• 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!

Freedom Or Fairness

Which One Trumps The Other

  • Total voters
    23
Connery said:
I do not think you are correct in that our government "tries to eliminate our freedoms and all principles". That is why we have the Supreme Court to insure that our principles and freedoms are preserved. Love its not a requirement. Nevertheless, to answer your question....No I could not love someone I did not trust or feel free. However, I could coexist with that person, society or government.
Click to expand...

no i am talking about our own goverment :2razz:

yes if you really trust somebody and if he trusts you too ,you can feel free and love each other ,so you first need a little fairness..
 
Wiseone said:
This could be interesting. Its possible we're about to see a perfect example of partisanship and division, and this will be an especially pure division because the original question has so many possible meanings. I wonder if people are going to start dividing into two camps, where one argues for one definition of the words and another argues for a different definition. For example, one camp could argue fairness means fairness under the law while another could argue that fairness means something more like communism where everyone's lives are equal.

My opinion is that as it stands now, the question is so vague its meaningless. What exactly the OP means by each of his choices is anyone's guess. So we are going to apply our own definitions to those words and argue as if that's the real meaning, OR we are going to see someone who we don't like or has an opposing political lean and argue against whatever they say because we know we disagree with them by default.

Going to be interesting. So far we got MarineTpartier, throwing the first blow, I wonder if other self described conservatives will follow his lead naturally. And I wonder if self described liberals, or at least those who disagree with conservatives, will follow the idea that its a False dichotomy because its the natural opposing position.
Click to expand...

I don't really buy this being a conservative-liberal division between freedom and fairness. Economically speaking, "conservatives" prefer freedom and "liberals" prefer fairness. Socially speaking though, "conservatives" prefer fairness, and "liberals" prefer freedom.

There's a reason the poll included "uniformity", and it's very clear why "liberals" in this thread aren't paying attention to it.
 
Medusa said:
no i am talking about our own goverment :2razz:
Click to expand...

I understand that. I need to coexist with that government, love is optional, I feel free; I have experienced a great life of achievement and have been happy in my pursuit thereof.

yes if you really trust somebody and if he trusts you too ,you can feel free and love each other ,so you first need a little fairness..
Click to expand...
Fairness is what the parties to the relationship determine. Fairness is about compromise therefore there can never be total freedom for all parties.
 
I see Freedom, Fairness and Uniformity all acting together, not separate from each other. I see the three concepts operatating as one.
 
Fairness begets freedom. And freedom, real freedom, is pretty fair.
 
Daktoria said:
One liners like this really need to be banned.

If you want to have a constructive discussion, explain yourself. Otherwise, you're just making noise.
Click to expand...

There's no need for a paragraph when a one liner is all that's needed. The poll wasn't made to solicit opinions and discussion. It was to make a point and a fallacious one at that given the options provided.
 
You cannot have freedom without fairness.

Theoretically, you could have fairness without freedom, but it would be so unlikely as to be pretty much impossible as well.
 
Gina said:
This is in relation to requiring the Catholic church to provide birth control coverage to their employees? You said this in your Obama vs. Catholics thread.
Click to expand...

It's what gave me the idea.




It's interesting how many people will go to such lenghts to declare that there are no hard decisions.
 
radcen said:
You cannot have freedom without fairness.
Click to expand...

I would advise you to go back and read your Locke.


Theoretically, you could have fairness without freedom, but it would be so unlikely as to be pretty much impossible as well.
Click to expand...

not at all. fairness has been the goal of many a totalitarian ideology.
 
Goshin said:
You raise some interesting points.

I am pretty much center-right, perhaps I can expand on this a bit.

This question can be construed as a false dichotomy, or as a mutually exclusive choice, but I don't think either of those views is entirely correct.... just like the question "freedom or order?" or "freedom or security?"
Click to expand...

precisely, which is explicitly why this question asks which one of these two items trumps the other, rather than depicting them as mutually exclusive. When deciding between the two, which one is given the benefit of assumption? Do you have to demonstrate that in this instance it is better to be free than fair, or do you have to demonstrate that in this instance it is better to be fair than free.
 
Paschendale said:
Fairness begets freedom.
Click to expand...

See, that is the kind of thing that I was trying to get people to enunciate.

And freedom, real freedom, is pretty fair.
Click to expand...

Mind you, this particular instance I believe is horribly wrong (freedom precursors fairness, and it is certainly not inherently fair), but at least Paschendale got the point.
 
obvious Child said:
Depends how you define goal. A list of stuff we find good is hardly a set of goals.
Click to expand...

From Each According To His Abilities To Each According To His Needs is certainly an elevating of Fairness in a manner that destroys freedom.
 
well it's more of an "intent" question.... you can't ever really achieve full fairness.
 
Uniformity. Freedom and Fairness are both Red Herrings. Freedom is worthless when it allows people to act in an inappropriate manner and Fairness is contrary to every bit of the natural world. Only Uniformity is a useful system for maintainance of society.
 
Freedom and Fairness are not muturally exclusive, and fairness is impossible to actual quantify and define. No answer.
 
cpwill said:
See, that is the kind of thing that I was trying to get people to enunciate.



Mind you, this particular instance I believe is horribly wrong (freedom precursors fairness, and it is certainly not inherently fair), but at least Paschendale got the point.
Click to expand...

I think we all understand what you mean by freedom, but how do you define "fairness"? Is "fair" an equal outcome for everyone, or everyone having equal opportunity, or is it something else?
 
Tigger said:
Uniformity. Freedom and Fairness are both Red Herrings. Freedom is worthless when it allows people to act in an inappropriate manner and Fairness is contrary to every bit of the natural world. Only Uniformity is a useful system for maintainance of society.
Click to expand...
Uniformity is even more broad than either freedom or fairness.
 
Honestly the two can be the same thing. Without fairness there can be no true freedom. If there was no minimum wage fairness, discrimination law fairness, a right to work in fair and healthly conditions fairness, and if there was no way to the pusuit of happiness fairness there is no freedom you are just a slave to labor to barely survive in tyranny.
 
These kinds of dichotomies aren't practical. What's the point of freedom if it isn't fair? What's the point in fairness if you're not free? You may as well choose between food or water.
 
I as I stated before, I don't think you can have one without the other. That's has a lot to do with the way I interpret each word, I'm sure. But, looking at it from a different aspect, you could ask: Are we discussing freedom of opportunity, or fairness of results? Those two are not necessarily the same as the other.
 
Tigger said:
Uniformity. Freedom and Fairness are both Red Herrings. Freedom is worthless when it allows people to act in an inappropriate manner and Fairness is contrary to every bit of the natural world. Only Uniformity is a useful system for maintainance of society.
Click to expand...
When you watch Star Trek you cheer for the Borg don't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom