• 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 .

ksu_aviator

Democrats are the fascists
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
7,640
Reaction score
2,827
Location
Your Head
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I was wondering what you think is more important. You can only pick one, so which is it? Don't cop out and say you want both, you can only pick one.
 
can you truely have freedom without finanacial security?
 
Yes. Yes, you can.

I'm not as sure. If not secure, I will in one way or another be limited, confined. I keep thinking of Malow's hieharchy of needs.
 
I'm not as sure. If not secure, I will in one way or another be limited, confined. I keep thinking of Malow's hieharchy of needs.

Freedom and capability are not the same thing.
 
No they are not mutually exclusive. If you are not capable of being financially independent, then you are not free to be independent.

How tall are you?
 
Financial security is only present is there is significant freedom.
Without financial security one could have all their money taken via all sorts of mechanisms; so one could have the freedom to have lunch but no money to buy it.
Easy choice.
 
Last edited:
How tall are you?

My point was, you probably can't dunk. I know I can't. Does that mean I don't have the freedom to dunk? No. It means I am unable to dunk and there is a huge difference.
 
I was wondering what you think is more important. You can only pick one, so which is it? Don't cop out and say you want both, you can only pick one.

How is one to answer this? It's like saying you can have either freedom or toilet paper.

People undoubtedly want both and so to choose between either/or is impractical.
 
can you truely have freedom without finanacial security?

They have nothing to do with each other. Only someone that truly doesn't understand freedom will say they are connected.
 
No they are not mutually exclusive. If you are not capable of being financially independent, then you are not free to be independent.

They are mutually exclusive. Just because you don't have the capability to do something doesn't mean you aren't free to do it.

Or what ksu_aviator said. :D
 
How is one to answer this? It's like saying you can have either freedom or toilet paper.

People undoubtedly want both and so to choose between either/or is impractical.

Your mistake is not separating yourself from the equation.
 
They have nothing to do with each other. Only someone that truly doesn't understand freedom will say they are connected.

I think I understand freedom. Which is why I referenced Maslow. I have to have mimimal needs met before I can even think freedom. If I'm too worried about survival, I am not free. In fact, freedom won't even be a consideration.
 
can you truely have freedom without finanacial security?

I thought the same thing, but in reverse: Can you have financial security without freedom? If you're not free (to do what you want with you finances, for example - other people making decisions FOR you) how secure can you have any real security?
 
You can only conceivably have freedom under socialism. Under capitalism you are a slave to bosses and chance. What security could there passibly be under this crazy system?
 
I was wondering what you think is more important. You can only pick one, so which is it? Don't cop out and say you want both, you can only pick one.

I fail to see how the two are mutually exclusive. At all. If anything, financial security PROVIDES for freedom of action.
 
Freedom allows for opportunity of financial security. Without freedom, without the right to choose your own path in life, you could never be 'secure' financially.
 
I think I understand freedom. Which is why I referenced Maslow. I have to have mimimal needs met before I can even think freedom. If I'm too worried about survival, I am not free. In fact, freedom won't even be a consideration.

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.
 
Freedom allows for opportunity of financial security. Without freedom, without the right to choose your own path in life, you could never be 'secure' financially.

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 fail to see how the two are mutually exclusive. At all. If anything, financial security PROVIDES for freedom of action.

Freedom of action is what provides the chance financial security. Sorry, you have it backwards.
 
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 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.
 
You can only conceivably have freedom under socialism. Under capitalism you are a slave to bosses and chance. What security could there passibly be under this crazy system?


...what? There is no freedom under socialism.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom