• 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

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,493
Reaction score
39,817
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Choose which ye shall serve.
 
False dichotomy.
 
It's a false dichotomy as Helix said. In addition, I don't think fairness can be had without freedom. I don't think freedom can be had without fairness. Consequently, if one cannot exist without the other, then one cannot choose between the two. I'm writing this on the assumption that you're talking about freedom or fairness for all of society, but if not, oops.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I believe what the OP is suggesting with his choices (and what I believe) is the current attitude of taxing the rich to redispense the wealth. Thereby providing a "fair" environment for all. Fair meaning no one person or group of people exceeds another person or group's means or lifestyle. The demonization of the rich is a despicable act by elitists who themselves belong to the same "class". Then, like lemmings, the people who support these hypocrites fall in line and believe in the rhetoric. Similarly, I believe what the OP is suggesting is that other groups believe in survival of the fittest. As if we, as human beings, do not have the responsibility of caring for our fellow man simply because they are "lazy" and got themselves into the mess. That we should allow them to bleed out in the ditch, die of starvation in an abandoned lot, or freeze to death in an alley. As the Bible says, may it never be! I do believe we have an obligation to help the poor and the needy. I also believe we have an obligation to teach them how to care for themselves and dig themselves out of the hole they are in. The thing that disturbs me the most is the amount of groups that help foreign countries while we need so much help here. These are the same people that will demand we stop our "occupation" of Afghanistan and various other countries. Their choice to help a foreign countries before their own is reverse neo-conservatism. The idea that these humanitarians "occupy" other countries to assist them while we struggle at home is no better than us "occupying" a country militarily to force them to become a republic while we struggle economically. Obviously, this version of fairness is very different from what previous posters have suggested and VERY different from what others believe freedom is.
 
False dichotomy.

Agreed.

Freedom comes in many forms, fairness being one of them.

Indeed, this is the whole idea behind the concept of equality before the law and due process.
 
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.


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?"

A certain amount of one is necessary to the existence of the other... yet at the same time, taking either to an extreme tends to drastically reduce the other principle.

For instance, let's say we had absolute freedom and absolute self-soveriegnty, and gov't only existed to secure the borders against outsiders and to punish those who INITIATED force or fraud against an innocent party (the nonaggression principle of libertarianism). Let's say there were no government services whatsoever, and the libertarian ideal of privatized-everything was the norm, including privatized cops.

You'd be free. You'd be free to starve to death if you can't find a job, free to be victimized by whoever had more power than you if you couldn't afford to pay for cop/security services.... I suppose you'd be free to sell yourself into slavery if that was the only way not to starve to death. If you're mentally or physically limited and can't work and the church-sponsored homeless shelters are full I guess you're free to freeze to death on the street. Those who are best at accumulating capital will be free to accumulate it until they own everything in town and you either work for them or starve.

Doesn't sound too good, eh?

Let's try maximizing fairness. Everybody gets an equal share of the Gross Domestic Product. Everybody who is able gets a job of some kind, whatever they're suited for, makework if we can't find anything else you can do, but everybody gets paid the same. Everyone has the same access to healthcare or any other limited resource as everyone else.

Well, what happens? There is no incentive to achieve or excel. There is no incentive to work extra hard or seek promotion. There is no incentive to go to college other than pride and status. Enterpreneurship and invention decline. Productivity declines. Pretty soon each person's share of the GDP starts to decline. Eventually we're all equally poor.

Not too good either, eh?

This is why a middle-of-the-road centrist approach makes more sense. Some entity (ie gov't) has to ensure that those with lots of power (ie corporations, capitalists, warlords) don't use that power to abuse and mistreat those with little power (ie Joe Workingdude) and that there's some reasonable effort to give everyone a fair opportunity to excel. At the same time, you need to maximize freedom within that context so that creativity and invention and enterpreneurship isn't stifled, and so that greater productivity has its incentives.

I voted Freedom, because to me freedom is the sine-qua-non of life, but in truth we have to have a measure of fairness as well or freedom simply means the freedom to be abused by those with more power.
 
Last edited:
if there is a real fairness ,you can get enough freedom
 
failure to read the polls' question.

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.
 
Last edited:
Choose which ye shall serve.

Ultimately, both concepts need each other to give value.

Edit: I saw goshin's post and he said it far better than my one liner.
 
Last edited:
if there is a real fairness ,you can get enough freedom

Who determines what is fair and wouldn't those who disagree feel a loss of their freedom.
 
Freedom is fairness, if it's a virtue that is always deferred to first.

I don't see how it boils down to these two things anyway.
 
Who determines what is fair and wouldn't those who disagree feel a loss of their freedom.


our government is not fair and it tries to eliminate our freedoms and all priciples of our republic.

or can you love somebody whom you dont trust and can you feel free with him ?
 
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?"

A certain amount of one is necessary to the existence of the other... yet at the same time, taking either to an extreme tends to drastically reduce the other principle.

For instance, let's say we had absolute freedom and absolute self-soveriegnty, and gov't only existed to secure the borders against outsiders and to punish those who INITIATED force or fraud against an innocent party (the nonaggression principle of libertarianism). Let's say there were no government services whatsoever, and the libertarian ideal of privatized-everything was the norm, including privatized cops.

You'd be free. You'd be free to starve to death if you can't find a job, free to be victimized by whoever had more power than you if you couldn't afford to pay for cop/security services.... I suppose you'd be free to sell yourself into slavery if that was the only way not to starve to death. If you're mentally or physically limited and can't work and the church-sponsored homeless shelters are full I guess you're free to freeze to death on the street. Those who are best at accumulating capital will be free to accumulate it until they own everything in town and you either work for them or starve.

Doesn't sound too good, eh?

Let's try maximizing fairness. Everybody gets an equal share of the Gross Domestic Product. Everybody who is able gets a job of some kind, whatever they're suited for, makework if we can't find anything else you can do, but everybody gets paid the same. Everyone has the same access to healthcare or any other limited resource as everyone else.

Well, what happens? There is no incentive to achieve or excel. There is no incentive to work extra hard or seek promotion. There is no incentive to go to college other than pride and status. Enterpreneurship and invention decline. Productivity declines. Pretty soon each person's share of the GDP starts to decline. Eventually we're all equally poor.

Not too good either, eh?

This is why a middle-of-the-road centrist approach makes more sense. Some entity (ie gov't) has to ensure that those with lots of power (ie corporations, capitalists, warlords) don't use that power to abuse and mistreat those with little power (ie Joe Workingdude) and that there's some reasonable effort to give everyone a fair opportunity to excel. At the same time, you need to maximize freedom within that context so that creativity and invention and enterpreneurship isn't stifled, and so that greater productivity has its incentives.

I voted Freedom, because to me freedom is the sine-qua-non of life, but in truth we have to have a measure of fairness as well or freedom simply means the freedom to be abused by those with more power.

This quote pretty much sums up my whole political philosophy.
 
I'm going to vote for "Freedom" because George Michael is absolutely fabulous!

 
our government is not fair and it tries to eliminate our freedoms and all priciples of our republic.

or can you love somebody whom you dont trust and can you feel free with him ?

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.
 
I don't get it, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Only a few will "get it" and they will provide the appropriate knee jerk response and vote for FREEDOM - whatever the hell that is beyond one rather vague word.

This is a kool-aid test.
 
Choose which ye shall serve.

Freedom, but there's a staunch exception to the rule.

Classic liberalism is NOT libertinism. Modern liberalism seems to have gotten out of hand and confused the two. Freedom of speech is a perfect example. We now live in a world where fraud, intimidation, and duress are completely excusable, and charging someone with any of the above requires a massive appeal to authority, popularity, and emotion where only elites can really make a case.

The rule of law in this country seems to be on the verge of anarchy... or fascism. Take your pick on how much order you see around.

Nobody seems to understand how duty of care is an idealist, not a pragmatist, notion anymore.
 
Last edited:
Only a few will "get it" and they will provide the appropriate knee jerk response and vote for FREEDOM - whatever the hell that is beyond one rather vague word.

This is a kool-aid test.
Yeah, I already knew when I saw the thread that the "right" answer was "Freedom".
 
False dichotomy.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom