• 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?

Which is most important to you?

  • Freedom

    Votes: 71 60.7%

  • Social Order

    Votes: 13 11.1%

  • Equality

    Votes: 18 15.4%

  • Carrots

    Votes: 15 12.8%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
#81
bassrique said:
When comparing the USC to nothing, then it primarily is a document assumes some powers at the expense of the individual. I say that's not logical, as there could not have been zero government.

When thinking in real terms, we must compare the founding document of the US, with similar documents and governments at the time and even in the past.

When the rest of the world had governments that gave little or no respect to the individual, the minimalist US Constitution pulled back those reigns of power and tyranny, and therefore it is a document of restraint.

Once again, in the context of the real world as opposed to the theoretical, the USC is a document that outlined the restraint of Federal power.
Click to expand...

That depends on how you want to view it. You could argue that the constitution was worded in such a way to give deference to a much larger degree of state control than we see today, and you could also argue that the document was designed to be less intrusive on the public than it has been.

It's a malleable piece of well-crafted politics, and as such the constitution can be whatever you want it to be.

If you want to get into specifics (or real world things) take a look at the language in the document itself:

Article Six says the government holds the supreme authority in the country:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



While Article Four tends to provide the citizenry with safety from the government:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.



So what happens when Abraham Lincoln suspends the writ of habeus corpus? Which article do we call upon there?
 
#83
Another for social order here. As has been previously stated, a good mix of all three is necessary, but if I had to choose one, I'd have to say social order. I'd rather have my freedoms restricted and things be inequal than have to worry every moment of every day that one of my countrymen would kill me and/or my family and friends because they are able to get away with whatever they want.
 
#84
SuperDuck said:
I went with Social Order, which is evidently the minority. Where's my Police State brothers at?
Click to expand...

Right here, buddy.

Really though, this question is a terrible oversimplification of an infinitely complicated issue. Why did I choose Social Order? Because without it, Freedom and Equality cannot exist, at least as I define them.

And that's what it comes down to, how you define these three terms. Freedom can mean many diferent things. It can be freedom from fear of crime in your neighbourhood. It can, conversely, mean freedom to harm others for your own benefit. "Freedom" is a VERY loose term. How you define it changes how you rank these concepts in order of importance.

Equality is another hazy term. Equal opportunity? Equal entitlement? The two are very different.

I view freedom in the way most north americans do: freedom to act as I choose so long as it is not harmful to others.

I view equality as equal opportunity. Everyone has the chance to turn themselves into a millionaire or a wino. What they choose is up to them. Equality.

So why social order first? Because without social order, without giving up certain freedoms - the ability to rape, kill, steal, murder, exploit... we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms we do, nor would we live in a society where an entire world of opportunity lies open to us.
 
#85
T.O.Bass said:
Right here, buddy.

Really though, this question is a terrible oversimplification of an infinitely complicated issue. Why did I choose Social Order? Because without it, Freedom and Equality cannot exist, at least as I define them.

And that's what it comes down to, how you define these three terms. Freedom can mean many diferent things. It can be freedom from fear of crime in your neighbourhood. It can, conversely, mean freedom to harm others for your own benefit. "Freedom" is a VERY loose term. How you define it changes how you rank these concepts in order of importance.

Equality is another hazy term. Equal opportunity? Equal entitlement? The two are very different.

I view freedom in the way most north americans do: freedom to act as I choose so long as it is not harmful to others.

I view equality as equal opportunity. Everyone has the chance to turn themselves into a millionaire or a wino. What they choose is up to them. Equality.

So why social order first? Because without social order, without giving up certain freedoms - the ability to rape, kill, steal, murder, exploit... we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms we do, nor would we live in a society where an entire world of opportunity lies open to us.
Click to expand...

I would say that in North America you have two freedoms. The Freedom to join the workforce, and the freedom to avoid it (and probably die of starvation/disease/etc.)
 
#86
WeightedWings said:
Another for social order here. As has been previously stated, a good mix of all three is necessary, but if I had to choose one, I'd have to say social order. I'd rather have my freedoms restricted and things be inequal than have to worry every moment of every day that one of my countrymen would kill me and/or my family and friends because they are able to get away with whatever they want.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Most people agree that it is morally reprehensible to murder, pillage, and rape.

if people were permitted to govern themselves, I think you'd arrive at social order because people would fear the retaliation of their fellow man as consequence of some wrongdoing.

if you allow people to take care of themselves, it'd be alot smoother than when you have the government do it for you.
 
#87
IconBasser said:
I disagree. Most people agree that it is morally reprehensible to murder, pillage, and rape.

if people were permitted to govern themselves, I think you'd arrive at social order because people would fear the retaliation of their fellow man as consequence of some wrongdoing.

if you allow people to take care of themselves, it'd be alot smoother than when you have the government do it for you.
Click to expand...

Well with that logic it is well within my freedom to eat you.
 
#88
I have to ask why the more lawless areas and areas with weak governments in Africa, South America, and Asia tend to have such high rates of violence. Not to mentions issues with rape, aids, availability of clean water, disease, food, etc.:confused:
 
#91
Perhaps there alot of reasons they became so lawless, but I would argue that they common theme amongst them is the government is too weak keep people from doing more or less what they want. That lack of ability to maintain (or in some cases the will to enforce) social order in such areas is of relevance to my earlier post.
 
#93
Deluge Of Sound said:
I would say that in North America you have two freedoms. The Freedom to join the workforce, and the freedom to avoid it (and probably die of starvation/disease/etc.)
Click to expand...

That is possibly the most false statement I have read in this thread. The freedom to obtain a safe and legal abortion? The freedom to persue an education? These freedoms do exist in north america, and the sole basis for the existence of those freedoms is the fact that we live in an ordered society.

On a broader note, anyone that thinks the population at large can govern itself is ignoring the plainly obvious: human beings are inherently flawed, are not equally gifted and are naturally self-serving. Consequently, leaving a human population unattended is irresponsible and morally reprehensible.
 
#97
T.O.Bass said:
That is possibly the most false statement I have read in this thread. The freedom to obtain a safe and legal abortion? The freedom to persue an education? These freedoms do exist in north america, and the sole basis for the existence of those freedoms is the fact that we live in an ordered society.

On a broader note, anyone that thinks the population at large can govern itself is ignoring the plainly obvious: human beings are inherently flawed, are not equally gifted and are naturally self-serving. Consequently, leaving a human population unattended is irresponsible and morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...

it appears you are a conservative liberal? ...am I right? am I right?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back