• 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 .
#121
T.O.Bass said:
Where do those freedoms come from, though?

The freedoms or "freedom" experienced in western society exist solely because we live in an ordered society that makes possible those freedoms we value so much and see as intrinsic to being human.

Conversely, people that advocate freedom or equality are ignoring the obvious - that no society (or lack thereof) is "free" in the purest sense. With the dissolution of a governing body, you will gain freedoms that have been restricted, however, you will lose freedoms that you previously had.

For example - the right to a fair trial. In north america if you feel you have been wronged you can take it to a higher authority in hopes of a resolution. The only way for this to exist is via a form of government. Total "freedom" would entail that there is NO authority, without which your fair trial could not occurr.

Social order is essentially the cornerstone for that one thing "freedom" that we value so much.
Click to expand...


so, by your reasoning, if order were to be annihilated, freedom would cease to exist and we all be slaves to... what, the non-existent order ? :eyebrow:

all that order does is restrict some freedom of individuals to act as they wish so that people will behave themselves and do what big daddy government tells them to do.
 
#123
ehque said:
"Essential" liberty and "temporary" safety. I do detect a hint of bias.
Click to expand...

On whose part? Mr. Franklin's? He was correct, of course. If you give away your rights so that you can feel safe (because the government cannot keep you truly and completely safe, of course), you do not deserve to have the freedom you will lose as a result of giving up your rights.

Mr. Franklin says "never give up your freedoms". I agree.

Cherie
 
#124
txbasschik said:
Equality is a result of freedom. That is why it had to be fought for.

Cherie
Click to expand...

wth? no

If I'm free to rob a bank, that's not equal. Freedom is that you can do whatever you want, THAT is freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc... it's always about having the right to choose between stuff. Being robbed by our government isn't a lack of freedom, it's a lack of equality (I can't rob him but he can) and/or order (he broke the laws). American should really stop to over generalize what freedom is or what is the extent of consequences of being "free" just because it is on their constitution, seriously. It's like when they said Al qaeda attacked USA because of their freedom, it's just silly. Canada, Norway, Holland would have been gone long before the states if it were for freedom, and they are weaker country too.

Sorry for the offtopic.
 
#125
flipper_gv said:
wth? no

If I'm free to rob a bank, that's not equal. Freedom is that you can do whatever you want, THAT is freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc... it's always about having the right to choose between stuff. Being robbed by our government isn't a lack of freedom, it's a lack of equality (I can't rob him but he can) and/or order (he broke the laws). American should really stop to over generalize what freedom is or what is the extent of consequences of being "free" just because it is on their constitution, seriously. It's like when they said Al qaeda attacked USA because of their freedom, it's just silly. Canada, Norway, Holland would have been gone long before the states if it were for freedom, and they are weaker country too.

Sorry for the offtopic.
Click to expand...

Being robbed by anyone, but especially government, is a theft of freedom.

And yes, one of the things AQ hates about the West is our freedom. It's their way or the highway.
 
#128
Deluge Of Sound said:
Not to defend them, but we're exactly the same way. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, we hang gays and behead/stone women for going to school. :rolleyes:


flipper_gv said:
oh well, I'm no American, so I think that's why I just don't get your point of view
Click to expand...

I can clear up a bit regarding the "theft of freedom" thing. Since most people trade time for money/property, when one's money is stolen/confiscated, isn't it actually one's time that's been taken?
 
#129
bassrique said:
Yeah, we hang gays and behead/stone women for going to school. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, we embargo, bomb, invade, and generally use our massive world influence instead.

But lets not make this political, eh? :D

Also, I can say as an American that being robbed isn't really (or at least not only) theft of freedom, its theft of property. Property is an infringement on equality, and the whole thing runs around in a vicious chain, just as designed by the writer of the original question.
 
#130
txbasschik said:
On whose part? Mr. Franklin's? He was correct, of course. If you give away your rights so that you can feel safe (because the government cannot keep you truly and completely safe, of course), you do not deserve to have the freedom you will lose as a result of giving up your rights.

Mr. Franklin says "never give up your freedoms". I agree.

Cherie
Click to expand...

I can give up some freedom, like the freedom to ignore a police officer, for some social order, like keeping drunks out of cars.

In the case of AlQ and the ME, the "freedom" so preached by the west seems to be more "free to do anything you want, as long as we agree with it first".
 
#138
hbarcat said:
Which of the following is most important to the proper performance of my car's engine?


AIR

FUEL

SPARK



Vote for your favorite. :smug:
Click to expand...

Rudolf Diesel has some ideas ;)

Smug humour aside, I entirely concur with this view of the question. None of the three are able to exist in our world without the other two. One could hope that someday, we might get the balance right - I'm not quite that optimistic ;)
 
#139
Kyon` said:
it is hard to really tell what is the right balance. Vietnam is still poor and a lot of the North is rural, but the country is improving. Will there be a day when the ruling government is overthrown and a democracy is in place who knows. Then you have Cuba, where the literacy rate is higher then the US, death toll, and infant death toll are lower(granted they have a smaller population). Really it's hard to tell what is effective, and what works, you do need all three, just certain types of each and amounts I guess will make the right cake. Though how do we measure it?
Click to expand...

+1
 
#140
Ah, it all takes me back to my days of studying political philosophy as an undergraduate... :smug:

IconBasser said:
so, by your reasoning, if order were to be annihilated, freedom would cease to exist and we all be slaves to... what, the non-existent order ? :eyebrow:

all that order does is restrict some freedom of individuals to act as they wish so that people will behave themselves and do what big daddy government tells them to do.
Click to expand...

Actually, T.O. is correct, IconBasser. People routinely view freedom, order and equality as if they are infinite or absolute entities. They are not.

As has been stated previously in this thread, they are relative entities, and as such, are interdependent upon one another. Emphasize any one of them to the detriment - or to the exclusion - of the others, and the delicate balance is disrupted. The whole house of cards comes tumbling down... :eek:

One of the fallacies you are committing is to confuse freedom with license. They are not the same thing. :eyebrow:

If order were to be eliminated, freedom would soon suffer the same fate, as would equality of opportunity - although opportunistic license would continue to run roughshod over everything and everybody. Then we would have a state of anarchy. The wealthy enslave the indigent, and the strong kill the weak - because there is no one to tell them they cannot - and ultimately no one's freedoms are safe. It is Hobbes' "state of nature" - the law of the jungle. Thus we see that it is only the imposition of a reasonable and fair degree of order that permits freedom to exist in the first place. In other words, this is what it means to be civilized. :hmm:

With all due respect, you are committing the same error of judgment as do the radical Libertarians - who dogmatically believe that simply doing away with as much government as possible will automatically solve virtually all our problems - failing to realize that, when implemented correctly, government can be the guarantor of our liberties - not the infringer of them.

At least for those of us who live in nations with a democratic form of government, it therefore behooves each of us to take responsibility for constructively shaping and guiding the manner in which we choose to be governed - not in demonizing the very institution of government itself... :rolleyes:

MM
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back