Political Crossfire Forums

[The Grandmaster]

CrossEyedMary wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Which is more important, to be free, or to be fair?

Equality in opportunity, or equality in result?
To be free is the only way to be fair.

Equality is not fair.

I’m not sure I agree with this. It seems to me obvious that equality is necessarily, and by definition fair. Are we to believe that which is fair is that which is not equal?

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Which is more important, to be free, or to be fair?

Equality in opportunity, or equality in result?

This questions presumes a difference between freedom and fairness that does not exist. Yes, people ought to have the opportunity to advance themselves financially, and everyone, even the rich should understand that inequality of wealth and power leads tot he destruction of societies, and end opportunity at the entry level. The challenge is to not empower the state in the interest of dis-empowering the wealthy. I think it is easiest and most painless to do this at the point of death; for everyone to realize that power may be voted to people, but the people will not be allowed to be born into power. It one wants their children rich they must hand it over before death, and if they want to reward friends for loyalty or friendship they must do so before death; because to make wealth and power hereditary is the same as making poverty and powerlessness hereditary. The results of either course is the same. To keep opportunity one must keep equality, and the destruction of equality of results destroys all equality of opportunity.
We should manage society so ability may always rise to the top, and knows the rewards of hard work; but again, if wealth and power are hereditary it destroys democracy, which is the wealth, and power of society. As a practical matter it makes no sense to refuse an hereditary monarchy while encouraging an hereditary wealth exceeding the wealth of kings, that controls our lives and circumstances more fully than kings ever did. To be wealthy, and to desire to pass ones wealth to ones children when that wealth, and the corresponding poverty in society is destabilizing, and an invitation to violence, is not the same as giving ones better qualities to ones children. Rather, hereditary wealth is the cup of trembling to a whole society.

[Fido]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: In order to have equality and fairness you must force it upon people.

I do not believe you can force equality upon people because even the most inept, and ignorant of people refuse to give up their sense of superiority, which none of us seems to be without, and which is so often used against us and the poor of education and intelligence. Given that perfect equality is specious we can still see that human beings are equal, and that this equality of opportunity and political power is endangered by all inequality of wealth. At that point where wealth and power become hereditary is the weak point where a wedge can be driven with ease, because no matter how ingenious was the father or mother, no child can argue that the wealth of the parents is deserved by the children on the basis of character, or upon their own talents. Correspondingly, there is plenty of evidence that the qualities that make people great kings or mogul of industry are not genetic, but the result of environments that make one great at the destruction of many. Poverty in America has killed many, but the survival of poverty has driven many from shack to chateau without making them fundamentally better than the run of the mill in morals.
The death tax should be absolute in its sway, and reduce all fortunes to the level of a gift of a seed, which one might eat or plant. That would give to every democracy only one gate to guard instead of the many now leading to power above the mean, so that- no matter how much a man might lay aside in one life, wealth shall never become an hereditary disease in the life of society.

[Free Thinkr]

Fido wrote: The death tax should be absolute in its sway, and reduce all fortunes to the level of a gift of a seed, which one might eat or plant. That would give to every democracy only one gate to guard instead of the many now leading to power above the mean, so that- no matter how much a man might lay aside in one life, wealth shall never become an hereditary disease in the life of society.
We shall protect freedom by doing away with it.

[TreizeEnder]

OneManWrites wrote: Fair is subjective, dependent upon your perspective. Declaring, legislating and enforcing any one vision of "fair" by definition destroys freedom and is therefore unfair to everyone.
Freedom is subjective as well, my friend. Freedom is as much a state of mind as fairness. Fairness destroys nothing if you let it be so in your mind.

[Fido]

Free Thinkr wrote: Fido wrote: The death tax should be absolute in its sway, and reduce all fortunes to the level of a gift of a seed, which one might eat or plant. That would give to every democracy only one gate to guard instead of the many now leading to power above the mean, so that- no matter how much a man might lay aside in one life, wealth shall never become an hereditary disease in the life of society.
We shall protect freedom by doing away with it.

Some freedom are not freedoms at all but a license to exploit others. I do not expect such exploitation to ever end, but if it exist, should not receive the protection of government, but rather be hounded as a vice by a tax collector. We are not the first society, nor are we the first civilization. There have been many examples of societies that have self destructed as we are self destructing. Getting fat, lazy, stupid, and unfree is a practiced art form in this world, and those who find the excuse to become so out of ignorance are swept away and become the cultured slaves of the next society.
Let us not destroy our selves. Let us look at how societies became conquerors, and model our freedoms on theirs rather on those who let their inequalities destroy and weaken them before the barbarians on their border. We can only be virtuous to the extent that we are free. We will never be brave without the blessings of freedom to defend. To believe we can be dispossessed of freedom and property, bankrupted by debt, enslaved by interest, demoralized by injustice and still offer a credible defense of a freedoms only enjoyed by the rich is bunk, and dangerous bunk at that.

[Free Thinkr]

Fido wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Fido wrote: The death tax should be absolute in its sway, and reduce all fortunes to the level of a gift of a seed, which one might eat or plant. That would give to every democracy only one gate to guard instead of the many now leading to power above the mean, so that- no matter how much a man might lay aside in one life, wealth shall never become an hereditary disease in the life of society.
We shall protect freedom by doing away with it.

Some freedom are not freedoms at all but a license to exploit others.
Oh, I do agree. It's just that inheritance doesn't qualify as one such license.

Quote: I do not expect such exploitation to ever end, but if it exist, should not receive the protection of government, but rather be hounded as a vice by a tax collector. We are not the first society, nor are we the first civilization. There have been many examples of societies that have self destructed as we are self destructing. Getting fat, lazy, stupid, and unfree is a practiced art form in this world, and those who find the excuse to become so out of ignorance are swept away and become the cultured slaves of the next society.
Did you read Progress and Poverty yet? ;)

Quote: Let us not destroy our selves. Let us look at how societies became conquerors, and model our freedoms on theirs rather on those who let their inequalities destroy and weaken them before the barbarians on their border. We can only be virtuous to the extent that we are free. We will never be brave without the blessings of freedom to defend. To believe we can be dispossessed of freedom and property, bankrupted by debt, enslaved by interest, demoralized by injustice and still offer a credible defense of a freedoms only enjoyed by the rich is bunk, and dangerous bunk at that.
Indeed, but what you're trying to do is sacrifice one freedom for another; one step forward and one step back. What you need to do is identify the freedoms which are not freedoms at all as you said above.

[Fido]

Free Thinkr wrote: Fido wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Fido wrote: The death tax should be absolute in its sway, and reduce all fortunes to the level of a gift of a seed, which one might eat or plant. That would give to every democracy only one gate to guard instead of the many now leading to power above the mean, so that- no matter how much a man might lay aside in one life, wealth shall never become an hereditary disease in the life of society.
We shall protect freedom by doing away with it.

Some freedom are not freedoms at all but a license to exploit others.
Oh, I do agree. It's just that inheritance doesn't qualify as one such license.

-----No one gets a by in my world. If you haven't the skills to support yourself why should you receive money or property with the protection of the state when clearly, if you cannot earn it, you cannot defend it. If people become rich on their own talents what justice is there in taking it from them? Sure, you can lay a heavy tax on anything that smell of injustice or exploitation, but for those who invent a new product or who improve a process no one should limit their enjoyment of what they have produced. And this is doubly true of people who create value with their labor, and they should enjoy their fruits. But to make wealth hereditary makes poverty hereditary, and this division weakens society even while it controls society. Many countries have died of too much private wealth supported by too much public poverty, but public property and public wealth never hurt any society. Society can even survive a general poverty equally shared; but the wealth of a society needs the defense and support of all to survive in a hostile world, and unequal wealth divides the very people needed for a united defense....Fido

Quote: I do not expect such exploitation to ever end, but if it exist, should not receive the protection of government, but rather be hounded as a vice by a tax collector. We are not the first society, nor are we the first civilization. There have been many examples of societies that have self destructed as we are self destructing. Getting fat, lazy, stupid, and unfree is a practiced art form in this world, and those who find the excuse to become so out of ignorance are swept away and become the cultured slaves of the next society.
Did you read Progress and Poverty yet? ;)

..........Please do not nag me. I have five books going at this time. Caesar and Jesus, one of Will Durants history of civilization, Free labor, free Soil, and free men, by I can't say about the formation of the republican party around these issues, and the other forces at work in the lead up to the Civil War, and very informative; two motorcycle manuals, One for a shovel head Harley, and one for a Yama Virago, and an examination of the Gospel of Mathew. Plus others from time to time, like the Idea of Poverty, about the beginnings of free enterprise and the industrial revolution. In the time I have been on this forum I have put a new roof on my poll barn, and poured six steps to my front porch with concrete. So I have not been slacking....Fido

Quote: Let us not destroy our selves. Let us look at how societies became conquerors, and model our freedoms on theirs rather on those who let their inequalities destroy and weaken them before the barbarians on their border. We can only be virtuous to the extent that we are free. We will never be brave without the blessings of freedom to defend. To believe we can be dispossessed of freedom and property, bankrupted by debt, enslaved by interest, demoralized by injustice and still offer a credible defense of a freedoms only enjoyed by the rich is bunk, and dangerous bunk at that.
Indeed, but what you're trying to do is sacrifice one freedom for another; one step forward and one step back. What you need to do is identify the freedoms which are not freedoms at all as you said above.

-------A right, or freedom cannot be destructive of the society that promotes it, nor destructive of other rights or people. Private property rights has done this to the Greeks and Romans, and tore them apart and made the poor the slaves of the rich. Property rights are incompatible with human rights. Great wealth divides us and weakens us, and even if every person should have the free use of what he or she produces that right should always be kept under strict control lest it should cause damage. Gifts are reasonable if reasonable, but there is no hereditary rights to private productive property. To take without earning from the society that sustains all is simple theft, destructive of democracy, and equality, and a contradiction destructive of the whole society. Private property above the mean is not a right......Fido

[Shoogar Bunny]

LostSoul3412 wrote: TreizeEnder wrote: You must be fair to earn freedom.

Freedom is a right, not a privilege.


i dissagree, freedom is totally like spandex, its a privilege, NOT A RIGHT. in america, we have the "right" to be free, becuse we EARNED it :) , that is when we did the whole Revolutionary War thing, you know; for freedom :wink: . so, technically, yes, freedom CAN be earned.

[LostSoul3412]

Shoogar Bunny wrote: i dissagree, freedom is totally like spandex, its a privilege, NOT A RIGHT.

If freedom is a privilege, then whom is granting that privilege?

Shoogar Bunny wrote: in america, we have the "right" to be free, becuse we EARNED it :) , that is when we did the whole Revolutionary War thing, you know; for freedom :wink: . so, technically, yes, freedom CAN be earned.

Freedom isn't earned, it is simply taken back. From your post, I am interpreting that you believe that freedom is granted by the government to the people. I would say the exact opposite. I would say that all individuals are born free, but then sacrifice that freedom to the government and other forms of coercion.

The Revolutionary War, in my mind, is the only justifiable war in American history because it was the only war where citizens actually took up arms against oppression. It wasn't the government and the military fighting, it was the people. The people demanded their freedom, and took it back from the British crown. Now, the United States operates under a less coercive government (compared to the British Monarchy of the eighteenth century), but it is still coercive. The government cannot grant freedoms, because all individuals already have full liberty; government can only work to limit that liberty and take away that freedom.

[Free Thinkr]

Fido wrote: No one gets a by in my world.
Indeed. You've failed to notice that you have abandoned a goal where every human would have plenty, and have in fact began to resent the prospect of humans having wealth. Whereas it has been a nearly universal refrain throughout the centuries that parents wish easier lives upon their children, here you seem disgusted by the notion that our posterity would "get a by."

Quote: If you haven't the skills to support yourself why should you receive money or property with the protection of the state when clearly, if you cannot earn it, you cannot defend it. If people become rich on their own talents what justice is there in taking it from them? Sure, you can lay a heavy tax on anything that smell of injustice or exploitation, but for those who invent a new product or who improve a process no one should limit their enjoyment of what they have produced. And this is doubly true of people who create value with their labor, and they should enjoy their fruits. But to make wealth hereditary makes poverty hereditary, and this division weakens society even while it controls society. Many countries have died of too much private wealth supported by too much public poverty, but public property and public wealth never hurt any society. Society can even survive a general poverty equally shared; but the wealth of a society needs the defense and support of all to survive in a hostile world, and unequal wealth divides the very people needed for a united defense.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Why cannot everyone have great wealth? You contend that hereditary wealth necessitates hereditary poverty, but this is not so. I don't see what use you have for a society that survives, but does so in squalor. That's a failure, in my book. But then, I recognize that wealth is a good thing.


Quote: -------A right, or freedom cannot be destructive of the society that promotes it, nor destructive of other rights or people.
Agreed.

Quote: Private property rights has done this to the Greeks and Romans, and tore them apart and made the poor the slaves of the rich.
Disagree.

Quote: Property rights are incompatible with human rights.
There are no human rights without property rights. At some point, you must consume, and to consume, you must have. Without the right to the product of his labor, man is a slave.

You know that much as true, otherwise you wouldn't be so troubled with the condition of society.

Quote: Great wealth divides us and weakens us, and even if every person should have the free use of what he or she produces that right should always be kept under strict control lest it should cause damage.
Great wealth divides us and weakens us?! Look at what you're saying! Wealth is what sustains us; wealth is what we create. Great wealth is a noble goal. Your issue is with inequitable distribution of wealth, and I contend that property rights in no way necessitate this condition, and further, I contend that attempts to prevent this end through abolition of property rights will result in much worse conditions than experienced under the system with great wealth disparity.

Quote: Gifts are reasonable if reasonable, but there is no hereditary rights to private productive property.
The first part is a tautology, and the second an arbitrary mandate. What's 'reasonable' as a gift, and why shouldn't productive property be transferred to ones children?

Quote: To take without earning from the society that sustains all is simple theft, destructive of democracy, and equality, and a contradiction destructive of the whole society. Private property above the mean is not a right......Fido
If you believe there is theft going on, I suggest you focus on its causes, how it is carried out, and what sustains it.

Why, when human demand is never fully met, is everyone who seeks work not employed?

[Fido]

Free Thinkr wrote: Fido wrote: No one gets a by in my world.
Indeed. You've failed to notice that you have abandoned a goal where every human would have plenty, and have in fact began to resent the prospect of humans having wealth. Whereas it has been a nearly universal refrain throughout the centuries that parents wish easier lives upon their children, here you seem disgusted by the notion that our posterity would "get a by."

Quote: If you haven't the skills to support yourself why should you receive money or property with the protection of the state when clearly, if you cannot earn it, you cannot defend it. If people become rich on their own talents what justice is there in taking it from them? Sure, you can lay a heavy tax on anything that smell of injustice or exploitation, but for those who invent a new product or who improve a process no one should limit their enjoyment of what they have produced. And this is doubly true of people who create value with their labor, and they should enjoy their fruits. But to make wealth hereditary makes poverty hereditary, and this division weakens society even while it controls society. Many countries have died of too much private wealth supported by too much public poverty, but public property and public wealth never hurt any society. Society can even survive a general poverty equally shared; but the wealth of a society needs the defense and support of all to survive in a hostile world, and unequal wealth divides the very people needed for a united defense.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Why cannot everyone have great wealth? You contend that hereditary wealth necessitates hereditary policy, but this is not so. I don't see what use you have for a society that survives, but does so in squalor. That's a failure, in my book. But then, I recognize that wealth is a good thing.


Quote: -------A right, or freedom cannot be destructive of the society that promotes it, nor destructive of other rights or people.
Agreed.

Quote: Private property rights has done this to the Greeks and Romans, and tore them apart and made the poor the slaves of the rich.
Disagree.

Quote: Property rights are incompatible with human rights.
There are no human rights without property rights. At some point, you must consume, and to consume, you must have. Without the right to the product of his labor, man is a slave.

You know that much as true, otherwise you wouldn't be so troubled with the condition of society.

Quote: Great wealth divides us and weakens us, and even if every person should have the free use of what he or she produces that right should always be kept under strict control lest it should cause damage.
Great wealth divides us and weakens us?! Look at what you're saying! Wealth is what sustains us; wealth is what we create. Great wealth is a noble goal. Your issue is with inequitable distribution of wealth, and I contend that property rights in no way necessitate this condition, and further, I contend that attempts to prevent this end through abolition of property rights will result in much worse conditions than experienced under the system with great wealth disparity.

Quote: Gifts are reasonable if reasonable, but there is no hereditary rights to private productive property.
The first part is a tautology, and the second an arbitrary mandate. What's 'reasonable' as a gift, and why shouldn't productive property be transferred to ones children?

Quote: To take without earning from the society that sustains all is simple theft, destructive of democracy, and equality, and a contradiction destructive of the whole society. Private property above the mean is not a right......Fido
If you believe there is theft going on, I suggest you focus on its causes, how it is carried out, and what sustains it.

Why, when human demand is never fully met, is everyone who seeks work not employed?

I put a lot of time and effort into a reply and the forum dumped it. I'll get back at ya when I am not so pisssed off.

[Free Thinkr]

Fido wrote: I put a lot of time and effort into a reply and the forum dumped it. I'll get back at ya when I am not so pisssed off.
:lol:

I've had that before. On numerous occasions, I lost a post and never re-posted it because I was sick of the topic after the first time I responded.

[sunwook]

Ek0nomik wrote: Reminds me of the question: Is it better to be extremely famous, or to have millions of dollars?

With millions of dollars, you can buy fame.

With fame, you can get millions of dollars.

[Shoogar Bunny]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Shoogar Bunny wrote: i dissagree, freedom is totally like spandex, its a privilege, NOT A RIGHT.

If freedom is a privilege, then whom is granting that privilege?

Shoogar Bunny wrote: in america, we have the "right" to be free, becuse we EARNED it :) , that is when we did the whole Revolutionary War thing, you know; for freedom :wink: . so, technically, yes, freedom CAN be earned.

Freedom isn't earned, it is simply taken back. From your post, I am interpreting that you believe that freedom is granted by the government to the people. I would say the exact opposite. I would say that all individuals are born free, but then sacrifice that freedom to the government and other forms of coercion.

The Revolutionary War, in my mind, is the only justifiable war in American history because it was the only war where citizens actually took up arms against oppression. It wasn't the government and the military fighting, it was the people. The people demanded their freedom, and took it back from the British crown. Now, the United States operates under a less coercive government (compared to the British Monarchy of the eighteenth century), but it is still coercive. The government cannot grant freedoms, because all individuals already have full liberty; government can only work to limit that liberty and take away that freedom.

silly how like, i know what a government "is", but i see something totally different. i imagine all ties and shiny shoes; old men getting hair transplants and old ladys getting, well, who knows what... thats all i can say i've seen, (considering i've seen the OC one too many times :!oops: ) but still, isnt that the truth? i see a FEW representatives that respond in a way that is not to impress a hot guy or girl on television, but to impress others to where they are roll models. (now before i go making barbies and disney movies about them)... i guess i'm not always for sure what i let make me feel free. to me, being treated fair by my family and most of all my wonderful fiance takes the cake when i think about where to place my trust and feel free. i think that everybody has the definate right to be free, but dont know where to go to, to feel free. althought i sortove sonsidered your assumption a bit like an...assumption, i appreciate when people take time to pick up certain strengths in ones outputs, and associate it with a defferent perspective. my fiance is constantly encouraging me to look at the "bigger picture" at hand. and it really does lead to a better understanding. even though i dont regret anything i have said, i am encouraged to look from a new perspective, and put myself in anothers' point of view. i hope you all have an absolutely wonderful night! -shoogar bunny :wink:

[Harbinger]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Which is more important, to be free, or to be fair?

You can't be fair if you aren't free to begin with. Freedom is a right, fairness is a choice. As long as you are free, you have the right to choose whether or not to be fair.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Equality in opportunity, or equality in result?

Equality in opportunity.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Perhaps, but let me reword the question:

Is it better to have the freedom to succeed, or fail; or is it better to be guaranteed mediocrity?

It is far better to have the freedom to succeed or fail rather than be guaranteed mediocrity without the freedom to succeed at all. However, it is even better to have the freedom to succeed or fail and be guaranteed mediocrity in the face of failure. It is also very important that ones success not destroy the opportunity for others to succeed as well (i.e. "Equality in opportunity").

[Cyro]

Freedom. It isn't fair to make me your slave for the benifit of those less capable.

[anselfir]

such a comparison cannot be made.

[AtlasBErgeron]

[quote=Harbinger] It is far better to have the freedom to succeed or fail rather than be guaranteed mediocrity without the freedom to succeed at all. However, it is even better to have the freedom to succeed or fail and be guaranteed mediocrity in the face of failure. It is also very important that ones success not destroy the opportunity for others to succeed as well (i.e. "Equality in opportunity"). [/quote]
"Guaranteed" at who's price?
You can not have your cake and eat it too. If you want to guarantee the right to not be coerced (freedom of oportunity) you cannot claim to guarantee the right of freedom of mediocracy. At some point you have to coerce someone in order to steal the wealth necessary to ensure mediocracy.

[The Grandmaster]

sunwook wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Reminds me of the question: Is it better to be extremely famous, or to have millions of dollars?

With millions of dollars, you can buy fame.

With fame, you can get millions of dollars.

There's no choice here, it's easy. The the hell does being famous really get you? Being bothered all the time? Get into good parties and lots of chics? Hell, money will do that, and everything else. I say give me the millions of dollars, and leave me the hell alone.