Equality or Liberty?

[Tony]

Which is more important, and why?

[fishbob]

Circumstances, talent, skill, and luck differ so much between people, so people can not have true equality. I vote Liberty - which is the basis for equal rights - which is a close to equality as a government can produce. Laws can provide liberty, but can not create true equality, although legislators like to try leveling the playing field every so often - usually not very effectively.

[Q-Source]

Tony,

I would always choose Equality over Freedom.

What do I need freedom of speech for if I cannot read or write?

What do I need freedom for if I cannot find a job and cannot pay my bills?

Equality guarantees that I and anybody else will have the same opportunities to get education, health care, employment and policy participation among the most important. Of course, some of them will get betters jobs or education according to their intellectual and physical skills, but the point is that equality eliminates marginal population (poverty).



Q-S

[Tony]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Tony,

I would always choose Equality over Freedom.



Would you live in a police state that provided you with equality?

What do I need freedom of speech for if I cannot read or write?

Why do you need to read of write if you dont have the liberty to read or write what you want?

What do I need freedom for if I cannot find a job and cannot pay my bills?

Why do you need a job if all your money is going to be confiscated to line the pockets of the people in power?

[Q-Source]

Tony,

If you already have an answer to your question "Which is more important?", then why do you bother to ask in the first place?

It is obvious that to your eyes a nation where Equality is more important is a police state. But who says that?, why must it be that way?

Q-S

[Tony]

Originally posted by Q-Source


If you already have an answer to your question "Which is more important?", then why do you bother to ask in the first place?



Im just trying to get opinions.

It is obvious that to your eyes a nation where Equality is more important is a police state.

Not neccessarily. But when freedom is sacrificed in the name of "equality", it sets the state on a path to were it can devolve into a totalitarian police state.


why must it be that way?

When you give the government more power, you increase the chance of that power being abused.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Tony,
I would always choose Equality over Freedom.

Equality of what? And achieved how?

What do I need freedom of speech for if I cannot read or write?

Can you speak?

Besides, how old are you, and why the hell can't you read or write yet?

What do I need freedom for if I cannot find a job and cannot pay my bills?

How long have you been looking?

Equality guarantees that I and anybody else will have the same opportunities to get education, health care, employment and policy participation among the most important.

Most of that sounds like stuff that somebody else would have to provide for you, or at least pay for. Should you have to provide anything of equal value for them in return? If not, I'd hardly call that equality.

Of course, some of them will get betters jobs or education according to their intellectual and physical skills, but the point is that equality eliminates marginal population (poverty).

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but I don't think it's equality.

[BillyTK]

Like Q-Source, equality every time. Equality trumps freedom, simply because it gives individuals access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom; freedom can make no such commitments, and of course the flipside of freedom is the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor. As there can be no such thing as absolute freedom, perhaps some freedoms are not worth their cost, or are not even freedoms at all...

[Troll]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Like Q-Source, equality every time. Equality trumps freedom, simply because it gives individuals access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom; freedom can make no such commitments, and of course the flipside of freedom is the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor. As there can be no such thing as absolute freedom, perhaps some freedoms are not worth their cost, or are not even freedoms at all...

Good. Pick equality and then you can share equally in the beatings and tortures that those that are not free have to endure.

Are people that ignorant of freedom?

[Troll]

I just have to add more to this.

With freedom you can struggle and obtain equality. With no freedom you suffer equality of treatment by the dictators and Taliban of the world.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people that you'd pick equality over freedom? Freedom allows you to improve. equality , when just handed to you makes you either lazy, or just another freaking victim.

I'm gonna take off for a few because I seriously wanna bitch-slap some of you idiots right now and it's better to regroup than to start in on things that may get me banned

[WMT1]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Like Q-Source, equality every time. Equality trumps freedom, simply because it gives individuals access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom; freedom can make no such commitments,

Baloney. In a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?

and of course the flipside of freedom is the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor.

Or the freedom not to. Why should it be any other way?

As there can be no such thing as absolute freedom,

As opposed to absolute equality? :rolleyes:

perhaps some freedoms are not worth their cost, or are not even freedoms at all.

What the hell does that mean? You're not making much sense. Something tells me your idea of equality just means the ability to make others pay for what you can't afford.

[corplinx]

Liberty leads to equality. Look at america.

Under Stalin everyone was equally worth s**t. I guess equality leads to liberty since if there is no liberty everyone eventually revolts.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by WMT1


Baloney. In a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?
Show me a free society where everyone is guaranteed access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom.

Or the freedom not to. Why should it be any other way?
so that justifies or mitigates the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor? :rolleyes:

As opposed to absolute equality? :rolleyes:
Did I make such a claim? :rolleyes:

What the hell does that mean? You're not making much sense. Something tells me your idea of equality just means the ability to make others pay for what you can't afford.
I'd stop listening to that "something" then. It doesn't serve you well at all. :rolleyes:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Troll


Good. Pick equality and then you can share equally in the beatings and tortures that those that are not free have to endure.

Are people that ignorant of freedom?

Oh yeah right, because any attempts at equality automatically end in totalitarianism. Are people that ignorant?

[Troll]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Oh yeah right, because any attempts at equality automatically end in totalitarianism. Are people that ignorant?

No you mindless pseudo-cause follower. With freedom comes the chance to obtain equality. We had freedom first then gained more and more equality. But you aren't able to seek equality without the freedom to do so. So wake up will ya?

[OdderMensch]

Equality is an ideal, liberty is fact.

-edited to remove dyslexia-

[WMT1]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Like Q-Source, equality every time. Equality trumps freedom, simply because it gives individuals access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom; freedom can make no such commitments

Originally posted by WMT1
Baloney. In a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Show me a free society where everyone is guaranteed access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom.

Is there some reason you can't first provide a clear, straightforward answer to a simple question about a claim you made, before challenging others for counterexamples? Now, once again, in a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?

Or the freedom not to. Why should it be any other way?

so that justifies or mitigates the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor?

I'm pretty sure I made no references to it being justified or mitigated. You are the one who brought up the "freedom" to suffer unpleasant conditions, not me. Can you explain why anyone should not have this particular type of freedom, or for that matter, how you would prevent it? And if you're suggesting these consequences are any more likely with freedom than without it, can you explain that as well?

As there can be no such thing as absolute freedom,

As opposed to absolute equality? :rolleyes:

Did I make such a claim?

Did I claim you did? Wow, this thing of responding to a question with another question is fun.

In any case, since you did claim that there could be no such thing as absolute freedom, and you did so in a thread about comparing freedom to equality, do you want to go on record stating my inquiry was an unreasonable response to such a claim?

What the hell does that mean? You're not making much sense. Something tells me your idea of equality just means the ability to make others pay for what you can't afford.

I'd stop listening to that "something" then. It doesn't serve you well at all.

If you're so sure of that, let's put it to the test. Are you willing to go on record clearly acknowledging that neither freedom nor equality is accompanied by the right to have others pay for what you can't afford? And in addition to that question, I think it would go a long way toward establishing whether that "something" serves me well if you would also provide a clear, direct answer to my other questions in this post too. Take your time.

And while we're at it, is there some reason you didn't care to explain what you meant by "perhaps some freedoms are not worth their cost, or are not even freedoms at all"?

Incidentally, you should also lay off that "rolleyes" button until you learn when it's appropriate, or you just end up looking kind of silly.

[billydkid]

Equality does not mean what you think it means!!!! Equality is meaningless without freedom. Equality does not mean "the same". It does not mean everyone has the same amount of money or that everyone lives in the same sort of house or goes to the same sort of school. It means that everyone is equal in their fundamental status relative to the state. It means there are not legal subclasses (ie. surfs) or upper classes (ie. nobles). It means that each of us is equal in the eyes of the state - that there is only one status relative to the government and that status is citizen.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Oh yeah right, because any attempts at equality automatically end in totalitarianism. Are people that ignorant?

Name one attempt that hasn't.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
Euqality is an ideal, liberty is fact.

Got that right!

[Troll]

Anyone not picking freedom over equality doesn't deserve the freedom to seek equality that they have. sorry but picking equality over freedom is the most moronic thing I've ever seen. Without freedom you are not guarenteed the right to try to better your lot in life. So without freedom if they don't want you to read or write you won't. With freedom you are free to seek and fight for equality.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Troll
Anyone not picking freedom over equality doesn't deserve the freedom to seek equality that they have. sorry but picking equality over freedom is the most moronic thing I've ever seen. Without freedom you are not guarenteed the right to try to better your lot in life. So without freedom if they don't want you to read or write you won't. With freedom you are free to seek and fight for equality.

Troll,

Without Equality, freedom is meaningless. I mentioned that before, as a human beings we need to satisfy basic needs first (to get food, education and health) before satisfying secondary needs (to have freedom of speech and thought).

In my experience, as a field worker with the lowest level of poor people in Mexico, I can tell you, that without the minimum public services (water, electricity and schools), they give a d*mn about their "freedom". You and the others don't have the slightest idea of what poverty is.

I am not saying that the State should provide those public services free, I am just saying that the Society must guarantee that everybody has the same opportunities to get those minimum conditions to develop as an individual. You cannot exert your freedom if you don't know what freedom is.

Q-S

[fishbob]

Q - Mexico is a country of large class distinctions - more than the US anyway. The laws of Mexico do not get applied equally to the rich and the poor - and the poor have very little liberty to do anything about it.

Providing public services to the poor is not giving them equality - their water will not be as good as that of the rich, or their sewage systems, or their medical or phone service. Providing them these services is providing them with opportunity - which is very similar to liberty, I think. Are we just disagreeing about definitions and not about the underlying concepts?

[iain]

Originally posted by corplinx
Liberty leads to equality. Look at america. You seem to have missed out the smiley. In economic terms, the USA has less equality than any country in the history of the world. The gap between the richest and poorest in the USA is just phenomenally higher than anything that there's ever been in the past, or that there is elsewhere in the world. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing though.

This is one of those weird debates where some people seem to think it is an either/or question; or that equality being more important than liberty necessarily means living in a stalinist state where people get routinely tortured.

I voted for liberty (just love clicking those little buttons) but this does seem to be a question that 14 year olds could take seriously and to anyone older it just screams being too simplistic to be of any real value, other than to use up a few minutes between now and death.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Troll,

Without Equality, freedom is meaningless. I mentioned that before, as a human beings we need to satisfy basic needs first (to get food, education and health) before satisfying secondary needs (to have freedom of speech and thought).

In my experience, as a field worker with the lowest level of poor people in Mexico, I can tell you, that without the minimum public services (water, electricity and schools), they give a d*mn about their "freedom". You and the others don't have the slightest idea of what poverty is.

I am not saying that the State should provide those public services free, I am just saying that the Society must guarantee that everybody has the same opportunities to get those minimum conditions to develop as an individual. You cannot exert your freedom if you don't know what freedom is.

Q-S








Now you're just making silly assumptions. Telling me I have no idea what poverty is? Shame on you.

And I got news for you. If you don't have freedom first and foremost, you don't have a chance to obtain equality. Well you do if you want to be a socialist. But my situation has improved because I have the freedom to improve it. and if I make more use of said freedoms then I'd like to be rewarded for my extra work and seperate myself even more from the level of poverty I once lived in. See, with freedom you can obtain equality and more if you use the freedom you have and put some effort into things. with nothing but equality you have no incentive and you are not free as you will forever be a slave to the system.

[Q-Source]

fishbob

Providing public services to the poor is not giving them equality - their water will not be as good as that of the rich, or their sewage systems, or their medical or phone service. Providing them these services is providing them with opportunity - which is very similar to liberty, I think. Are we just disagreeing about definitions and not about the underlying concepts?

I don't understand what you are talking about.

Providing those services to all the population means Equality. You need to start from a basis to compete with others.

If you cannot read, then you cannot compete to get a job.
That's why I think that Equality comes first than Freedom.



Troll:

But my situation has improved because I have the freedom to improve it. and if I make more use of said freedoms then I'd like to be rewarded for my extra work and seperate myself even more from the level of poverty I once lived in. See, with freedom you can obtain equality and more if you use the freedom you have and put some effort into things. with nothing but equality you have no incentive and you are not free as you will forever be a slave to the system.


I haven't said tha Equality should not allow competition or personal improvement. Why you all people keep confusing Equality with Communism?

For example, do you think that your parents could have paid your education (primary and secondary school) if it hadn't been free?

Tell me, how do you explain poverty?, why that people who live in extreme poverty cannot used their Freedom?

Q-S

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Q-Source:
Equality guarantees that I and anybody else will have the same opportunities to get education, health care, employment and policy participation among the most important.

And a society or system that emphasises individual liberty doesn't?

Of course, some of them will get betters jobs or education according to their intellectual and physical skills, but the point is that equality eliminates marginal population (poverty).

Elimination of marginal population? :eek:

Equality trumps freedom, simply because it gives individuals access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom; freedom can make no such commitments, and of course the flipside of freedom is the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor

But haven't societies that have emphasised personal liberty been far more successfull at this than those who have espoused equality of outcome?

(Maybe we need to clarify whether we're looking at liberty or equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, which are different things altogether.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

And a society or system that emphasises individual liberty doesn't?

In a way, yes. But in such society, people with the highest purchase power capacity are the only ones who can satisfy all their needs. What about those people who can't?



Elimination of marginal population?

Eliminination of poverty. Poverty is not a choice. Nobody chooses to be poor.


But haven't societies that have emphasised personal liberty been far more successfull at this than those who have espoused equality of outcome?

Maybe, but the reason why is because they have already satisfied their basic needs.
Anyway, I really don't see why you believe so, you can see that in countries such as the USA, the income gap is huge and there is still poverty.



(Maybe we need to clarify whether we're looking at liberty or equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, which are different things altogether.

What do you mean by equality of outcome?

[OdderMensch]

Eliminination of poverty. Poverty is not a choice. Nobody chooses to be poor.

Simply not true. First there is the vow of poverty many religious people take. Secondly there are many people who choose to have low paying-stressless jobs over higher paying, but more stressfull ones. Thirdly there is the artist, whom care for only two things, their bread and their Art!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Q-Source



Anyway, I really don't see why you believe so, you can see that in countries such as the USA, the income gap is huge and there is still poverty.





Poverty will always exist. The goal should not be to end poverty, but to facilitate upward movement.

Show me a country that doesnt have povery. The poor in the US are still richer than the poor in most countries.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Like Q-Source, equality every time. Equality trumps freedom, simply because it gives individuals access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom; freedom can make no such commitments

Originally posted by WMT1
Baloney. In a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Show me a free society where everyone is guaranteed access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom.

Originally posted by WMT1
Is there some reason you can't first provide a clear, straightforward answer to a simple question about a claim you made, before challenging others for counterexamples?
I have a strange feeling of deja vu here... if you confined yourself to commenting on what I've actually said, without trying to put my opinions in your own words first, or speculating about my position on a particular point before I've even expressed it, I'd be more than willing to provide a straightforward answer. Sorry, but I'm not interested in having to "clarify" my position each time you misrepresent it.

Anyway, you claimed my claim was baloney. That's an intellectually rigorous way to refute a claim, no? On what basis do you support that claim? Also, you asked, "In a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?". I asked for an example of such a free society as a rhetorical device to question the validity of your question; as I proceed to mention, there can be no such thing as absolute freedom; so give me an example of a free society.
Now, once again, in a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?
As I asked previously, give me an example of such a free society. Until then, we could also debate how long a piece of string is, or how blue the sky is.

Originally posted by BillyTK
and of course the flipside of freedom is the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor.

Originally posted by WMT1
Or the freedom not to. Why should it be any other way?

Originally posted by BillyTK
so that justifies or mitigates the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor?

Originally posted by WMT1
I'm pretty sure I made no references to it being justified or mitigated. You are the one who brought up the "freedom" to suffer unpleasant conditions, not me.
Actually, I was the one who brought up both conditions of freedom. You were the one who focussed on "the freedom not to". To what point exactly?

Can you explain why anyone should not have this particular type of freedom, or for that matter, how you would prevent it? And if you're suggesting these consequences are any more likely with freedom than without it, can you explain that as well?
Are you sh!tting me? People should have the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor? Are those even freedoms at all? Surely freedom presumes some notion of agency to chose between a number of conditions, and to consent to the condition they do choose? And I've made no such suggestions that the stated conditions "are any more likely with freedom than without it". Can we stick to what I have said, rather than what you thing I've said, or what that "something" tells you to think I've said?

Originally posted by BillyTK
As there can be no such thing as absolute freedom,

Originally posted by WMT1
As opposed to absolute equality?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Did I make such a claim?

Originally posted by WMT1
Did I claim you did? Wow, this thing of responding to a question with another question is fun.

Did I claim you claimed I did? it is fun isn't it? So if you agree I made no claim about absolute equality, why did you introduce it? Would you care to justify your statment, or retract it?

In any case, since you did claim that there could be no such thing as absolute freedom, and you did so in a thread about comparing freedom to equality, do you want to go on record stating my inquiry was an unreasonable response to such a claim?

I made a claim that there can be no such thing as absolute freedom, however, I'll make no judgement on the merits of your introduction of absolute equality until you explain why you saw fit to introduce it at that point.

Originally posted by BillyTK
perhaps some freedoms are not worth their cost, or are not even freedoms at all.

Originally posted by WMT1
What the hell does that mean? You're not making much sense. Something tells me your idea of equality just means the ability to make others pay for what you can't afford.

Originally posted by BillyTK
I'd stop listening to that "something" then. It doesn't serve you well at all.

Originally posted by WMT1
If you're so sure of that, let's put it to the test. Are you willing to go on record clearly acknowledging that neither freedom nor equality is accompanied by the right to have others pay for what you can't afford? And in addition to that question, I think it would go a long way toward establishing whether that "something" serves me well if you would also provide a clear, direct answer to my other questions in this post too. Take your time.
Let's not put it to your test. Your test is disengenuous to say the least. You claimed that "something" told you what my idea of equality involved "the right to have others pay for what you can't afford"; are you claiming special knowledge--telepathy perhaps--or would you care to withdraw that statement until such a time as I actually state what my idea of equality is? In most cases, such patterns in someone's posts tend to reflect either sloppiness or dishonesty. In your case, I can't tell which applies yet.

And while we're at it, is there some reason you didn't care to explain what you meant by "perhaps some freedoms are not worth their cost, or are not even freedoms at all"?
Yup. See above.

Incidentally, you should also lay off that "rolleyes" button until you learn when it's appropriate, or you just end up looking kind of silly.

If I'm looking silly by your standards...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Drooper]

Before I vote. Can you point out how liberty does not infer equality - at leaast equality of opportunity.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Tony,

I would always choose Equality over Freedom.

What do I need freedom of speech for if I cannot read or write?

What do I need freedom for if I cannot find a job and cannot pay my bills?

Equality guarantees that I and anybody else will have the same opportunities to get education, health care, employment and policy participation among the most important. Of course, some of them will get betters jobs or education according to their intellectual and physical skills, but the point is that equality eliminates marginal population (poverty).



Q-S


There is a country that fits you criteria perfectly. I hope you have a happy life in North Korea.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Scorpy


Name one attempt that hasn't.

Black and female emancipation are two that spring straight off the top of my head.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by billydkid
Equality does not mean what you think it means!!!! Equality is meaningless without freedom. Equality does not mean "the same". It does not mean everyone has the same amount of money or that everyone lives in the same sort of house or goes to the same sort of school. It means that everyone is equal in their fundamental status relative to the state. It means there are not legal subclasses (ie. surfs) or upper classes (ie. nobles). It means that each of us is equal in the eyes of the state - that there is only one status relative to the government and that status is citizen.

Good point!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by iain
You seem to have missed out the smiley. In economic terms, the USA has less equality than any country in the history of the world. The gap between the richest and poorest in the USA is just phenomenally higher than anything that there's ever been in the past, or that there is elsewhere in the world. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing though.

This is one of those weird debates where some people seem to think it is an either/or question; or that equality being more important than liberty necessarily means living in a stalinist state where people get routinely tortured.

I voted for liberty (just love clicking those little buttons) but this does seem to be a question that 14 year olds could take seriously and to anyone older it just screams being too simplistic to be of any real value, other than to use up a few minutes between now and death.

Good points! And my bad--it was a boring rainy Sunday evening ;)

[iain]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Good points! And my bad--it was a boring rainy Sunday evening ;) I forgive you - there are a lot of minutes to use up :D

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper
Before I vote. Can you point out how liberty does not infer equality - at leaast equality of opportunity. For example, let's suppose that there are three people in a country : Ann, Bob and Charlie. All of them are completely free.

Charlie runs the only university in the country and chooses not to accept women. Ann and Bob both have the freedom to apply to the university, but only Bob is going to get in.

Now a fourth person, Doreen, runs a company and wants to employ someone. She wants a university graduate. Again, Ann and Bob both have the freedom to apply but (assuming time has passed and Bob has now graduated) Doreen is going to choose Bob every time.

This is a simplistic example, but I think it shows a situation where all the agents have liberty and it does not infer equality.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
But haven't societies that have emphasised personal liberty been far more successfull at this than those who have espoused equality of outcome?

(Maybe we need to clarify whether we're looking at liberty or equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, which are different things altogether. [/B]

Hi Shane, I made the "Equality trumps freedom" comment. Anyway as iain points out, it's a false dilemna because it's not an either/or situation; it's more of a chicken/egg situation, and for me, I choose equality as the necessary prior state. For instance, if you look at the Quakers' campaign to repeal slavery in the UK, they beleived that slavery was morally wrong because everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Of course, "eyes of God" is a problematic appeal to authority, but surely some fundamental acknowledgement of equality is necessary before any person can enjoy liberty?

So it's equality of opportunity; equality of outcome, though desieable, is way more problematic, and difficult to ensure.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by iain
For example, let's suppose that there are three people in a country : Ann, Bob and Charlie. All of them are completely free.

Charlie runs the only university in the country and chooses not to accept women. Ann and Bob both have the freedom to apply to the university, but only Bob is going to get in.

Now a fourth person, Doreen, runs a company and wants to employ someone. She wants a university graduate. Again, Ann and Bob both have the freedom to apply but (assuming time has passed and Bob has now graduated) Doreen is going to choose Bob every time.

This is a simplistic example, but I think it shows a situation where all the agents have liberty and it does not infer equality.

Oh ian, how contrived.

Under a libertarian regime, Tom down the road is free to open his own university. He notices that Charlie, in his prejudice, has admitted an inferior candidate in the form of Bob. So hye quickly takes in Ann.

Ann and Bob gradute and apply for Doreen's job, which Ann secured hands down, from here record as as a superior graduate

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Black and female emancipation are two that spring straight off the top of my head.

By emancipation i assume you mean things such as voteing rights and ability to travel and hold jobs?

Freedoms, and examples of the equalizeing force of liberty.

It means that everyone is equal in their fundamental status relative to the state. It means there are not legal subclasses (ie. surfs) or upper classes (ie. nobles). It means that each of us is equal in the eyes of the state - that there is only one status relative to the government and that status is citizen.

Good point!

billydkid might have sumed it all up with this.

[Drooper]

Ian wrote
In economic terms, the USA has less equality than any country in the history of the world. The gap between the richest and poorest in the USA is just phenomenally higher than anything that there's ever been in the past, or that there is elsewhere in the world. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing though.

Ian, the first "fact" needs checking. I think you'll find that income inequality, measured by things such as genie coefficients or income distribution was massively greater in centuries gone by. Just think of the fuedal systems that used to exist.

The gap between richest and poorest. The old read herring. The fact is that the riches people live in the US: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Elison etc. This doesn't make the "poorest" people in society worse off.

Also, look at the names. Gates, Buffet, Ellison. The richest people in America are self made.

Look at the UK: The Queen, the Duke of Westminter. Wealth is held far more tightly in Europe. The is far less equality of opportunity: "you missed out on a place in the "Grandes écoles? quelle dommage!"

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper


Oh ian, how contrived.

Under a libertarian regime, Tom down the road is free to open his own university. He notices that Charlie, in his prejudice, has admitted an inferior candidate in the form of Bob. So hye quickly takes in Ann.

Ann and Bob gradute and apply for Doreen's job, which Ann secured hands down, from here record as as a superior graduate Agreed, my example is nothing if not contrived, but that doesn't make it a bad example :)

You're counter example is one possibility of how liberty could lead to equality, but you've jumped in with a whole bunch of assumptions.

For example, you've assumed that such a person as Tom exists - someone who is not prejudiced against women, has the money to open and run a university and can attract suitable teaching staff. You've also assumed that there are enough Toms out there to give University places to all the Anns. Maybe there are some Toms but not enough Universities to go round.

You also assume that Ann can pay her way through University (maybe by some horizontal employment :) ) and lots of other things.

In many cases these assumptions may be valid, but I don't believe that they are necessarily valid; therefore I would claim that liberty does not infer equality.

Edited to add ...and spell my name right, damn you. :mad:

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper
The gap between richest and poorest. The old read herring. The fact is that the riches people live in the US: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Elison etc. This doesn't make the "poorest" people in society worse off.Agreed

Also, look at the names. Gates, Buffet, Ellison. The richest people in America are self made.

Look at the UK: The Queen, the Duke of Westminter. Wealth is held far more tightly in Europe. The is far less equality of opportunity: "you missed out on a place in the "Grandes écoles? quelle dommage!" Agree to some extent, but with a couple of reservations.

1. How many of the American super-rich came from "working class" backgrounds? Bill Gates certainly had wealthy parents and his father got him a big head start with various business contacts. He was someone from a rich family who made himself even richer. It may be that other super-rich people are in a similar situation.

2. You list the usual suspects (Her Majesty, God bless Her, and the Duke of Westminster) but what about the others. If you look at the top 100 richest people in Britain and the US, how many have self-made rather than inherited wealth? I'm not sure the difference would be as big as you suggest.

Edited to make sense

[Victor Danilchenko]

OdderMensch

Heh, love the nickname.

Euqality is an ideal, liberty is fact.both are ideals. Both have been implemented only partially. neither one is a fact in its maximum possible expression, and both are facts in partial, moderated expression.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by OdderMensch


By emancipation i assume you mean things such as voteing rights and ability to travel and hold jobs?

Freedoms, and examples of the equalizeing force of liberty.

Isn't that kind of circular, that according certain groups liberties which other groups already held is evidence of the equalizing force of liberty? It's a straight forward case of equality; they were entitled to the same freedoms as others, but it was a case of convincing those in power that they were equal, and therefore entitled to those freedoms; liberty proceeds from equality.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by iain
For example, let's suppose that there are three people in a country : Ann, Bob and Charlie. All of them are completely free.

Charlie runs the only university in the country and chooses not to accept women. Ann and Bob both have the freedom to apply to the university, but only Bob is going to get in.

Now a fourth person, Doreen, runs a company and wants to employ someone. She wants a university graduate. Again, Ann and Bob both have the freedom to apply but (assuming time has passed and Bob has now graduated) Doreen is going to choose Bob every time.

This is a simplistic example, but I think it shows a situation where all the agents have liberty and it does not infer equality.

It's late for me and I'm tierd, but intrigued!

All of them are completly free. Well, of course no one is completly anything. But since we are talking about liberty vs equality here.....and since they're all completly free........:D

[minor self parody]

Ann declares herself a man, enters the uni, and has an equal shot for the job.
assumeing Charlie doesn't have a sole monopoly on information, books, paper & pencils and/or chaulk, Ann simply studies hard and grants herself a degree.
Doreen is also free, and merely wants a degree. If the interview is fair and Ann has the skills, she should get the job.
Ann spends the time Bob spent at the Uni training hard core kung fu. When Doreen shows up, she shows them a new meaning for the term hostile takeover.
Alternate to above, Ann goes Wu Tang on Charlie who, humbled, grants her the entire university.

[/minor self parody]

They are both important. Why to keep things balanced.

[iain]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
[minor self parody]

Ann declares herself a man, enters the uni, and has an equal shot for the job.
assumeing Charlie doesn't have a sole monopoly on information, books, paper & pencils and/or chaulk, Ann simply studies hard and grants herself a degree.
Doreen is also free, and merely wants a degree. If the interview is fair and Ann has the skills, she should get the job.
Ann spends the time Bob spent at the Uni training hard core kung fu. When Doreen shows up, she shows them a new meaning for the term hostile takeover.
Alternate to above, Ann goes Wu Tang on Charlie who, humbled, grants her the entire university.

[/minor self parody] :D :D :D

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Isn't that kind of circular, that according certain groups liberties which other groups already held is evidence of the equalizing force of liberty? It's a straight forward case of equality; they were entitled to the same freedoms as others, but it was a case of convincing those in power that they were equal, and therefore entitled to those freedoms; liberty proceeds from equality.

As was pointed out after I posted that, it's not really an either/or so much as an egg/chicken.

[ mood=sleepdeprived ]
When in the course of Decelerating our Independence it became necessary to report the reasons for our separations, and to assume the separate and equal fraction. We concerned ourselves with the rights of men and the laws of nature.

Holding these truths to be self evident, that all are passionate of our equal and unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and property, and that we were willing to give up such rights, as would secure a government in the form we had grown acustomed to. And one deriving its powers justly from the consent of the governed. Some forms of government can be destructive of these ends, and we have the right to alter or abolish any government that does so to us.

Our form of governance has been long standing, and has changed for both right and transient causes. All experience has shown that often when a long train of abuses and transfigurations create a situation of absolutism or despotism, the cause normally turns out to be a transient one. It is both our right and our duty to throw such pettiness aside. And create the insinuation necessary to lay the conditions for true change.

[/mood=sleepdeprived]

;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by OdderMensch


As was pointed out after I posted that, it's not really an either/or so much as an egg/chicken.

[ mood=sleepdeprived ]
When in the course of Decelerating our Independence it became necessary to report the reasons for our separations, and to assume the separate and equal fraction. We concerned ourselves with the rights of men and the laws of nature.

Holding these truths to be self evident, that all are passionate of our equal and unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and property, and that we were willing to give up such rights, as would secure a government in the form we had grown acustomed to. And one deriving its powers justly from the consent of the governed. Some forms of government can be destructive of these ends, and we have the right to alter or abolish any government that does so to us.

Our form of governance has been long standing, and has changed for both right and transient causes. All experience has shown that often when a long train of abuses and transfigurations create a situation of absolutism or despotism, the cause normally turns out to be a transient one. It is both our right and our duty to throw such pettiness aside. And create the insinuation necessary to lay the conditions for true change.

[/mood=sleepdeprived]

;)

:rotfl: :thumbs up:

So which came first then? ;) :D

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Q-Source:
In a way, yes. But in such society, people with the highest purchase power capacity are the only ones who can satisfy all their needs. What about those people who can't?

But are the basic needs of people in the free, developed world lacking? How many peope starved to death in America or Britain last year? In one of Dinesh D'Souza's books he mentions a documentary ran by CBS in the early '80s that was intended to be an indictment of the Reagan administration. It focused on the hardest hit by the recession at that time. Soviet authorities bought it up, eager to show the populace in the USSR the failure of capitalism. They were in for a shock. It turned out that the ordinary Russian was agape at the fact that poor people in America owned colour TVs, microwaves and drove cars. Likewise a Indian friend of D'Souza has been unsuccessfully trying to get a visa to live in the United States for years. Why? Because he wanted to live in a country where the poor people were fat!

Eliminination of poverty. Poverty is not a choice. Nobody chooses to be poor.

True, but some people choose to be lazy and live on welfare. Some people choose not to take the educational opportunities at their disposal. Some people choose to drink their money away. No one makes a conscious decision to be poor, but people being people will make stupid lifestyle choices that will lead them to poverty.

Maybe, but the reason why is because they have already satisfied their basic needs.
Anyway, I really don't see why you believe so, you can see that in countries such as the USA, the income gap is huge and there is still poverty.

But they have satisfied their basic needs. Look at the rates of heart disease and acquired diabetes due to overeating!

The income gap may be huge, but from what I've read all socioeconomic groups have got progressively wealthier in countries guaranteeing personal liberties. I'll repeat, poverty has become increasingly relative.

What do you mean by equality of outcome?

Exactly what you're promoting.

[Supercharts]

Equality is in practice every day in the USA within prisons.
All slaves are equal.

[aerocontrols]

It seems to me that perfect liberty is possible. You merely have to exist in a place and time where you are the sole human being.

I have no idea how perfect equality could be achieved.

MattJ

[Victor Danilchenko]

aerocontrols

It seems to me that perfect liberty is possible. You merely have to exist in a place and time where you are the sole human being.true. Impractical, but true.

I have no idea how perfect equality could be achieved.By the very same example as you just gave -- everyone in this universe has exactly as much as anyone else, in any possible respect. :D

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
But are the basic needs of people in the free, developed world lacking? How many peope starved to death in America or Britain last year? In one of Dinesh D'Souza's books he mentions a documentary ran by CBS in the early '80s that was intended to be an indictment of the Reagan administration. It focused on the hardest hit by the recession at that time. Soviet authorities bought it up, eager to show the populace in the USSR the failure of capitalism. They were in for a shock. It turned out that the ordinary Russian was agape at the fact that poor people in America owned colour TVs, microwaves and drove cars. Likewise a Indian friend of D'Souza has been unsuccessfully trying to get a visa to live in the United States for years. Why? Because he wanted to live in a country where the poor people were fat!

You know why is very difficult to discuss any economic topic with you?, because you always judge from your very comfortable situation in a rich and developed coutry.

In other countries, where there is no basic needs guaranteed (think African countries, Afghanistan and Latin America), people live in extreme poverty. I am talking about no food, no TV, no running water, no electricity, no nothing. Imagine this situation.

What is the point of freedom here? What do they need freedom for?. Just answer my question.

We need to satisfy those needs before asking for any freedom


True, but some people choose to be lazy and live on welfare. Some people choose not to take the educational opportunities at their disposal. Some people choose to drink their money away. No one makes a conscious decision to be poor, but people being people will make stupid lifestyle choices that will lead them to poverty.

O.K. They choose to be lazy because they know that their basic needs are already satisfy. Forget about developed countries.

Would you say that an Ethiopian little boy chose to be poor and miserable?



Exactly what you're promoting.

I am promoting equality in opportunities, if that is what you mean.

Q-S

[Kodiak]

Liberty.

If I am truly free, equality or inequality are irrelevent.

[Victor Danilchenko]

BTW, the French Revolution slogan "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" came about because, while liberty and equality were considered important, they were also believed to be naturally incompatible; it was "fraternite" that was supposed to make it possible for "liberte" and "egalite" to co-exist in the same society.

[DrMatt]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. I am not being facetious. And I'm rather suspicious of those who seem so certain that they do understand the question.

[Walter Wayne]

Ditto Dr. Matt,

My initial reaction is there is no absolute answer.

Walt

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
BTW, the French Revolution slogan "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" came about because, while liberty and equality were considered important, they were also believed to be naturally incompatible; it was "fraternite" that was supposed to make it possible for "liberte" and "egalite" to co-exist in the same society.


I lived for a while on Fraternity Row in Ann Arbor, and believe me, it was no party. Or rather, it was a party every night. Libby and Eggy could only get along with each other when they were drunk, and they did pledge to the same society, so perhaps there was something to that. I wasn't a member of a frat and I was trying to get some serious studying done. Now I live in a quieter part of town, near the football stadium--well, it's quiet MOST of the time.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
BTW, the French Revolution slogan "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" came about because, while liberty and equality were considered important, they were also believed to be naturally incompatible; it was "fraternite" that was supposed to make it possible for "liberte" and "egalite" to co-exist in the same society.


And if that didn't work - "Off with their heads!!!" :p

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Q-Source:
You know why is very difficult to discuss any economic topic with you?, because you always judge from your very comfortable situation in a rich and developed coutry.

And you know why I live in a rich and developoed country? Because basic liberties are guaranteed, ensuring the "basic needs" of all are catered for.

In other countries, where there is no basic needs guaranteed (think African countries, Afghanistan and Latin America), people live in extreme poverty. I am talking about no food, no TV, no running water, no electricity, no nothing. Imagine this situation.

Guess what? Those same countries have a marked lack of personal freedom and liberty. Think Uganda (one time Jewel of Africa), Zimbabwe and North Korea.

What is the point of freedom here? What do they need freedom for?. Just answer my question.

Freedom to grow enough food for their families safe in the knowledge it won't be seized by a brutal regime's armed thugs? Freedom to plant crops in the knowledge they won't be burned in the fields?

We need to satisfy those needs before asking for any freedom

The best way for those needs to be satisfied is to guarantee freedom, otherwise all other efforts will come to nought.

Would you say that an Ethiopian little boy chose to be poor and miserable?

No, but the poor little Ethiopian boy is poor because of strife and dictatorship. Ethiopia is a country capable of feeding it's people, famines there are due to lack of available food due to politics, not lack of food.

[a_unique_person]

i think the basic question is false. they are two qualities that are not necessarily dependant on each other, not a case of either/or as the question implies.

Liberty, or freedom, is of course, very important. without it, you are serving someone else, without any say in who they are. Equality implies liberty, that is, how can there be equality when you are enslaved by someone else.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Is there some reason you can't first provide a clear, straightforward answer to a simple question about a claim you made, before challenging others for counterexamples?

Originally posted by BillyTK
I have a strange feeling of deja vu here...

Same here. Having reviewed the content of this latest post of yours, it looks like someone who doesn't like answering questions about his own statements is, yet again, going to try to deflect attention from his evasiveness by making an issue of the person doing the asking.



if you confined yourself to commenting on what I've actually said, without trying to put my opinions in your own words first, or speculating about my position on a particular point before I've even expressed it, I'd be more than willing to provide a straightforward answer. Sorry, but I'm not interested in having to "clarify" my position each time you misrepresent it.

If you think quoting legitimate criticisms I've leveled against others is going to deter me from using them, think again. And trying to appear clever by using them when they're not valid only makes you look desperate.



Anyway, you claimed my claim was baloney. That's an intellectually rigorous way to refute a claim, no? On what basis do you support that claim?

That would be the utter lack of anything to support yours. Since it's part of a challenge to get you to back up your claim, it doesn't bear the burden of refutation in the first place. Nice try, though.



Also, you asked, "In a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?". I asked for an example of such a free society as a rhetorical device to question the validity of your question;

Nice try again. But given that the question whose validity your question was intended to challenge was nothing more than a request to get you to back up your own claim, your question is not so much a legitimate "rhetorical device" as a rationalization for evasiveness. 'Cause we're a couple of exchanges into this now, and you still have not explained how anyone is kept from access to those things in a free society.



as I proceed to mention, there can be no such thing as absolute freedom; so give me an example of a free society.

And yet again, you seem to be challenging me for things that are irrelevant to my position, in order to create the impression of failure on my part to cover for your own actual failure.



Now, once again, in a free society, how is anybody kept from access to any of these things any more than anyone else?

As I asked previously, give me an example of such a free society. Until then, we could also debate how long a piece of string is, or how blue the sky is.

Yeah, except that neither of us made claims about those topics. You did make a claim - a very specific claim - about what freedom could not do. Now you seem to want to try to spin your inability to support that claim as someone else's failure.



so that justifies or mitigates the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor?

I'm pretty sure I made no references to it being justified or mitigated. You are the one who brought up the "freedom" to suffer unpleasant conditions, not me.

Actually, I was the one who brought up both conditions of freedom. You were the one who focussed on "the freedom not to". To what point exactly?

I didn't focus on it. I mentioned it, in response to your focus on the possible negative consequences of freedom, and to try and get you to explain your point in doing so. So far, it is still unclear from your posts whether you believe people should have the "freedom" to experience the negative consequences that you yourself brought up, or not. You certainly didn't answer my question about how you would prevent it.

In fact, a lot of this would go much more smoothly if, when I ask a simple question about statements you've made, you would simply answer it. You seem to want to do everything except that, since the list of unanswered questions is now up to about half a dozen. (You do know what this forum is all about, right?) Like you said, deja vu.



Can you explain why anyone should not have this particular type of freedom, or for that matter, how you would prevent it? And if you're suggesting these consequences are any more likely with freedom than without it, can you explain that as well?

Are you sh!tting me?

Not intentionally.



People should have the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor?

I asked you first. Remember, you were the one who brought it up, when you said "and of course the flipside of freedom is the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor".



Are those even freedoms at all?

I was kind of wondering about that myself. But then again, as I just pointed out, you were the one who brought it up, when you said "and of course the flipside of freedom is the freedom to starve, and the freedom to die in ignorance and squalor". Are you having second thoughts about it now?



Surely freedom presumes some notion of agency to chose between a number of conditions, and to consent to the condition they do choose?

Well, I suppose it could, but more often it's not so much about choosing between "a number of conditions" as it is about making choices (such as in one's own actions) that could lead to certain conditions, possibly even negative ones. If you're talking about something else, then please try to make your question more clear.



And if you're suggesting these consequences are any more likely with freedom than without it, can you explain that as well?

And I've made no such suggestions that the stated conditions "are any more likely with freedom than without it".

Thus my use of the word "if". And again, since you chose equality over liberty, and since you made reference to these negative consequences in defending that choice, it was a fair question. All you have to do is make your position clear on this point, if that's possible.



Can we stick to what I have said, rather than what you thing I've said, or what that "something" tells you to think I've said?

Sure, as soon as you start becoming much more forthcoming with your answers, so I don't have to rely on that "something". Besides, that "something" is pretty soundly based on what you've said anyway. More on that later.



Did I claim you claimed I did?

No.



it is fun isn't it?

Not any more. You're becoming far too dependent on this sort of nonsense to deflect attention from your evasiveness.



So if you agree I made no claim about absolute equality, why did you introduce it?

Gee, I don't know, it might have something to do with the fact that you did make a claim about absolute freedom, and you did so in a thread about comparing freedom and equality, as if it was an argument for choosing the latter.



Would you care to justify your statment, or retract it?

Which statement of mine should I even consider retracting? Sorry, but your question appears to be yet another attempt to create the impression of a problem in my post that doesn't exist.



In any case, since you did claim that there could be no such thing as absolute freedom, and you did so in a thread about comparing freedom to equality, do you want to go on record stating my inquiry was an unreasonable response to such a claim?

I made a claim that there can be no such thing as absolute freedom, however, I'll make no judgement on the merits of your introduction of absolute equality until you explain why you saw fit to introduce it at that point.

Since I already did (it's even contained in the question you just quoted without answering), and since that explanation makes it clear you all but brought it up yourself, it's apparent you don't have a point here after all. Nice work.



What the hell does that mean? You're not making much sense. Something tells me your idea of equality just means the ability to make others pay for what you can't afford.

I'd stop listening to that "something" then. It doesn't serve you well at all.

If you're so sure of that, let's put it to the test. Are you willing to go on record clearly acknowledging that neither freedom nor equality is accompanied by the right to have others pay for what you can't afford? And in addition to that question, I think it would go a long way toward establishing whether that "something" serves me well if you would also provide a clear, direct answer to my other questions in this post too. Take your time.

Let's not put it to your test. Your test is disengenuous to say the least.

That's a revealing comment, since the crux of my "test" is simply to get you to answer questions about statements you've made. If you find that disingenuous, then the "don't ask me any questions about my opinions" forum might be more suited to you than this one. Your response just appears to be yet another case of someone trying to equate his evasiveness with taking the high road.



You claimed that "something" told you what my idea of equality involved "the right to have others pay for what you can't afford"; are you claiming special knowledge--telepathy perhaps--or would you care to withdraw that statement until such a time as I actually state what my idea of equality is?

Why would I want to do such a thing? The longer you go without answering my questions about it, the more convinced I am that my assessment of your idea of equality is the correct one.

In any case, no "telepathy" necessary. A little deductive reasoning is all it takes. First, you expressed support for Q-source's comments, which included "Equality guarantees that I and anybody else will have the same opportunities to get education, health care, employment and policy participation among the most important" [emphasis mine]. You also said yourself "Equality trumps freedom, simply because it gives individuals access to the skills and resources to attain and guarantee freedom; freedom can make no such commitments". Now, the only way I can see for equality to do this any better than freedom, at least with regard to the things I've highlighted, is for somebody other than the person receiving those things to pay for them. As soon as you can identify some other key difference (you know, one which explains how equality provides the opportunity for things where equality does not, and without anyone else paying for them), I'll reconsider my position.

Moreover, when you combine all that with the fact that this isn't the first time you've expressed opinions on a topic only to then avoid answering questions about those opinions, you don't exactly leave yourself much room to complain about any resulting speculation about what your opinions mean.



In most cases, such patterns in someone's posts tend to reflect either sloppiness or dishonesty. In your case, I can't tell which applies yet.

What the hell "pattern" are you talking about? The only pattern I see consists of your attempts to create the impression of valid criticisms by repeating words I've used against others, but the problem is that you're using them in contexts where they don't make sense.



And while we're at it, is there some reason you didn't care to explain what you meant by "perhaps some freedoms are not worth their cost, or are not even freedoms at all"?

Yup. See above.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the "above" to explain your evasiveness on those points either.



Incidentally, you should also lay off that "rolleyes" button until you learn when it's appropriate, or you just end up looking kind of silly.

If I'm looking silly by your standards...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I hate to break it to you, but you're looking silly by the standards of any self-respecting skeptic. Continuing to dodge relevant questions about the statements you've made, while repeating the "rolleyes" thing, only makes it clear you can fail with swagger. Most people find that looks a bit silly.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Equality implies liberty, that is, how can there be equality when you are enslaved by someone else.

Majority rule, anyone?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by WMT1


Majority rule, anyone?

No thank you...

Not without checks and balances to protect the minority...

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Majority rule, anyone?

Originally posted by Kodiak
No thank you...

Not without checks and balances to protect the minority...

Lest anybody get the idea that I'm arguing for majority rule, I'd just like to point out that I was attempting to provide an example to address the question posed by a_unique_person:

"Equality implies liberty, that is, how can there be equality when you are enslaved by someone else."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by WMT1


Lest anybody get the idea that I'm arguing for majority rule, I'd just like to point out that I was attempting to provide an example to address the question posed by a_unique_person:

"Equality implies liberty, that is, how can there be equality when you are enslaved by someone else."

Not to worry. Your subtlety was not lost on me. I was just expanding on your point... :)