• 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 .
...what? There is no freedom socialism.

Yup. With no means to own the means of production you have violated freedom. The only system that is free is a system that allows all possibilities that don't violate the rights of other people. Socialism fails on that front.
 
I could be free without being financially secure; it depends on your definition of freedom. If freedom is defined as my inalienable rights (as defined by the constitution) not being infringed upon, there is nothing necessitating that I become financially secure. So I can be free without being financially secure; I just don't see how the opposite could be true.

Agreed. I suppose I don't entirely understand why the OP is making us choose between one or the other. Maybe if there were some examples or if we defined both freedom and financial security.
 
This again makes no sense. If you are able to live the way you wish or not has little to nothing to do with if your freedom is enact or not. You also don't need to think of freedom or even understand freedom to have it or not making the entire idea of the importance of you thinking about it nonsensical.

I cannot be able to live the way I wish if I don't have the means to even live. It's nealry impossible. Survival takes first priority. Not freedom.

Freedom is a construct. It's a higher ideal that only those who are far enough up the needs list that more important needs are no longer a concern. The only real question is when are we at that place.
 
I cannot be able to live the way I wish if I don't have the means to even live. It's nealry impossible. Survival takes first priority. Not freedom.

Being able to live is again part of freedom but falling short and dieing is sadly again freedom. No one ever said freedom meant survival. Freedom includes the freedom to fail.

Freedom is a construct. It's a higher ideal that only those who are far enough up the needs list that more important needs are no longer a concern. The only real question is when are we at that place.

Social justice strips freedom from one to give results to another. Freedom and social justice are in opposition.
 
Last edited:
freedom is the most important thing.....but a nation can only have freedom if it has enough financial support..
 
Being able to live is again part of freedom but falling short and dieing is sadly again freedom. No one ever said freedom meant survival. Freedom includes the freedom to fail.



Social justice strips freedom from one to give results to another. Freedom and social justice are in opposition.

No, it really isn't. As I said, freedom is a construct. Before laws, no one even asked abut freedom. You either survived or you didn't. Laws and people grouping into societies allowed people the freedom to even consider if they were free or not.

Now, once at the level, yes, you have the preedom to fail. But failure is not equal to survivial. If survival is at stake, freedom is not a concern or consideration.

As for social justice, a completely different topic, a society can be oppressive to a group of people, and thus deny them freedom. So, I'm not sure exactly where you're trying to go.

I'm going to be leaving for my run and won't likely get back today, but if I do, I'll check on your response. if not, tomorrow.
 
Another way to look at it. I fail to see the point in making us choose between one or the other when they are both interrelated.

I agree, I think choosing one over the other would only define you as an extremist.
 
Well, you can have freedom yet be screwed by corporations and other cuts/political movements that leave you in squalor, or you can have financial security yet not have freedom.

Is it so hard to want both? As it is right now picking either/or absolutely sucks.
 
Prisoners have financial security. Financial security is also a claim that Communism offers. Also Financial security is what parents offer their children. Finanial security does not promise freedom, but the idea of being free to make your own decisions at least gives you a chance to obtain financial security.

With freedom you can fight against those that try to deny you of financial security. Without freedom you are controlled.

Without freedom if you did not have financial security there would be no way to obtain it. And if the system fails and the system was what gave financial freedom would fail with it.
 
They have nothing to do with each other. Only someone that truly doesn't understand freedom will say they are connected.

Not true. Financial security gives you the freedom to do as you please. Sure, you can say that a poor person who works his ass off at a job he hates is "free" to choose to starve to death instead of working...just like someone could say that a North Korean who is literally a slave is "free" to choose to starve to death instead of complying with his tormenter.

The ones who don't understand freedom are the people who define it solely in terms of absence of interference from the state. Freedom is the ability to do what you want without infringing on other's rights...which the poor most certainly do not have. If you are unable to do what you want (whether it's protesting an unjust law, or starting a business, or getting an education, or raising a family, or whatever) it doesn't really matter, from a practical standpoint, whether it's because the state is preventing you or because your checkbook is preventing you. Either way the result is the same.
 
Last edited:
Freedom and financial security are completely separate don't know how you could argue otherwise. Homeless folks are as free as I am, doesn't make them happy, but that's beside the point.
 
For me it's a no-brainer. At my age with no financial security, the only thing I'd be "free" to do is beg for food and hack myself to death on a freezing park bench.
 
If survival is at stake, freedom is not a concern or consideration.

Oh?

William-Wallace.jpg
 
Freedom and financial security are completely separate don't know how you could argue otherwise. Homeless folks are as free as I am, doesn't make them happy, but that's beside the point.

Your avatar calls to mind a fitting quote

"It's not until you've lost everything, that you're free to do anything."
 
If you are free you normally can achieve financial freedom. If you are a slave you never will
 
For me it's a no-brainer. At my age with no financial security, the only thing I'd be "free" to do is beg for food and hack myself to death on a freezing park bench.

sounds like this guy


 
Not true. Financial security gives you the freedom to do as you please. Sure, you can say that a poor person who works his ass off at a job he hates is "free" to choose to starve to death instead of working...just like someone could say that a North Korean who is literally a slave is "free" to choose to starve to death instead of complying with his tormenter.

The ones who don't understand freedom are the people who define it solely in terms of absence of interference from the state. Freedom is the ability to do what you want without infringing on other's rights...which the poor most certainly do not have. If you are unable to do what you want (whether it's protesting an unjust law, or starting a business, or getting an education, or raising a family, or whatever) it doesn't really matter, from a practical standpoint, whether it's because the state is preventing you or because your checkbook is preventing you. Either way the result is the same.

No one is denying you anything that you even mentioned. You can protest if you want, you can start a business if you have the ability and resources available(both of which you can gain access too), you can get an education, and you can raise your family. If any of those things you can't do at the moment you have the freedom to change that situation in the future with the fruits of your labor. If someone violates your rights in the process than clearly there is a problem, but all things considered you should be able to do what is needed to reach your goals.

You are confusing ease to the access to your goals to the freedom to reach those goals. The first can have plenty of blockades in your way as it stands now but the freedom is still there.
 
I would want to know exactly what freedom we're talking about here, and what exactly is meant by financial security. Are we talking freedom as in anarchy? As in not being someone else's property? As in the difference between Canada and Saudi Arabia? And for financial security, do you really mean access to resources? Does someone without this starve? Or do they merely live hand to mouth and could be fired at any moment to raise the stock price? Or does it mean truly wanting for nothing?

Either way, in order to actually have control over one's life, you need to both be free from others using force to stop you from getting what you want, and the resources to obtain what you want. One without the other is meaningless.
 
No one is denying you anything that you even mentioned.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're defining freedom solely in terms of others "denying you" something rather than actually being able to do what you want. Then you proclaim that OTHERS don't understand freedom. :roll:

You can protest if you want, you can start a business if you have the ability and resources available(both of which you can gain access too), you can get an education, and you can raise your family. If any of those things you can't do at the moment you have the freedom to change that situation in the future with the fruits of your labor. If someone violates your rights in the process than clearly there is a problem, but all things considered you should be able to do what is needed to reach your goals.

You are confusing ease to the access to your goals to the freedom to reach those goals. The first can have plenty of blockades in your way as it stands now but the freedom is still there.

If all freedom means is the ability to potentially change one's situation in the future (even if they can't do what they want right now), then by that logic everyone in the world is free...including people in oppressive dictatorships. Maybe some day they'll overthrow their government and replace it with one that doesn't oppress them. How exactly are they less free than a person who could potentially earn enough money in the future to accomplish their goals? Neither can do what they want right NOW...all that exists is the potential that their obstacle (whether an oppressive state or an empty wallet) will be removed in the future.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're defining freedom solely in terms of others "denying you" something rather than actually being able to do what you want. Then you proclaim that OTHERS don't understand freedom. :roll:

You are talking about goals, aka results. You are equating a guarantee to freedom and pretending they are the same thing. They are not. The rest of your post I won't even bother with as it is just a rant. You do that far to often btw.
 
Freedom is your capacity to choose. Can't choose **** when you're starving.
 
Define freedom in the context of this thread.
 
You can have freedom without financial security. But if you have financial security without freedom, are your finances truly secure?
 
Back
Top Bottom