• 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 .
Kandahar said:
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:
Click to expand...

well, in a philosophical context, that's the generally accepted definition of freedom. A midget can't dunk a basketball. A 6'6" black guy locked in a cell can't dunk either. But there's a meaningful distinction between why each cannot dunk a basketball. In the philosophical sense of the word "free", the midget is "free" to dunk (although he is physically unable) while the prisoner is not. The distinction being that, in the case of the prisoner, conscious moral agents are responsible for keeping the black guy from dunking.

(that example's pretty straightforward, but it's easy to twist the variables a bit and things can get hairy real fast)
 
the_recruit said:
well, in a philosophical context, that's the generally accepted definition of freedom. A midget can't dunk a basketball. A 6'6" black guy locked in a cell can't dunk either. But there's a meaningful distinction between why each cannot dunk a basketball. In the philosophical sense of the word "free", the midget is "free" to dunk (although he is physically unable) while the prisoner is not. The distinction being that, in the case of the prisoner, conscious moral agents are responsible for keeping the black guy from dunking.

(that example's pretty straightforward, but it's easy to twist the variables a bit and things can get hairy real fast)
Click to expand...

That fits more with those who claim you can be anything you want to be. Woody Allen was never going to be Larry Bird. However, those examples are a little different than what is included on Maslow's heirarchy. Freedom is something we invented. A construct. One who is only trying to survive has no real concept of freedom. And if asked, would like either laugh or hit you. I remember an Iraqi talking to a US solider who couldn't understand why the Iraqi was happy to be free. The Iraqi said something to the effect, "Freedom? I don't have food and I'm not safe. What good is freedom?"
 
Boo Radley said:
That fits more with those who claim you can be anything you want to be. Woody Allen was never going to be Larry Bird. However, those examples are a little different than what is included on Maslow's heirarchy. Freedom is something we invented. A construct. One who is only trying to survive has no real concept of freedom. And if asked, would like either laugh or hit you. I remember an Iraqi talking to a US solider who couldn't understand why the Iraqi was happy to be free. The Iraqi said something to the effect, "Freedom? I don't have food and I'm not safe. What good is freedom?"
Click to expand...

apparently you didn't "get" my william wallace photo. he wasn't the first or last person to willingly die for an ideal such as freedom. maslow's cannot account for this. maslow's hierarchy is a pretty crude, back-of-the-envelope generalization of how humans act. violations of maslow's hierarchy are hardly even uncommon.

your extreme example of someone having freedom but on the verge of starving to death, can be countered by my extreme example of someone being tightly chained to a cell floor, absolutely immobilized, but they get supplied with 3 square meals a day, intravenously.

Nobody wants either scenario and they don't shed much light on the matter at hand.
 
Freedom is more important, but fortunately, we don't need to choose, because freedom brings prosperity.
 
what came first, the chicken or the egg?
 
No brainer to me...I put freedom...without your freedom there is no security for anything.
 
TurtleDude said:
what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Click to expand...

You put financial security admit it...you'd give up your freedom for a buck right ? Id better put a disclmaer here turtle I was joking :)
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

I need to know more: what do you mean by both of these terms?
 
TurtleDude said:
what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Click to expand...

You mean the chicken or the apple.

Financial security does not mean wealth, if that's what the OP is getting at.

I've heard this question posed before as, which is more imortant: freedom or personal safety?

Didn't Franklin say something like anyone who prefers safety to freedom deserves niether? (That's the gist, as I recall, if not verbatim.)
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
So, if you're only enslaved by a private citizen, you're still a free man?
Click to expand...

Remember when your teacher said there is no such thing as a dumb question? She/he was wrong.

There is no enslavement in private industry in the US or any other industrialized nation.
 
Financial security - Having an appropiate financial plan and enough financial resources to adequately fulfill any needs or most wants of an individual or business.

Freedom in the context used by the framers is talking about political or national independence. Another aspect of freedom that most Americans think of when you say freedom is personal liberty. Which is: The liberty of an individual to do his or her will freely except for those restraints imposed by law to safeguard the physical, moral, political, and economic welfare of others.

Financial security in practice is amassing wealth. Everyone amasses wealth in some degree. Putting limits on wealth also puts limits on liberty. Just as limiting free speech puts limits on free speech. You cannot have financial security if you are not allowed to have it. While freedom does not guarantee financial security will be obtained by everyone with the freedom to try, absolutely everyone with no freedom is guaranteed to have no meaningful financial security.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Keep telling yourself that. It ain't true, but it's a nice thing to believe in.
Click to expand...

You can't come up with one example of enslavement other than an example that is nothing more than "I don't like my choices so I must be a slave."
 
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.
Click to expand...

But some people would have the freedom to have lunch AND the money to buy it, right? So we take the freedom to have lunch from the guy who has the money to buy it- so he has money and still goes hungry... then we take his money and give it to the guy who wanted to trade freedom for money- and then he has money too, but no freedom to buy lunch. So they can both go hungry. Great plan. LOL.
 
the_recruit said:
apparently you didn't "get" my william wallace photo. he wasn't the first or last person to willingly die for an ideal such as freedom. maslow's cannot account for this. maslow's hierarchy is a pretty crude, back-of-the-envelope generalization of how humans act. violations of maslow's hierarchy are hardly even uncommon.

your extreme example of someone having freedom but on the verge of starving to death, can be countered by my extreme example of someone being tightly chained to a cell floor, absolutely immobilized, but they get supplied with 3 square meals a day, intravenously.

Nobody wants either scenario and they don't shed much light on the matter at hand.
Click to expand...

Which again, has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

As for the matter at hand, exactly what is the matter at hand? Sure, you can be fed and not free. But if you are starving, can't get out of the hell you're in, can you be free? I say you really can't until you reach a certain level. And if I'm at a certain level, I might even consider dying for freedom. But, I won't even consider it until my mind is free enough to.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You can't come up with one example of enslavement other than an example that is nothing more than "I don't like my choices so I must be a slave."
Click to expand...

Is a North Korean living in a concentration camp a slave? He has the choice to comply with his captors or have his entire family executed. Just because he doesn't like his choices doesn't mean he's a slave, right? He just needs to stop his bitching and do something to change his situation.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
So, if you're only enslaved by a private citizen, you're still a free man?
Click to expand...

ksu_aviator said:
Remember when your teacher said there is no such thing as a dumb question? She/he was wrong.

There is no enslavement in private industry in the US or any other industrialized nation.
Click to expand...

This is incredibly naive. Human trafficking is a serious problem in the US and many other industrialized nations.
 
Kandahar said:
Is a North Korean living in a concentration camp a slave? He has the choice to comply with his captors or have his entire family executed. Just because he doesn't like his choices doesn't mean he's a slave, right? He just needs to stop his bitching and do something to change his situation.
Click to expand...

Find one person that thinks NK is a free society. They have no bearing on the discussion.

P.s...being held at gun point is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Korimir said:
Keep telling yourself that. It ain't true, but it's a nice thing to believe in.
Click to expand...
an old man spoke up in a bar
said I've never been in prison
but a lifetime serving one machine
is ten times worse than prison

(Joe Strummer, Bankrobber)
 
TurtleDude said:
an old man spoke up in a bar
said I've never been in prison
but a lifetime serving one machine
is ten times worse than prison

(Joe Strummer, Bankrobber)
Click to expand...

LOL - if he's never been in one how does he know what could be worse?

Free food
free shelter
free healthcare

Yeah - prison blows . . . can I move in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom