Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

TOPIC OF THE WEEK: Liberalism Defined

kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 3:21:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Liberalism Defined.

Liberalism is a political ideology that has been prominent in modern times. The foundation of which are the concepts of liberty and equality. The meaning and application of these words in society are heavily debated. A broad view of these terms and a look at the people who have defined Liberalism will provide a depth of understanding into modern societies.

Many essays and books have been written by ideologues about the meanings of these two words. This has caused a division within this political theory. The three main groups of "liberals" are Classical Liberals (aka republicans) Social Liberals (aka Democrats), and Libertarians.

1: Liberty

Liberty, simply put, is the freedom to choose and act. It is also the freedom from oppression. In Liberal ideology, this word is heavily debated, For example, it is argued whether personal liberty or collective liberty is the goal. Personal liberty and collective liberty work much like a weighted scale. If collective liberty is taken to the extreme personal liberty is lost. If personal liberty is taken to the extreme, collective liberty is severely limited. The debate is where the balance between the two exists.

Which do you value more, personal or collective liberty?

Is Liberty a value that society should be based on?

Why?

2: Equality,

Equality is defined as "the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." With equality the argument lies in which way should people be equal. Equal according to the law? Equal according to freedoms? Equal according to financial prosperity?

What do you think? Is Equality an important value? If so, in what way?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
thett3
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 11:24:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I object to the idea that liberty and equality are compatible, and this is why our political discourse has evolved the way it did.

Life is inherently unfair. The only way to make it fair is government intervention which is necessarily in conflict with liberty
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 11:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Which do you value more, personal or collective liberty?

Is Liberty a value that society should be based on?

Why?

I like collective liberty because it affects society more as a whole as opposed to what an individual wants. Since human nature is flawed and often used badly, expanding personal liberty will lead to the decline of virtue. If we want a moral society, we ought to make what is better for the community more important than what an individual wants because a community is more likely to act morally, whereas giving expanded freedom to individuals is a lot more risky.

What do you think? Is Equality an important value? If so, in what way?

An important one for me is equal opportunity. That's the purpose of entrepreneurial capitalism is for everyone to be able to work and contribute and earn back as much as they put in. As for equality according to rights, it depends on whether those people fit the criteria for such rights. People in jail don't have as many rights as those who aren't, because they've abused them.
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 11:41:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I object to the idea that liberty and equality are compatible, and this is why our political discourse has evolved the way it did.

Life is inherently unfair. The only way to make it fair is government intervention which is necessarily in conflict with liberty

Not to play semantics... but couldn't we be equally free? I do think in many ways these two principles collide, but I don't think they are entirely incompatible.

I also think it could be argued that government intervention or law can increase liberty. John Locke said "the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom."

Obviously there are some laws that are in conflict with liberty... but not always.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 11:54:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like collective liberty because it affects society more as a whole as opposed to what an individual wants. Since human nature is flawed and often used badly, expanding personal liberty will lead to the decline of virtue. If we want a moral society, we ought to make what is better for the community more important than what an individual wants because a community is more likely to act morally, whereas giving expanded freedom to individuals is a lot more risky.

Interesting. Why do you think people as a group tend to be more moral than an individual person?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 1:23:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Both liberty and equality are values that we often assume are morally good. But they're both only good within certain contexts, and, as you pointed out, each comes with its own costs. Liberty and equality can often do clash as well, especially when we're talking about a debate between individual and society.

I don't know if there's a way to really answer this topic. Individuals will fall on different sides of the spectrum depending on their political bent. Different societies will come down on different sides. Both liberty and equality should be valued by societies and individuals, but striking a balance between the various pieces of each is always going to be subjective, since it will be based on what we value most rather than simply what we value.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 2:07:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 3:21:20 PM, kasmic wrote:
Liberalism Defined.

Liberalism is a political ideology that has been prominent in modern times. The foundation of which are the concepts of liberty and equality. The meaning and application of these words in society are heavily debated. A broad view of these terms and a look at the people who have defined Liberalism will provide a depth of understanding into modern societies.

Many essays and books have been written by ideologues about the meanings of these two words. This has caused a division within this political theory. The three main groups of "liberals" are Classical Liberals (aka republicans) Social Liberals (aka Democrats), and Libertarians.

1: Liberty

Liberty, simply put, is the freedom to choose and act. It is also the freedom from oppression. In Liberal ideology, this word is heavily debated, For example, it is argued whether personal liberty or collective liberty is the goal. Personal liberty and collective liberty work much like a weighted scale. If collective liberty is taken to the extreme personal liberty is lost. If personal liberty is taken to the extreme, collective liberty is severely limited. The debate is where the balance between the two exists.

Which do you value more, personal or collective liberty?

Is Liberty a value that society should be based on?

Why?

2: Equality,

Equality is defined as "the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." With equality the argument lies in which way should people be equal. Equal according to the law? Equal according to freedoms? Equal according to financial prosperity?

What do you think? Is Equality an important value? If so, in what way?

What else would we base society on?
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 4:02:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 11:54:04 AM, kasmic wrote:
I like collective liberty because it affects society more as a whole as opposed to what an individual wants. Since human nature is flawed and often used badly, expanding personal liberty will lead to the decline of virtue. If we want a moral society, we ought to make what is better for the community more important than what an individual wants because a community is more likely to act morally, whereas giving expanded freedom to individuals is a lot more risky.

Interesting. Why do you think people as a group tend to be more moral than an individual person?

A group of people who set rules won't resort to the lowest common denominator, they'll establish a code that works for everyone and benefits everyone. An individual will be more selfish as they would only think of them self and probably wouldn't be as influenced by others' desires and needs if they are isolated.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:11:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 4:02:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/1/2015 11:54:04 AM, kasmic wrote:
I like collective liberty because it affects society more as a whole as opposed to what an individual wants. Since human nature is flawed and often used badly, expanding personal liberty will lead to the decline of virtue. If we want a moral society, we ought to make what is better for the community more important than what an individual wants because a community is more likely to act morally, whereas giving expanded freedom to individuals is a lot more risky.

Interesting. Why do you think people as a group tend to be more moral than an individual person?

A group of people who set rules won't resort to the lowest common denominator, they'll establish a code that works for everyone and benefits everyone. An individual will be more selfish as they would only think of them self and probably wouldn't be as influenced by others' desires and needs if they are isolated.

You're right. Under democracy, the majority would have to be in agreement in order to have any power.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:18:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 3:21:20 PM, kasmic wrote:
Liberalism Defined.

Liberalism is a political ideology that has been prominent in modern times. The foundation of which are the concepts of liberty and equality. The meaning and application of these words in society are heavily debated. A broad view of these terms and a look at the people who have defined Liberalism will provide a depth of understanding into modern societies.

Many essays and books have been written by ideologues about the meanings of these two words. This has caused a division within this political theory. The three main groups of "liberals" are Classical Liberals (aka republicans) Social Liberals (aka Democrats), and Libertarians.

1: Liberty

Liberty, simply put, is the freedom to choose and act. It is also the freedom from oppression. In Liberal ideology, this word is heavily debated, For example, it is argued whether personal liberty or collective liberty is the goal. Personal liberty and collective liberty work much like a weighted scale. If collective liberty is taken to the extreme personal liberty is lost. If personal liberty is taken to the extreme, collective liberty is severely limited. The debate is where the balance between the two exists.

What's this about "collective liberty"? "Collective liberty" is just a type of personal liberty in which more than one person benefits, and in a way that doesn't disadvantage the other. It's a mutualistic concept rather than a competitive one.

Which do you value more, personal or collective liberty?

Is Liberty a value that society should be based on?

Sure. As much can be used as a basis without causing conflict and inequality, that is.

Why?

To obtain as much conflict resolution as possible. To obtain as much widespread satisfaction as possible.

2: Equality,

Equality is defined as "the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." With equality the argument lies in which way should people be equal. Equal according to the law? Equal according to freedoms? Equal according to financial prosperity?

What do you think? Is Equality an important value? If so, in what way?

Yes, it's important. To me, anyway.
You can call me Mark if you like.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 1:40:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 3:21:20 PM, kasmic wrote:
Liberalism Defined.

Liberalism is a political ideology that has been prominent in modern times. The foundation of which are the concepts of liberty and equality. The meaning and application of these words in society are heavily debated. A broad view of these terms and a look at the people who have defined Liberalism will provide a depth of understanding into modern societies.

Many essays and books have been written by ideologues about the meanings of these two words. This has caused a division within this political theory. The three main groups of "liberals" are Classical Liberals (aka republicans) Social Liberals (aka Democrats), and Libertarians.

1: Liberty

Liberty, simply put, is the freedom to choose and act. It is also the freedom from oppression. In Liberal ideology, this word is heavily debated, For example, it is argued whether personal liberty or collective liberty is the goal. Personal liberty and collective liberty work much like a weighted scale. If collective liberty is taken to the extreme personal liberty is lost. If personal liberty is taken to the extreme, collective liberty is severely limited. The debate is where the balance between the two exists.

Which do you value more, personal or collective liberty?

I value personal liberty philosophically, and collective liberty practically.

After all, every single law is some form of limitation on a "liberty"--it's the State acting to curtail something. Of course, my "liberty" to murder someone is hardly a liberty at all.

When personal liberty is curtailed in favor of collective liberty, I feel there needs to be a very good reason; "we like it" isn't sufficient.

Is Liberty a value that society should be based on?

Why?

Considering liberty is absolutely essential. It's tough to say a society should be "based" on it, because all societies by nature restrict the individual's liberty for the collective "good". But the foundation must consider it.

2: Equality,

Equality is defined as "the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." With equality the argument lies in which way should people be equal. Equal according to the law? Equal according to freedoms? Equal according to financial prosperity?

What do you think? Is Equality an important value? If so, in what way?

I disagree that equality is necessarily in conflict with liberty. It all depends on what you consider your "liberties" and what you consider "equality".

For instance, do I have the "right" (the "liberty") to be treated the same as someone of a different race by the government? I would think the answer should be "yes". Do I have the "liberty" to be treated the same as someone of a different race by another individual? No, though if they don't I'll consider them a bad person. We get fuzzier when we talk about people wanting to interact with society at large (that is, wanting to say, run a business), who want the protections and rights inherent in being part of that society, yet don't want to align themselves with the basic liberties that society wants to grant, such as rights to service.

I think equality is an important virtue both philosophically and practically. It's the latter that I think society has more business with.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 1:42:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 11:41:46 AM, kasmic wrote:
I object to the idea that liberty and equality are compatible, and this is why our political discourse has evolved the way it did.

Life is inherently unfair. The only way to make it fair is government intervention which is necessarily in conflict with liberty

Not to play semantics... but couldn't we be equally free? I do think in many ways these two principles collide, but I don't think they are entirely incompatible.

I also think it could be argued that government intervention or law can increase liberty. John Locke said "the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom."

Obviously there are some laws that are in conflict with liberty... but not always.

Equally free is a libertarian pronciple which is no longer considered liberal.
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 1:44:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 1:42:33 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/1/2015 11:41:46 AM, kasmic wrote:
I object to the idea that liberty and equality are compatible, and this is why our political discourse has evolved the way it did.

Life is inherently unfair. The only way to make it fair is government intervention which is necessarily in conflict with liberty

Not to play semantics... but couldn't we be equally free? I do think in many ways these two principles collide, but I don't think they are entirely incompatible.

I also think it could be argued that government intervention or law can increase liberty. John Locke said "the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom."

Obviously there are some laws that are in conflict with liberty... but not always.

Equally free is a libertarian pronciple which is no longer considered liberal.

Libertarianism is a specific type of liberal.... today the term liberal is casually used as left. In political ideology, liberalism is inclusive of libertarian ideology.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 2:09:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Which do you value more, personal or collective liberty?
I differ from facet to facet. In economics, I would value collective liberty higher, since I believe a focus on personal liberty in this mindset results in a sort of social darwinism, which should be avoided. In the social domain, however, I believe individual liberty should take precedence, as we should allow for people to act on their own personal beliefs and standards of morality, which I believe differ from person to person.
Is Liberty a value that society should be based on?
Why?
Yes, I believe upholding liberty would benefit society in the ways I described, which I see as imperative.
2: Equality,

Equality is defined as "the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." With equality the argument lies in which way should people be equal. Equal according to the law? Equal according to freedoms? Equal according to financial prosperity?

What do you think? Is Equality an important value? If so, in what way?

I personally see equality as a valuable path, particularly in terms of opportunity and rights. These are the reasons societies exist in my opinion, with the addition of increasing the welfare of all people through the advancement of industry, thought, and technology.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 2:27:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 11:24:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
I object to the idea that liberty and equality are compatible, and this is why our political discourse has evolved the way it did.

Life is inherently unfair. The only way to make it fair is government intervention which is necessarily in conflict with liberty

Well right, but I think the mistake is equating fairness with equality. The US founders spoke of "all men created equal", which enabled "the pursuit of happiness". The pursuit thereof - no guarantee of outcome.

So I think classical liberalism is about equal rights, not equal results.

As I see it, classical liberalism values the individual over the collective. The individual should have maximum power (i.e. maximum liberty) while the collective has only such powers as are necessary to stability. So classical liberalism is a philosophy of limited government. It is modern conservatism (or libertarianism, maybe).
This space for rent.
thett3
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 2:56:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 2:27:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/1/2015 11:24:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
I object to the idea that liberty and equality are compatible, and this is why our political discourse has evolved the way it did.

Life is inherently unfair. The only way to make it fair is government intervention which is necessarily in conflict with liberty

Well right, but I think the mistake is equating fairness with equality. The US founders spoke of "all men created equal", which enabled "the pursuit of happiness". The pursuit thereof - no guarantee of outcome.

So I think classical liberalism is about equal rights, not equal results.

As I see it, classical liberalism values the individual over the collective. The individual should have maximum power (i.e. maximum liberty) while the collective has only such powers as are necessary to stability. So classical liberalism is a philosophy of limited government. It is modern conservatism (or libertarianism, maybe).

Yup, you hit the nail on the head. Modern conservatism is just really weird, honestly. It's not classical liberalism even though it's closer to that than modern liberalism. It's like a weird mix between classical liberalism and nationalism
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 3:05:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 3:21:20 PM, kasmic wrote:
Liberalism Defined.

Liberalism is a political ideology that has been prominent in modern times. The foundation of which are the concepts of liberty and equality. The meaning and application of these words in society are heavily debated. A broad view of these terms and a look at the people who have defined Liberalism will provide a depth of understanding into modern societies.

Many essays and books have been written by ideologues about the meanings of these two words. This has caused a division within this political theory. The three main groups of "liberals" are Classical Liberals (aka republicans) Social Liberals (aka Democrats), and Libertarians.

1: Liberty

Liberty, simply put, is the freedom to choose and act. It is also the freedom from oppression. In Liberal ideology, this word is heavily debated, For example, it is argued whether personal liberty or collective liberty is the goal. Personal liberty and collective liberty work much like a weighted scale. If collective liberty is taken to the extreme personal liberty is lost. If personal liberty is taken to the extreme, collective liberty is severely limited. The debate is where the balance between the two exists.

Which do you value more, personal or collective liberty?

Collective.

Is Liberty a value that society should be based on?

Not solely liberty - especially if it is personal.

Why?

Personal liberty can very easily come at the expense of others, and a society based on purely personal liberty would lead to tense relations - as people would be solely concerned about their own lives rather than holding an outlook that fits both themselves and the collective society.

I do think that there are basic personal liberties that all people should share, but beyond that - everything is debatable. What may be seen as oppressive to personal freedoms may not necessarily be bad if it is in the interest of the collective.

Collective liberty is more important. Who gives a single man to infringe on the lives of 20?

But that does not mean a majority should have the right to oppress minorities. If the majority of a country is of a specific religion, for example - they ought not establish a theocracy. Freedom of and from religion - a basic personal liberty, is infringed. That personal liberty, when infringed, is excessive and unnecessary oppression. A theocracy is not following liberty in any sense, nor does it follow equality.

But that opens the question of - what is excessive oppression of personal rights? That is hard to explain on a general basis, and really can only be determined from case to case. But the collective should always be in mind.

2: Equality,

Equality is defined as "the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." With equality the argument lies in which way should people be equal. Equal according to the law? Equal according to freedoms? Equal according to financial prosperity?

What do you think? Is Equality an important value? If so, in what way?

People should be equal in law and freedom. The last is debatable, in my opinion.

I do not think a person should be relegated to crippling poverty in the name of the personal freedom of the richer classes in society. There needs to be an order of economic status, but it can be restricted and controlled while allowing everyone to live their lives without burden. If you were to take, say, 5% of the top 10%'s wealth and distributed it to the lowest classes of society to put them in the lower-middle or middle classes, poverty could become irrelevant. Poverty may be necessary for free-market capitalism, which is why I think capitalism in its purest form is immoral - but parts of it ought remain. In a free-market economy, poverty is not caused by unfair distribution of wealth, however - wealth is not distributed at all - it is earned, and the earning in capitalistic society can be seen as unjust. The poverty in capitalism is not result of bad distribution - for the source of income in capitalism is not a source for those in poverty, and they do not have equal access to opportunity as often said - they are restricted by the way opportunity works. Capitalism, therefore, is not a viable system in its pure form if poverty must be reduced. The work of those in poverty does not make them richer, because it helps the capital society that excludes them from growth.

But that does not mean entrepreneurism is bad, it means when unrestricted, it hurts the collective.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:35:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My basic principle is that however much liberty a society can handle while maintaining institutional stability ought to be sought. Inequality is only relevant at the point that it becomes destabilizing.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:36:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 3:05:21 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/31/2015 3:21:20 PM, kasmic wrote:

COMMIE SCUM
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:38:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 10:36:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/2/2015 3:05:21 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/31/2015 3:21:20 PM, kasmic wrote:

COMMIE SCUM

<3
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 10:49:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD

Many people do seem to feel that liberty and equality contradict each other. Honestly the only way that I see they contradict is if you have a very narrow definition of both words.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 10:53:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 10:49:13 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD

Many people do seem to feel that liberty and equality contradict each other. Honestly the only way that I see they contradict is if you have a very narrow definition of both words.

I mean everyone has equal opportunity, sure, but a classless system (or a system where you want to reduce something like income inequality) is not true liberty. But true liberty may or may not be desired. I mean, it is all confusing because stealing wealth to become rich would warrant redistribution, but that is against his liberty. But his stealing also harmed someone else's liberty. So I guess that isn't liberty either. I dunno what I am even saying. We need to have both equality and liberty, sure, but the way liberals tend to use it they contradict. Yet again, since I have an economics bias, I always favor growth to pretty much everything else :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 10:56:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 10:53:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:49:13 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD

Many people do seem to feel that liberty and equality contradict each other. Honestly the only way that I see they contradict is if you have a very narrow definition of both words.

I mean everyone has equal opportunity, sure, but a classless system (or a system where you want to reduce something like income inequality) is not true liberty. But true liberty may or may not be desired. I mean, it is all confusing because stealing wealth to become rich would warrant redistribution, but that is against his liberty. But his stealing also harmed someone else's liberty. So I guess that isn't liberty either. I dunno what I am even saying. We need to have both equality and liberty, sure, but the way liberals tend to use it they contradict. Yet again, since I have an economics bias, I always favor growth to pretty much everything else :P

I assume by liberals you mean Democrats. Generally speaking I think collective liberty is what they would espouse and equality would support that concept.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 10:57:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 10:56:10 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:53:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:49:13 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD

Many people do seem to feel that liberty and equality contradict each other. Honestly the only way that I see they contradict is if you have a very narrow definition of both words.

I mean everyone has equal opportunity, sure, but a classless system (or a system where you want to reduce something like income inequality) is not true liberty. But true liberty may or may not be desired. I mean, it is all confusing because stealing wealth to become rich would warrant redistribution, but that is against his liberty. But his stealing also harmed someone else's liberty. So I guess that isn't liberty either. I dunno what I am even saying. We need to have both equality and liberty, sure, but the way liberals tend to use it they contradict. Yet again, since I have an economics bias, I always favor growth to pretty much everything else :P

I assume by liberals you mean Democrats. Generally speaking I think collective liberty is what they would espouse and equality would support that concept.

Yeah I am not a big fan of collectivism :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:01:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 10:57:07 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:56:10 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:53:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:49:13 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD

Many people do seem to feel that liberty and equality contradict each other. Honestly the only way that I see they contradict is if you have a very narrow definition of both words.

I mean everyone has equal opportunity, sure, but a classless system (or a system where you want to reduce something like income inequality) is not true liberty. But true liberty may or may not be desired. I mean, it is all confusing because stealing wealth to become rich would warrant redistribution, but that is against his liberty. But his stealing also harmed someone else's liberty. So I guess that isn't liberty either. I dunno what I am even saying. We need to have both equality and liberty, sure, but the way liberals tend to use it they contradict. Yet again, since I have an economics bias, I always favor growth to pretty much everything else :P

I assume by liberals you mean Democrats. Generally speaking I think collective liberty is what they would espouse and equality would support that concept.

Yeah I am not a big fan of collectivism :P

I've gathered haha
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:03:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:01:38 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:57:07 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:56:10 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:53:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:49:13 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD

Many people do seem to feel that liberty and equality contradict each other. Honestly the only way that I see they contradict is if you have a very narrow definition of both words.

I mean everyone has equal opportunity, sure, but a classless system (or a system where you want to reduce something like income inequality) is not true liberty. But true liberty may or may not be desired. I mean, it is all confusing because stealing wealth to become rich would warrant redistribution, but that is against his liberty. But his stealing also harmed someone else's liberty. So I guess that isn't liberty either. I dunno what I am even saying. We need to have both equality and liberty, sure, but the way liberals tend to use it they contradict. Yet again, since I have an economics bias, I always favor growth to pretty much everything else :P

I assume by liberals you mean Democrats. Generally speaking I think collective liberty is what they would espouse and equality would support that concept.

Yeah I am not a big fan of collectivism :P

I've gathered haha

I am a capitalist pig
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:08:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:03:39 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:01:38 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:57:07 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:56:10 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:53:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:49:13 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD

Many people do seem to feel that liberty and equality contradict each other. Honestly the only way that I see they contradict is if you have a very narrow definition of both words.

I mean everyone has equal opportunity, sure, but a classless system (or a system where you want to reduce something like income inequality) is not true liberty. But true liberty may or may not be desired. I mean, it is all confusing because stealing wealth to become rich would warrant redistribution, but that is against his liberty. But his stealing also harmed someone else's liberty. So I guess that isn't liberty either. I dunno what I am even saying. We need to have both equality and liberty, sure, but the way liberals tend to use it they contradict. Yet again, since I have an economics bias, I always favor growth to pretty much everything else :P

I assume by liberals you mean Democrats. Generally speaking I think collective liberty is what they would espouse and equality would support that concept.

Yeah I am not a big fan of collectivism :P

I've gathered haha

I am a capitalist pig

Would you say you are a classical liberal?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:15:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:08:12 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:03:39 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:01:38 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:57:07 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:56:10 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:53:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:49:13 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/5/2015 10:40:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
(2) contradicts 1. We have the freedom to choose, unless it makes us better off relative to the hobo over there. XD

Many people do seem to feel that liberty and equality contradict each other. Honestly the only way that I see they contradict is if you have a very narrow definition of both words.

I mean everyone has equal opportunity, sure, but a classless system (or a system where you want to reduce something like income inequality) is not true liberty. But true liberty may or may not be desired. I mean, it is all confusing because stealing wealth to become rich would warrant redistribution, but that is against his liberty. But his stealing also harmed someone else's liberty. So I guess that isn't liberty either. I dunno what I am even saying. We need to have both equality and liberty, sure, but the way liberals tend to use it they contradict. Yet again, since I have an economics bias, I always favor growth to pretty much everything else :P

I assume by liberals you mean Democrats. Generally speaking I think collective liberty is what they would espouse and equality would support that concept.

Yeah I am not a big fan of collectivism :P

I've gathered haha

I am a capitalist pig

Would you say you are a classical liberal?

Eh... In some ways. But not really. I support amnesty, and they don't. I support a large military, and they don't. I mean, I don't align with them socially.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross