free and equal?

[Cloud No.9]

i was talking to a man a few days ago and i said i want eqaulity in this world moe than anything. to that he said he found freedom more important. it occured to me that often enough it has been said that they cannot exist together.

why can't freedom and equality co-exist?

is it impossible in this world to be fre and equal?


do you have to be above someone else to be free? do you have to be restrained to be equal? is freedom bought? is it prejudiced? is equality restrictive? is it binding?

is freedom ineqaulity? or is equality oppression?

can you even have equality without freedom? how can you be free if you are not equal?

your thoughts please.

[jrgen]

I can't see the connection between the two.

[Shadow Nexus]

How do you define equality and how do you define freedom? Total freedom is impossible, as is total equality (I mean, we have our limitations as humans, no one can deny that).

If equality was total, of course, freedom would be impossible. If you are just like the guy next door in all senses, then you have no real individuality, because distintions between one and the other are not present. You would become...pointless. Of course, this is impossible to acomplish.

If by equality you mean equal economical income, then well...I don't see how freedom is impossible. Oh, wait, you don't have the freedom to have a gigantic mansion near the beach!

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Complete equality is the idea behind socialism and it does destroy freedom because it forces everyone to be the same, taking away the freedom to move ahead in life if one so desires. Complete freedom is anarchy, I don't think I need to go into that too much. People prefer different things, I'm generally more "freedom" oriented myself but I feel there needs to be a balance of both.

[themagicroundabout]

freedom without limits is just a word

[tomamar04]

Freedom and equality cannot exist because rich nations such as USA, Uk, Japan take thousands of pounds a day from poor countries. And everyone has a grudge aginst someone.

[Cruise Control]

It is human nature to seek to be free. But the higher up in the foodchain you go, the more freedom you have, but you are no longer equal to those below you. So my thoughts tell me no.

It is from questions like thise that created communism.
"How do we let them be free and equal at the same time?"
"Easy, we pick a dictator, and take all that they have away from them. If noone has anything, they are equal and they are always free in their poverty"

[jrgen]

Of course both equality and freedom are impossible in their total forms,
but equal 'initial rights'(both social and economical) do not make the
existence of the freedom defined by popular opinion impossible.

[Raistlin]

No, they cannot coexist - not in the sense most people mean, anyways.

Equality, as most people consider it, is knocking everyone down the same playing field, forcing the great to be mediocre, and letting everything stagnate. But people are not equal. Minds are not equal. There is a social system designed around equality: communism.

Freedom is, as I see it, the ultimate equality - the equality of the mind. You are judged on your own merits, and your own mind. You are free to excel as far as your mind and your efforts are able. The people who want to stagnate can stagnate, but cannot leech off the rest. There is a social system designed around freedom: capitalism.

Do you think capitalism and communism can coexist?

[Sasquatch]

I don't believe equality in itself is anything to strive for. Equality in freedom, yes, equality alone, no. Though all men are created equal, some choose to be less than other men, and some choose to strive to be more. Though we all have the same opportunities--that's freedom and equality--we do not all make the same thing out of them, or sometimes nothing at all.

EDIT: Well said, Raistlin.

[jrgen]

There is a social system designed around freedom: capitalism.

No, that is anarchism. A free society is a society without any restrictions. In a true capitalism only the market is necessarily free. Sure, you would have no government, but the creating of restrictions would still be present, just in the hands of the corporations instead of the non-existent state. The fact that a capitalism is merely a collection of individuals without any political connections makes such a "society" just as impossible as a communism. The only difference between the two is that a true communism is an utopian society, while a true capitalism would just be a crappy place to live in.

we all have the same opportunities--that's freedom and equality

And where would this place of equality and freedom be?
I would surely like to move there.

[Cloud No.9]

captalism does not gurantee freedom. neither does it gurantee equality.

go to ethiopia as a tourist. go to a 5 star hotel and sip champagne and look at what capatlism buys you. then take a 50 mile drive down the road and see what else it buys you. it buys you 11 million dead from poverty alone. freedom in death.

we do not have the same oppurtunities. in america i would not be able to get where i am today. my parents could not afford glasgow university if it was not paid for for me. it would be too expensive. but i am given this oppurtunity. which could actually shape my life, my conditions, career. and this depended purely on my grades. not on what my parents could afford.

what equality really counts for is education. what education you receive is not based on merits at all. it is based upon your parents merits. so some people will never get a good chance in life, their options and future may well be over before they have had the chance proof themself.

do not bind a man to his income or his family's income, free him from it and give him room to succede.

that in my mind is freedom and equality.

communism and capatalism can met. it's called socialism.

[Shadow Nexus]

I am amazed at how many people consider economical equality a symbol of mediocrity. You mean poor people are mediocre? What the hell? You count the success of a person on basis on how much he or she has earned through his life? And that is freedom? For God's sake, think about what you people are saying for a moment. The day I am asked to name succesfull people and I say "Bill Gates", please, shoot me in the head.

[Cloud No.9]

it is a sad fact that these days many people seem to judge a man purely by the amount of cash in his wallet.

has being poor became the new being black, jewish or communist?

it's a grim thought that these days people are prejudice against a man dependant on his bank account.

is this really freedom? becauase it certainly isn't equality?

and why can't we have both?

[Raistlin]

No, that is anarchism. A free society is a society without any restrictions. In a true capitalism only the market is necessarily free. Sure, you would have no government, but the creating of restrictions would still be present, just in the hands of the corporations instead of the non-existent state. The fact that a capitalism is merely a collection of individuals without any political connections makes such a "society" just as impossible as a communism. The only difference between the two is that a true communism is an utopian society, while a true capitalism would just be a crappy place to live in.

Anarchy is a form of government. Capitalism is a societal formation. Apples and oranges, my friend.
Also, true communism would be a bloody horrible place to live. I have the right to live my own life - yet communism condemns that as evil, and capitalism hails that as just. I know which one I'd choose.

captalism does not gurantee freedom. neither does it gurantee equality.

Capitalism does not guarantee equality, which is a good thing in my book. But it does guarantee freedom: the freedom of choice, the freedom to live your own live, with your own mind, by your own efforts and products of those efforts. Just to point out, the US social system is not true capitalism.

we do not have the same oppurtunities. in america i would not be able to get where i am today. my parents could not afford glasgow university if it was not paid for for me. it would be too expensive. but i am given this oppurtunity. which could actually shape my life, my conditions, career. and this depended purely on my grades. not on what my parents could afford.

We cannot control from whom and where we are born. Freedom is the ability of choice. If you uphold that virtue, then where you are born is irrelevent, as is what other people have.

I am amazed at how many people consider economical equality a symbol of mediocrity. You mean poor people are mediocre? What the hell? You count the success of a person on basis on how much he or she has earned through his life? And that is freedom? For God's sake, think about what you people are saying for a moment. The day I am asked to name succesfull people and I say "Bill Gates", please, shoot me in the head.

I did not say that monetary product was the only possible product of one's efforts. Anyone who exercises their mind and lives by the efforts of their own life and mind gets some sort of product(if not tangible) for their efforts. By "stagnate," I meant by evading the effort of thought or action, living purely in the routine, and blaming everyone above them for their own "lack of opportunities."

and why can't we have both?

We can't have both because, just as communism is the antithesis of capitalism, so is external equality the antithesis of external freedom.