That's very true, I'm not saying they haven't helped create a better environment for freedom and equality to flourish. Like you said they've done great things actually, I was just trying to get it, to a point before people feel someone's infringed on their own beliefs. I know those acts, at least as of today, hasn't actually infringed on anyone's right to believe what they want, not sure how people felt when they were first passed but yeah. It was a bit hasty to say that I think social order can led to bad, but I guess to better phrase it. There can only be so much before you have public outrage, so much in the US but other parts of the world.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Which is most important to you? Freedom, Equality, or Order?
- Thread starter IconBasser
- Start date
That's very true, I'm not saying they haven't helped create a better environment for freedom and equality to flourish. Like you said they've done great things actually, I was just trying to get it, to a point before people feel someone's infringed on their own beliefs. I know those acts, at least as of today, hasn't actually infringed on anyone's right to believe what they want, not sure how people felt when they were first passed but yeah. It was a bit hasty to say that I think social order can led to bad, but I guess to better phrase it. There can only be so much before you have public outrage, so much in the US but other parts of the world.
There needs to be a balance between the three aspects of society. That balance changes from time to time. Asking to choose one of them is - to me - a meaningless question, since none of the three are a positive influence on society when allowed to reign unchecked.
Therefore, I voted Carrots. People have to eat!
Therefore, I voted Carrots. People have to eat!
Corporations that suck tend to change or shut down over time. I've never been oppressed by a corporation. Government can and does oppress as it has a monopoly on the use of force [police power]. In other words, if I don't like my cell phone provider, I can change providers, but if the Federal Government decides it will take 50% or more of my income or tell me that I have no rights to use my land as I see fit, I'm SOL. When is the last time a corporation oppressed a population and murdered tens of millions of people like Mao?
I'll take the free market [people being paid to fill wants and needs] over government authoritarianism most of the time. And yes, I know we need both; it's the balance we're talking about.
Oh yeah, some here have created a false choice. The OP's question is not to pick one at the total expense of the others. The OP simply asked for our priorities IIRC.
We've had a very high standard of living in this Constitutional Republic [not just in material things] because our founding documents and philosophy for the most part prioritized liberty first.
H. L. Mencken said:
Benjamin Franklin said:
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
A representative gov't and an authoritarian gov't are two different things. Living under a regime is bad, we agree. Living under a gov't that openly recognizes it owes its power to you gives you certain rights to control how that gov't distributes the liberties you submit to it temporarily.
And the reason that corporations don't have more power to do more damage than they already do is because of our gov't limiting them. Corporations rarely outright murder people, but they do frequently harm the public.
The free market isn't free. It would exploit you for profit and then leave you dead, having sucked whatever it can from you and having sold you dangerous goods. We agree that checks are necessary. We just disagree on how and where they should be.
Fair enough. I like the order that allows for freedom and equality.
And because we've had the dumb luck of being in the right place at the right time to benefit from a war 60 years ago that staged us as one of two superpowers, which we've managed to exploit successfully, largely at the cost of other nations and their citizens.
The founding documents were, in fact, restrictions on freedom. The Constitution itself establishes the "Order" that is the U.S. governemnt. Again, ORDER doesn't look as welcoming when printed under the American flag.
I still call choosing one over the other the actual false choice. I don't believe any one is more important than the other, so long as all three are present in a way that fits the populace best (i.e. my food/water example earlier).
Mike
mike_v_s said:
They were restrictions on government for the most part.
Unrepresented said:
The vast majority of businesses do well when they please people in some way. Pleasing people generally doesn't involve leaving them for dead.
Yes, but so much power centralized in one "place" makes for inefficient and and increasingly corrupt institutions.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the federal government and lays the groundwork for the state governments. The document outlines the government's powers and, by extension, takes those powers from the citizenry as well as making the citizens answerable to the government. The Constritution's purpose and design wasn't to restrict, but to create. The first 10 Amendments, or Afterthoughts as I like to call them, were restrictions added only when they had to be.
Mike
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
The entire crux of this discussion is based around what you think people should be entitled to as citizens. We can settle for what we have, or we can try and improve it by demanding safer, better, and more accountable producers.
Do chemical companies have a right to pollute the earth, air, and water? Some people are satisfied with their products.
Do cell phone companies have a right to contribute to wars in Africa because that's where materials they currently need are located? Some people are satisfied with their products.
Do manufacturers have a right to outsource their labor at the expense of American workers? Some people are still satisfied with their products.
I'm not asking for specific answers, I'm just trying to establish that gov't's are here at the consent of the people, no matter how much they try and convince you otherwise. Corportations by current legislation are here to steal from us, flat and simple. They're at best "necessary evils."
Only if you're voting for the wrong politician.
To be fair, the crux of this discussion is a question with no true answer that people keep answering.
Mike
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
While there may not be a big textbook in the sky with one of these marked correct in its back pages, there is a choice that would be preferable to most people given sufficient education and discussion.
I'd like to think it would be mine, but then again, I'm full of myself.
See, and I think that the more education one has, the more they would have to realize that, regardless of the proportions, all three must be present (if even to perpetuate eachother) and that fact negates the primacy of any one. But I like restating the same thing multiple times and am full of both myself and BS in varying proportions.While there may not be a big textbook in the sky with one of these marked correct in its back pages, there is a choice that would be preferable to most people given sufficient education and discussion.
I'd like to think it would be mine, but then again, I'm full of myself.
Mike
Needs some bacon....
Oh, and carrots appear to be more important to people than order or equality
Needs some bacon....
Oh, and carrots appear to be more important to people than order or equality
well, thay are pretty healthy after all...
I choose freedom, because without freedom you can't have equality. I don't see it as an either/or, I see it as freedom being a prerequisite for equality.
And I also don't think in a black and white. You need some social order to have real freedom or it is just anarchy.
For sake of discussion, a prison can be set up so that every incarcerated individual is treated equally, yet denied the right to act freely.
Mike
"In my youth, I stressed freedom, and in my old age I stress order". I stole that quote from Will Durant.
I'm not much for equality. It is not possible in this system of things, never will be, so I've given up any hope if it.
-Mike
I'm not much for equality. It is not possible in this system of things, never will be, so I've given up any hope if it.
-Mike
True, I won't argue that. But that is a very artificial system, and certainly not one I would want to base a society on. And I could argue that is was the individuals freedom to chose that caused them to end up in the prison.
The USC lays out the Federal Governments enumerated powers [very minimal] and leaves the rest to the states. If you have 1000 things you could do, yet you've limited yourself to a dozen, have you not done more limiting than creating? The USC is a document of the restraint of centralized power, as well as the liberty of the individual.
Pouring deadly chemicals out the back door into a river isn't good public relations/marketing, as it is very dangerous, and should be illegal [it is]. Laws preventing poisoning are very basic, and 99% of people [libertarians too] agree with such governance. The Federal Government outlawing [overriding really] the use of medical Marijuana and mandating low-flow toilets is another matter.
Corporations are here to steal from us? Dude, you're doing business with the wrong people bro.
And DC politicians, no matter what political stripe these days, are yearning for more and more power - power that they should not have. All that power corrupts; that is human nature at work.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the federal government and lays the groundwork for the state governments. The document outlines the government's powers and, by extension, takes those powers from the citizenry as well as making the citizens answerable to the government. The Constritution's purpose and design wasn't to restrict, but to create. The first 10 Amendments, or Afterthoughts as I like to call them, were restrictions added only when they had to be.
+1
This is a great example of how satire is supposed to be written. Make the point by stating the exact opposite in a ridiculously exaggerated manner.
