to me to impede important freedoms such as the right to live as you see fit, and I wonder why there is so much stress on one freedom to the exclusion of others.
Grey Seal, when you say that you 'have a desire to earn money and spend it as I wish without it being taken from me by a third party', is that an objection to any kind of taxation?
I didn't really want to think very much about absoloute poverty and freedom - which I know is a terrible cop out! - I just want to understand what freedoms people see as prior to others where all things are equal. Economic freedom (which seems always to be just for some) appears to me to impede important freedoms such as the right to live as you see fit, and I wonder why there is so much stress on one freedom to the exclusion of others.
Grey Seal, when you say that you 'have a desire to earn money and spend it as I wish without it being taken from me by a third party', is that an objection to any kind of taxation?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.