• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is more important?

Which is more important?


  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
The USSR was not free in any way shape or form. How much financial security did Russians have then?
 
What we have in this thread is a failure to communicate. The poll gives a vague premise that is almost nonsensical. As the thread goes on, there seems to be a complete disconnect between wild-eyed idealism... "Freeeedoom"... from people who have never in their lives lived in a totalitarian society, but are acting as if they are living in one now and want to spark a rebellion against... well, that part is unclear. People who have financial security, I suppose, but the entire discussion is so disjointed as to be nonsensical.

Americans have freedom. However, if they don't use that freedom to attend to their own needs by securing the finances necessary to survive, freedom in itself becomes less important than survival. As I've previously said, without financial security... i.e. the means to support oneself... the only freedom left is starvation, homelessness, and welfare. :shrug: Quite frankly some posts in this thread are honestly undecipherable.
 
can you truely have freedom without finanacial security?

yes.


also.



duh.





"Freedom" =/= "you have the ability to do anything you want to"
 
Americans have freedom. However, if they don't use that freedom to attend to their own needs by securing the finances necessary to survive, freedom in itself becomes less important than survival. As I've previously said, without financial security... i.e. the means to support oneself... the only freedom left is starvation, homelessness, and welfare.

well (speaking generally), I guess since you are free, you should go about securing those things.
 
well (speaking generally), I guess since you are free, you should go about securing those things.

Actually, I spent my entire life doing just that. If I hadn't, now that I am disabled, the only freedom I would have is the freedom to die in a gutter.
 
"Freedom" =/= "you have the ability to do anything you want to"

Why does it matter if the reason you can't do what you want because of an oppressive government or a lack of money? The practical outcome is the same, and in both cases all that exists is the possibility that you'll overcome your obstacle in the future.
 
Why does it matter if the reason you can't do what you want because of an oppressive government or a lack of money? The practical outcome is the same, and in both cases all that exists is the possibility that you'll overcome your obstacle in the future.

Practical outcome is not the same. The one you can change it, the other you can not. The one there is still freedom, while the other their just isn't. Are you usually this dishonest?
 
Practical outcome is not the same. The one you can change it, the other you can not.

Lack of money - Change it by earning more money
Oppressive government - Change it by overthrowing your government

In both cases the potential exists for you to overcome your obstacle in the future. But in neither case are you able to pursue your goals NOW.

The one there is still freedom, while the other their just isn't.

Nope, there isn't freedom in either case.

Are you usually this dishonest?

News flash: I'm smarter than you are. The fact that you can't dispute my points is no reason to get an attitude. :2wave:
 
Actually, I spent my entire life doing just that. If I hadn't, now that I am disabled, the only freedom I would have is the freedom to die in a gutter.

:shrug: even Milton Friedman argued (and the vast majority of conservatives agree) that there are two groups that shouldn't be tossed into the "animating contest of freedom": children, and the truly disabled.

but, given that we live in a knowledge economy, and that you appear pretty knowledgeable on here, i find it difficult to believe you would find yourself utterly without prospects.
 
Lack of money - Change it by earning more money
Oppressive government - Change it by overthrowing your government

In no way shape or form can you compare the two as they are equal, but good try.

In both cases the potential exists for you to overcome your obstacle in the future. But in neither case are you able to pursue your goals NOW.

Bull****. The one you need to overthrow your government and probably die in the process, the other you just need a plan and some luck.

Nope, there isn't freedom in either case.

Nope, there is freedom when you are poor. You are confused. Wow, these kind of arguments are fun.


[News flash: I'm smarter than you are. The fact that you can't dispute my points is no reason to get an attitude. :2wave:

Is that all you got? Seems weak if you ask me.
 
Why does it matter if the reason you can't do what you want because of an oppressive government or a lack of money?

two reasons:

1. this is debate politics.
2. it is much easier and can be left almost completely up to the individual to attain the second. not so the former. "go get a job" is a qualitatively different statement than "overthrow your government", and to pretend the two are comparable is ludicrous.

when you have freedom, you can secure for yourself wealth with which to exercise it. when you lack freedom (as the nKorea example demonstrates), you cannot secure for yourself those things, but are dependent upon your tyrant.
 
In no way shape or form can you compare the two as they are equal, but good try.

But, of course, you can't articulate WHY they aren't equal. :roll:

Bull****. The one you need to overthrow your government and probably die in the process, the other you just need a plan and some luck.

Obviously there are plenty of people who think it's easier to overthrow their government than to earn more money. Look at Egypt, where one of the primary causes of the revolution was the widespread poverty, cronyism and corruption in the government, and general lack of social mobility.

Nope, there is freedom when you are poor. You are confused. Wow, these kind of arguments are fun.

Nah, it's not really fun when you just keep repeating the same talking points instead of actually explaining WHY you think that or offering any explanation whatsoever.

Is that all you got? Seems weak if you ask me.

:roll:
Ya I think I'm done responding to you unless you have something profound to add to the discussion.
 
the other you just need a plan and some luck.

Now you get to frame the argument? A plan and some luck? Now it comes back to Henrin's usual point: poor people are poor because they deserve it.

Obviously you missed the major point of lacking the ability to be financially secure. If you are not able to be financially secure, then a "plan and some luck" won't do ****.
 
it is much easier and can be left almost completely up to the individual to attain the second. not so the former. "go get a job" is a qualitatively different statement than "overthrow your government", and to pretend the two are comparable is ludicrous.

Depends on where you live and what your situation is. Many people who lack financial security have few options for bettering their economic situation.

when you have freedom, you can secure for yourself wealth with which to exercise it. when you lack freedom (as the nKorea example demonstrates), you cannot secure for yourself those things, but are dependent upon your tyrant.

Being "free" to secure more wealth for yourself is not as simple as a lack of government interference. A person who has no education, no skills, no money or knowledge of how to acquire education/skills, was raised by someone with no education/skills/responsibility, has no mode of transportation aside from their feet, has no successful role models or acquaintances, and no knowledge whatsoever in financial literacy is not going to be able to better themselves. Yes, of course there are rare exceptions of people escaping poverty in those circumstances, but they are the exceptions to the rule. They don't have much freedom, irrespective of how much the government is responsible for those circumstances.
 
Last edited:
But, of course, you can't articulate WHY they aren't equal. :roll:

Care to explain how things that are clearly different can be the same? I can't even begin to imagine it so if you are smarter than me so you should be able to explain the unexplainable.

Obviously there are plenty of people who think it's easier to overthrow their government than to earn more money. Look at Egypt, where one of the primary causes of the revolution was the widespread poverty, cronyism and corruption in the government, and general lack of social mobility.

All of is caused by........


Nah, it's not really fun when you just keep repeating the same talking points instead of actually explaining WHY you think that or offering any explanation whatsoever.

Oh really? I keep repeating myself? Hmm..

:roll:
Ya I think I'm done responding to you unless you have something profound to add to the discussion.

IF you are indeed smarter like you say, its shouldn't be any trouble to prove it. That is, if its not just unfounded confidence and intermediation.
 
Last edited:
Care to explain how things that are clearly different can be the same? I can't even begin to imagine it so if you are smarter than me so you should be able to explain the unexplainable.



All of is caused by........




Oh really? I keep repeating myself? Hmm..



IF you are indeed smarter like you say, its shouldn't be any trouble to prove it. That is, if its not just unfounded confidence and intermediation.

Henrin is now on my ignore list.
 
Have a wonderful rage quit. :lol:
 
Have a wonderful rage quit. :lol:

Really? Henrin the other night:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/113806-woman-charged-self-abortion.html#post1059995115
Argh..I'm starting to hate how liberals support their views. Its like a child just saying I win in a high pitched squeal. All you did was say nothing like everyone else tonight. I'm going to take a break from DP. You guys aren't worth jack ****.

You didn't defend Licenses.
You didn't defend the presence of having to have license to to work your own body.
You didn't do ****.

God damn. I have said that to five people tonight and none of them even bothered to fix the problems of their lack of an argument. Worthless..

Talk about a rage quit. Nice break, it lasted all of never.
 
:shrug: even Milton Friedman argued (and the vast majority of conservatives agree) that there are two groups that shouldn't be tossed into the "animating contest of freedom": children, and the truly disabled.

but, given that we live in a knowledge economy, and that you appear pretty knowledgeable on here, i find it difficult to believe you would find yourself utterly without prospects.

:lol: I am not without prospects. I am without lungs. When I did have functioning lungs, I worked my ass off for decades, putting everything I legally could into Deferred Compensation, IRAs, 401ks and SEPs. If I hadn't done that, I wouldn't have financial security for the immediate future, and all the freedom in the world can't allow me to function normally. So yes, financial security is more important to me now than some undefined "freedom" on which this meandering thread is based!
 
Back
Top Bottom