Free or Equal?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 13, 2008 3:34 am

A society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. So, which is more desirable?

Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition.1

John C. Calhoun, seventh vice president of the United States

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue May 13, 2008 4:49 am

In a society in which integrity is of no virtue sure...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 13, 2008 5:19 am

K.Snyder;864036 wrote: In a society in which integrity is of no virtue sure...
I don't get it. Which is a sign of a lack of integrity, in your view, freedom or equality?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 13, 2008 12:29 pm

Accountable;864012 wrote: A society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. So, which is more desirable?

Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition.1

John C. Calhoun, seventh vice president of the United States

You should not listen to a man who can't spell his own name correctly. Had to look him up but essentially confirmed my first impression. He's talking a load of bollocks. There's a hundred and fifty years of political thought between his time and ours over which the subject of equality ans freedom has been the cause of massive social change.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 13, 2008 3:14 pm

gmc;864765 wrote: You should not listen to a man who can't spell his own name correctly. Had to look him up but essentially confirmed my first impression. He's talking a load of bollocks. There's a hundred and fifty years of political thought between his time and ours over which the subject of equality ans freedom has been the cause of massive social change.
And this time that has passed ... has it proven freedom or equality to be more desirable, in your opinion?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 13, 2008 3:25 pm

Accountable;864860 wrote: And this time that has passed ... has it proven freedom or equality to be more desirable, in your opinion?

I would dispute the assertion that they are mutually exclusive.

The suggestion that you can force people to be equal is a big problem - how do you force people to be equally happy.

You can, however, make people free to chose their priorities in life - chose whether to pursue happiness of leisure or money or a satisfying work life. The fact that people do not have equal amounts of wealth or possessions does not make them unequal - it could equally mean that they have different drives and priorities.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 13, 2008 4:11 pm

Bryn Mawr;864866 wrote: I would dispute the assertion that they are mutually exclusive.

The suggestion that you can force people to be equal is a big problem - how do you force people to be equally happy.

You can, however, make people free to chose their priorities in life - chose whether to pursue happiness of leisure or money or a satisfying work life. The fact that people do not have equal amounts of wealth or possessions does not make them unequal - it could equally mean that they have different drives and priorities.
Isn't the unequal accumulation of wealth making it possible for unequal healthcare what the big squall about in the US?

Most of the millionaires in America are self-made. They chose their priorities and chose to take the high risk-high reward route. Many others chose different priorities, resulting in less wealth. These people all started on a fairly equal footing, yet there's a big hullabaloo that those with more money should be forced to pay for the healthcare of those with less money.

Both were free to choose, yet they're not being treated equally.

I don't mean to harp on healthcare. It's simply an easy example.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 13, 2008 11:58 pm

Accountable;864893 wrote: Isn't the unequal accumulation of wealth making it possible for unequal healthcare what the big squall about in the US?

Most of the millionaires in America are self-made. They chose their priorities and chose to take the high risk-high reward route. Many others chose different priorities, resulting in less wealth. These people all started on a fairly equal footing, yet there's a big hullabaloo that those with more money should be forced to pay for the healthcare of those with less money.

Both were free to choose, yet they're not being treated equally.

I don't mean to harp on healthcare. It's simply an easy example.

The problem is that people do not start on an equal footing, nor do they have equal opportunities along the way. Those from monied families against those growing up is poor inner city areas etc. That many rich people are self made does not mean that everyone starts in a position where they are capable of making it. That some from deprived backgrounds do is despite the handicap not because of it.

The unequal accumulation of wealth is not the problem - that, in an ideal world, is part of the freedom of choice. The problem is the unequal starting position across society.

I would ask two questions. How many who attend Harvard start from inner city ghettos compared to the number who start from old money? Are those born in inner city ghettos biologically less intelligent than those born into monied families?

Given that I believe the answer to question two to be no, society is not equal until the answer to question one changes a great deal.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 14, 2008 1:15 am

Accountable;864860 wrote: And this time that has passed ... has it proven freedom or equality to be more desirable, in your opinion?

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Why do you think they are? Both are a state of mind as much as anything else.

posted by accountable

Isn't the unequal accumulation of wealth making it possible for unequal healthcare what the big squall about in the US?

Most of the millionaires in America are self-made. They chose their priorities and chose to take the high risk-high reward route. Many others chose different priorities, resulting in less wealth. These people all started on a fairly equal footing, yet there's a big hullabaloo that those with more money should be forced to pay for the healthcare of those with less money.

Both were free to choose, yet they're not being treated equally.

I don't mean to harp on healthcare. It's simply an easy example.

Actually it's not that simple. Like Bryn I probably start from a completely different cultural perspective from you.

It's an age old debate. Should the voice and opinion of a poor man carry as much weight in the running of the country as that of a rich man? Should the voice of a landowner carry more weight in the councils of government than the poor man who works the land for him and owns nothing? Should a factory owner (self made millionaire, oil man, movie star take your pick) have more say than someone from the ghetto who owns nothing and is unemployed?

If a poor man thinks there should be universal healthcare why should his opinion be less right, be less meaningful - than that of a rich man?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 14, 2008 3:37 am

Bryn Mawr;864988 wrote: The problem is that people do not start on an equal footing, nor do they have equal opportunities along the way. Those from monied families against those growing up is poor inner city areas etc. That many rich people are self made does not mean that everyone starts in a position where they are capable of making it. That some from deprived backgrounds do is despite the handicap not because of it.

The unequal accumulation of wealth is not the problem - that, in an ideal world, is part of the freedom of choice. The problem is the unequal starting position across society.I thought I was fairly clear that I was referring to those who did start on an equal footing, some of whom ended up as self-made millionaires and others who ended up monetarily poor.

Bryn Mawr wrote: I would ask two questions. How many who attend Harvard start from inner city ghettos compared to the number who start from old money? Are those born in inner city ghettos biologically less intelligent than those born into monied families?

Given that I believe the answer to question two to be no, society is not equal until the answer to question one changes a great deal.It sounds like your ideal society might be having everyone upon the day of "adulthood" be stripped of all prior possessions and given a set amount of money & goods. From that point they could each make it or not on their own. Come to think of it, that would be a fabulous premise for a novel. :yh_think

So, back to that portion of society that do start on an equal footing, stipulating that others start in a more and a less advantageous situation and are thus not part of my scenario. Should all in this group be free to live their lives with the consequences of their choices, or should the ones who chose to pursue money as a priority be forced to pay for those who did not, or for those who failed in their pursuit?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed May 14, 2008 4:25 am

Accountable;864079 wrote: I don't get it. Which is a sign of a lack of integrity, in your view, freedom or equality?

I'm saying that if people had integrity they could be free as well as equal...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 14, 2008 11:20 am

Accountable;865079 wrote: I thought I was fairly clear that I was referring to those who did start on an equal footing, some of whom ended up as self-made millionaires and others who ended up monetarily poor.

Where? The OP is about societies not individuals and I didn't notice the subject changing in the mean time.

Accountable;865079 wrote: It sounds like your ideal society might be having everyone upon the day of "adulthood" be stripped of all prior possessions and given a set amount of money & goods. From that point they could each make it or not on their own. Come to think of it, that would be a fabulous premise for a novel. :yh_think

Oh no, it's far worse than that :wah: In order for each individual to have an equal start, and not be disadvantaged by the choices of the parents, all babies must be taken and raised in a crèche under ideal conditions (and several SF authors have beaten you to that one :-6)

Accountable;865079 wrote: So, back to that portion of society that do start on an equal footing, stipulating that others start in a more and a less advantageous situation and are thus not part of my scenario. Should all in this group be free to live their lives with the consequences of their choices, or should the ones who chose to pursue money as a priority be forced to pay for those who did not, or for those who failed in their pursuit?

Whilst society is so badly skewed the question is moot. You cannot treat those few you describe independently of the rest of society - that's as far from reality as my babies.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 14, 2008 4:29 pm

Bryn Mawr;865657 wrote: Where? The OP is about societies not individuals and I didn't notice the subject changing in the mean time.in my reply to your reply.... doesn't matter anyway.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Whilst society is so badly skewed the question is moot. You cannot treat those few you describe independently of the rest of society - that's as far from reality as my babies.
But it got skewed from an original footing of total equality and total freedom, didn't it? No law, no possessions. You ate if you could find it, etc etc etc. If we could get a magic chalkboard eraser and wipe all inequality and barriers to freedom, how many day, or even hours, before somebody's freedom gets restricted by someone else who sees himself as superior rather than equal?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 14, 2008 4:36 pm

gmc;865019 wrote: If a poor man thinks there should be universal healthcare why should his opinion be less right, be less meaningful - than that of a rich man?Because the poor man is not paying for it.

I believe everybody should be able to speak their opinion without fear of legal retribution. Such an opinion is just as right and meaningful as anyone else's regardless of monetary stature (bad phrase but it get the idea across I think) social standing, or anything else because for a person to exercise that right does not require diddly from anyone else. No one else even needs to listen. But for a person to claim and exercise a right to healthcare, many people would be required to contribute. The ones that contribute ought to have a say not only about the healthcare issue, but about their contribution as well. That puts their opinions as more meaningful.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 14, 2008 4:44 pm

Accountable;865809 wrote: in my reply to your reply.... doesn't matter anyway.

[quote=Bryn Mawr]Whilst society is so badly skewed the question is moot. You cannot treat those few you describe independently of the rest of society - that's as far from reality as my babies.

But it got skewed from an original footing of total equality and total freedom, didn't it? No law, no possessions. You ate if you could find it, etc etc etc. If we could get a magic chalkboard eraser and wipe all inequality and barriers to freedom, how many day, or even hours, before somebody's freedom gets restricted by someone else who sees himself as superior rather than equal?

No, no and thrice no!

There has never been a point at which society (American or otherwise) has been equal.

Given that the starting point is unequal the end point is unequal.

Wiping the slate clean is not an option - too much crap is carried over. Equality has to evolve with slow and steady improvements to society - it is our responsibility to work towards those improvements.

Only thus can we reduce the inequality.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 14, 2008 5:49 pm

Bryn Mawr;865820 wrote: No, no and thrice no!

There has never been a point at which society (American or otherwise) has been equal.

Given that the starting point is unequal the end point is unequal.

Wiping the slate clean is not an option - too much crap is carried over. Equality has to evolve with slow and steady improvements to society - it is our responsibility to work towards those improvements.

Only thus can we reduce the inequality.
So you do think that equality should take a back seat to freedom. Thank you.

American society splintered off an already old society. Rewind it back far enough and you will find freedom and equality. I think it still exists in some of the more remote areas of Africa. It's the hunter-gatherers.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 14, 2008 11:29 pm

Accountable;865887 wrote: So you do think that equality should take a back seat to freedom. Thank you.

American society splintered off an already old society. Rewind it back far enough and you will find freedom and equality. I think it still exists in some of the more remote areas of Africa. It's the hunter-gatherers.

No! Where do you get that from?

Freedom and equality are not mutually incompatible. People can live in an equal society and be free to live as they wish. The one major rule being that no person has the right to harm another person - any law stems from, and embodies, that principle.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:39 am

Accountable;865887 wrote: So you do think that equality should take a back seat to freedom. Thank you.
Bryn Mawr;865960 wrote: No! Where do you get that from?
here.

Bryn Mawr;865820 wrote: Equality has to evolve with slow and steady improvements to society - it is our responsibility to work towards those improvements.

Only thus can we reduce the inequality.
Aren't people free to ignore inequality? Shouldn't they be?

Bryn Mawr;865960 wrote: Freedom and equality are not mutually incompatible. People can live in an equal society and be free to live as they wish. The one major rule being that no person has the right to harm another person - any law stems from, and embodies, that principle.Your words ring hollow. People can't live as they wish. It is simply not possible. To acquire a thing - be it material, spiritual, or something else I haven't thought of - requires some kind of cost.

Want to live in a comfortable home? That costs money. Get a job, start a business, steal, or hide in someone else's comfortable home - each of these decisions require some type of personal sacrifice, a consequence.

Want the best in healthcare? That costs money, lots of it. You can make it yourself or you can take it from someone else (or have it taken). The first decision is a decision you are free to make. No one else need do anything. Not so for the second decision. That one requires the efforts of someone else. That someone else must freely agree to dish out his hard-earned money for freedom to remain. Otherwise, freedom must take a back seat to equality.

Not all people can live in an equal society and be free to live as they wish, because most people prefer to live a lifestyle that costs more than they are either willing or able to pay, in money and effort.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:57 am

Living in a society means we are not free - I cannot just wander out and kill my neighbour, much to my regret - I am not "free" to do so in our society. Equality of rights is the only equality I see - and I am aware of the argument that those from very deprived backgrounds are in effect denied much of the benefit of that (more likely to be convicted of crimes etc) while the priveleged are better educated at a younger age to take advantage of the opportunities in front of them.

So I would say we have never been truly free and cannot be truly equal. These are concepts we can only move towards, we can never actually reach them. At the same time I would say that the impossibility of achieving these aims doesn't mean we should stop trying: just getting closer to them is a good thing.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:38 am

Accountable;865815 wrote: Because the poor man is not paying for it.

I believe everybody should be able to speak their opinion without fear of legal retribution. Such an opinion is just as right and meaningful as anyone else's regardless of monetary stature (bad phrase but it get the idea across I think) social standing, or anything else because for a person to exercise that right does not require diddly from anyone else. No one else even needs to listen. But for a person to claim and exercise a right to healthcare, many people would be required to contribute. The ones that contribute ought to have a say not only about the healthcare issue, but about their contribution as well. That puts their opinions as more meaningful.

So you are effectively saying the opinions of a rich man matter more than those of a poor one.

Put another way only those who have something at stake financially should have any real say in how things are done. That is exactly the argument used by those who opposed universal suffrage.

posted by accountable

Want the best in healthcare? That costs money, lots of it. You can make it yourself or you can take it from someone else (or have it taken). The first decision is a decision you are free to make. No one else need do anything. Not so for the second decision. That one requires the efforts of someone else. That someone else must freely agree to dish out his hard-earned money for freedom to remain. Otherwise, freedom must take a back seat to equality.

Why not bring back the property ownership qualification to be eligible to vote? Or perhaps allow the vote to those with a net worth of over what? say a million? after all wealth isn't just in property nowadays is it. That way all those who are on welfare, don't own their own house or whatever you want to decide would have no say in how the country is run and only those who have to contribute through taxes would have the right to vote.

Why just pick on healthcare? How about education? why should those with the wherewithal and savvy to make money and take care of their families have to help pay for the education of the children of those on welfare or the feckless poor in general?

(I assume education to at least secondary level is freely available in the states correct me if I'm wrong )

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:29 am

Accountable;866053 wrote: here.

Aren't people free to ignore inequality? Shouldn't they be?

People are free to do so but society is not. A society which ignore gross inequality amongst its population, or removes the freedom of its people, is a sick society.

Accountable;866053 wrote: Your words ring hollow. People can't live as they wish. It is simply not possible. To acquire a thing - be it material, spiritual, or something else I haven't thought of - requires some kind of cost.

Want to live in a comfortable home? That costs money. Get a job, start a business, steal, or hide in someone else's comfortable home - each of these decisions require some type of personal sacrifice, a consequence.

Want the best in healthcare? That costs money, lots of it. You can make it yourself or you can take it from someone else (or have it taken). The first decision is a decision you are free to make. No one else need do anything. Not so for the second decision. That one requires the efforts of someone else. That someone else must freely agree to dish out his hard-earned money for freedom to remain. Otherwise, freedom must take a back seat to equality.

Not all people can live in an equal society and be free to live as they wish, because most people prefer to live a lifestyle that costs more than they are either willing or able to pay, in money and effort.

I do not fully understand what you are trying to say here. I have never suggested that individuals have total freedom - indeed, I specified that people were not free to do harm to their fellows. If you "steal, or hide in someone else's comfortable home " then you are doing harm.

A person is free to act and to make decisions. Those decisions and actions have consequences and each person must be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Freedom of action does not imply freedom from consequence.

As to your specific example of healthcare - the choice to provide healthcare is take by society, not by the individual and both the cost to the individual and the benefit available should be equal to all.

You are implying that the choice to use state provided healthcare is a direct harm to other people, this is not so - neither is private healthcare automatically a free and equal choice, I am sure many would agree that the private healthcare companies are harming people and the state by their unequal application of costs across the market.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 15, 2008 11:36 am

Freedom of action does not imply freedom from consequence.

Beautifully put.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 2:51 pm

gmc;866071 wrote: So you are effectively saying the opinions of a rich man matter more than those of a poor one. Not universally. In matters in which the burden will fall disproportionately, those disproportionately burdened should be disproportionately heard. Tell me how that is wrong (unfair or unequal) .... really, I want to know. This may strike at the heart of the question.

gmc wrote: (I assume education to at least secondary level is freely available in the states correct me if I'm wrong )
You are correct. Kindergarten through 12th grade; 13 years in all. Special needs kids have free access to public education up to age 22.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:02 pm

Bryn Mawr;866401 wrote: People are free to do so but society is not. A society which ignore gross inequality amongst its population, or removes the freedom of its people, is a sick society.Okay, we're close. How can a society address gross inequality amongst its population without removing or at least curtailing somebody's freedomBryn Mawr wrote: I do not fully understand what you are trying to say here. I have never suggested that individuals have total freedom - indeed, I specified that people were not free to do harm to their fellows. If you "steal, or hide in someone else's comfortable home " then you are doing harm.

A person is free to act and to make decisions. Those decisions and actions have consequences and each person must be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Freedom of action does not imply freedom from consequence.As I have said many times in earlier conversations. We agree here. In fact, I'm sure you, gmc, and I would be happy living in any of our individual ideal societies, though I think we'd be most comfortable in gmc's. He's kinda between you & me, I think. :-6

When I mentioned stealing, I was just listing that as one option among many, not that he should be able to do it with impunity.

Bryn Mawr wrote: As to your specific example of healthcare - the choice to provide healthcare is take by society, not by the individual and both the cost to the individual and the benefit available should be equal to all.But it's not, is it? Those with more to give are required to give more, aren't they, while those with nothing pay nothing for the same level service.

Bryn Mawr wrote: You are implying that the choice to use state provided healthcare is a direct harm to other people, this is not so - neither is private healthcare automatically a free and equal choice, I am sure many would agree that the private healthcare companies are harming people and the state by their unequal application of costs across the market.Don't presume to tell me what I'm implying, young man. You can only infer with certainty. ............ of course you're right this time, but don't get cocky.

Gotta run but I've got more to say on this one.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:04 pm

Accountable;866735 wrote: Not universally. In matters in which the burden will fall disproportionately, those disproportionately burdened should be disproportionately heard. Tell me how that is wrong (unfair or unequal) .... really, I want to know. This may strike at the heart of the question.

You are correct. Kindergarten through 12th grade; 13 years in all. Special needs kids have free access to public education up to age 22.

Chuckle. And there was me thinking that was the sort of thing your ancestors migrated to get away from!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:37 pm

posted by accountable

Not universally. In matters in which the burden will fall disproportionately, those disproportionately burdened should be disproportionately heard. Tell me how that is wrong (unfair or unequal) .... really, I want to know. This may strike at the heart of the question.

It does indeed go straight to the hearty of the question and is one that has been asked since universal suffrage was thought of. I'm fairly sure there were similar debates at the time of the framing of the american constitution, but i can't for the life of me find any links.

Howecver I would refer you to an earlier debate-arguable at one of the most important points in UK history and also the later history of america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putney_Debates

For really I think that the poorest he that is in England have a life to live, as the greatest he: and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government.

And Ireton, for the Grandees:

“ no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom.[4]

Sound familiar?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:03 pm

Bryn Mawr;866401 wrote: You are implying that the choice to use state provided healthcare is a direct harm to other people, this is not so -I am implying that to set up a competely equal healthcare system imposes more on those with more than on those with less, in direct cost terms rather than proportion.Bryn Mawr wrote: - neither is private healthcare automatically a free and equal choice, I am sure many would agree that the private healthcare companies are harming people and the state by their unequal application of costs across the market.I agee about the harm, but I'm not versed enough to address the how.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:14 pm

Bryn Mawr;864866 wrote: I would dispute the assertion that they [freedom & equality] are mutually exclusive.

The suggestion that you can force people to be equal is a big problem - how do you force people to be equally happy.

You can, however, make people free to chose their priorities in life - chose whether to pursue happiness of leisure or money or a satisfying work life. The fact that people do not have equal amounts of wealth or possessions does not make them unequal - it could equally mean that they have different drives and priorities.Bryn Mawr;866401 wrote: A person is free to act and to make decisions. Those decisions and actions have consequences and each person must be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Freedom of action does not imply freedom from consequence.
Not to throw your words back at you (well, okay it is to throw your words back at you :yh_tong2) but people freely choose to be unequal. They freely choose family over that CEO position or salesman of the year award. They freely choose to work for fulfillment or for money. Shouldn't they be held (or simply allowed to be) responsible for the consequences of those decisions?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:17 pm

Clodhopper;866745 wrote: Chuckle. And there was me thinking that was the sort of thing your ancestors migrated to get away from!
The proportion thing, right? :-2 Ain't it funny how things run in circles ... I mean cycles?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:25 pm

gmc;866765 wrote: posted by accountable

It does indeed go straight to the hearty of the question and is one that has been asked since universal suffrage was thought of. I'm fairly sure there were similar debates at the time of the framing of the american constitution, but i can't for the life of me find any links.

Howecver I would refer you to an earlier debate-arguable at one of the most important points in UK history and also the later history of america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putney_Debates

Sound familiar?
It truly seems to me that both you and Bryn are saying that so long as we can have freedom and equality we will strive to have it so, but when it comes to having to choose either one or the other, equality will always come out on top. It's just too radically different a concept for me to simply accept. It just doesn't resonate. It will take some really convincing rhetoric to bring me to that conclusion.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:57 pm

Accountable;866796 wrote: It truly seems to me that both you and Bryn are saying that so long as we can have freedom and equality we will strive to have it so, but when it comes to having to choose either one or the other, equality will always come out on top. It's just too radically different a concept for me to simply accept. It just doesn't resonate. It will take some really convincing rhetoric to bring me to that conclusion.

I do wonder if the different reactions are in part due to the different sizes of our countries: we are on top of eachother here and have been for hundreds of years whereas America, apart from a couple of conurbations is, well, EMPTY. The consequence I am suggesting is that we have to consider eachother most of the time and can't get away, whereas the US was created by people spreading out to be kings of their own particular patch of prarie (or forest or whatever) and that awareness of space is there in your psyche. I wonder if that is what makes us view issues like this so differently...?

gmc: Thanks for that on the Putney debates. I remember the exchange from somewhere, but didn't remember when it was from or who said it.

For really I think that the poorest he that is in England have a life to live, as the greatest he

I admire the simple dignity of that statement so much. Shakespeare would have been proud of it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 5:20 pm

Clodhopper;866807 wrote: I do wonder if the different reactions are in part due to the different sizes of our countries: we are on top of eachother here and have been for hundreds of years whereas America, apart from a couple of conurbations is, well, EMPTY. The consequence I am suggesting is that we have to consider eachother most of the time and can't get away, whereas the US was created by people spreading out to be kings of their own particular patch of prarie (or forest or whatever) and that awareness of space is there in your psyche. I wonder if that is what makes us view issues like this so differently...?
I've often wondered the same thing. I may even have said so here in FG once or twice. To compare one state to a particular country is probably more fair.

watermark · Post by **watermark** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:56 pm

Your discussion is enlightening! thanks

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 16, 2008 3:08 am

watermark;866873 wrote: Your discussion is enlightening! thanks
Thanks! Any ideas you'd like to toss in? :-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:31 am

Accountable;866796 wrote: It truly seems to me that both you and Bryn are saying that so long as we can have freedom and equality we will strive to have it so, but when it comes to having to choose either one or the other, equality will always come out on top. It's just too radically different a concept for me to simply accept. It just doesn't resonate. It will take some really convincing rhetoric to bring me to that conclusion.

Put yourself in the position of a soldier in the war of independence. You're now free but you can't vote because after all it's only right that those who are men of substance and have most at stake in the county should have the most say in how it is run.

posted by accountable

In matters in which the burden will fall disproportionately, those disproportionately burdened should be disproportionately heard.

They will after all be paying more in taxes than you and some actually own property and truly men of real worth. Fair and equitable I hear you say? Or do you say I am the equal of any man matter his station in life and my voice will be heard in the councils of government whether you like it or not. Why did you bother fighting what is your much vaunted freedom for if it was not to have an equal say in the society you live in? When did you become convinced that an individual has no right to have a say in how government is run and that to suggest it do something to provide for the poorest was somehow going to destroy that very freedom you fought for? Did you just swop one set of rulers for another?

It wouldn't do to have the riff raff demanding things like free education or healthcare now would it? Or even, god forbid, equal treatment and the right to equality before the law (even of they can't pay for it) to defend themselves from the rapacious money grubbers in society. Good grief they might even object to vital industry polluting the environment and affecting company profits-who cares if people die as a consequence they are of little worth cos they have no money, no property and don't pay taxes. They should have no say in how things are done.

Why should your children be disadvantaged because you can't pay for further education yet they are just as capable-or maybe even more so than the child of a rich man and who knows given a chance they may actually contribute more to society. If you are a member of society do you just do what is expected of you with no say in the matter and no right to expect anything in return.

posted by accontable

Not to throw your words back at you (well, okay it is to throw your words back at you ) but people freely choose to be unequal. They freely choose family over that CEO position or salesman of the year award. They freely choose to work for fulfillment or for money. Shouldn't they be held (or simply allowed to be) responsible for the consequences of those decisions?

Why should a nurse be paid less than say Paris Hilton? Society clearly values paris more than sally (made up person) the nurse because she earns more. If sally does her back in and can't work any more losing her job and work healthcare benefits but if her child needs healthcare is it right she gets less professional care as a consequence of her newly found poverty.

If Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, the Carlyle group and the bin men all went on strike whose absence would you notice first and have the most impact on society? If making money is the only criteria for judging someone's worth to society you wind up with some very strange role models.

Actually I don't really know how your healthcare works so I don't know the validity or otherwise of any analogy I use. But every American medical drama has a bit where somebody doesn't get the treatment they need because they have no insurance-or they get treatment they don't need because the hospital makes money on it.

posted by clodhopper

I do wonder if the different reactions are in part due to the different sizes of our countries: we are on top of eachother here and have been for hundreds of years whereas America, apart from a couple of conurbations is, well, EMPTY. The consequence I am suggesting is that we have to consider each other most of the time and can't get away, whereas the US was created by people spreading out to be kings of their own particular patch of prarie (or forest or whatever) and that awareness of space is there in your psyche. I wonder if that is what makes us view issues like this so differently...?

I don't think it;s so much that as we have a different cultural experience of warfare. WW1 wiped out a generation and people came out of that saying never again and massive societl change followed. Our leaders had lost their credibility, ww2 it was right now we are really going to change things. It was the soldiers overseas whose vote swung things to labour and the introduction of the welfare state. the debate was over the bastards were going to do what they were told.

We still have that kind of attitude-so do most of western europe in that the debate is how we make society better not whether it is fair that high earners should pay more in tax for things that don't benefit them personally. A function of government is to take action to make life better for everybody. When they are perceived not to care, not to be listening or doing things to help the rich at the expense of ordinary people they tend to lose office like maggie did and gordon brown and new labour are about to. Look at the furore over the 10p tax rate. Labour MP's didn't notice then started shitting themselves as their constituents started complaining.

When it comes to universal healthcare I think the US is having a debate we had sixty years ago. The question should perhaps be is it fair not to have it? Are you free citizens in a democracy determining how things are done or supplicants begging for crumbs from the ruling classes.

Are you free and equal or neither?

watermark · Post by **watermark** » Fri May 16, 2008 6:15 pm

Accountable;866930 wrote: Thanks! Any ideas you'd like to toss in? :-6

wow! probably but they wouldn't be worth much at this point. okay I'll try

Firstly I never knew free verse equal was an age old debate. This is a new debate for me. This debate may be something that philosophy has addressed before (philosophy and me haven't always kept good company hehe so wouldn't know).

Aren't people always going to differ in what we can contribute, but that individuals should have the freedom to determine their own potential to contribute, not society?And that it's our collective job as a society to encourage the individual to find his or her niche? Maybe not actively doing anything but at least not standing in someone's way? That's what I see so often, others are always hindering other people by being shallow and bigoted.

In the meantime the rich may have to help the poor get something they couldn't on their own. The poor need to know that crime won't be tolerated (laziness and theft are crimes imo)

I agree with whoever made the comment about progressing towards a better society. I too don't believe anything will ever be ideal here. The ideal condition implies stagnation or lack of change and we all know that is an impossibility.

However we can always strive to make this a better place. Sounds so trite what I just said, true though in my book (just so long as I don't have to move my butt off the couch).

Erin

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:03 pm

I don't think it;s so much that as we have a different cultural experience of warfare. WW1 wiped out a generation and people came out of that saying never again and massive societl change followed. Our leaders had lost their credibility, ww2 it was right now we are really going to change things. It was the soldiers overseas whose vote swung things to labour and the introduction of the welfare state. the debate was over the bastards were going to do what they were told.

We still have that kind of attitude-so do most of western europe in that the debate is how we make society better not whether it is fair that high earners should pay more in tax for things that don't benefit them personally. A function of government is to take action to make life better for everybody. When they are perceived not to care, not to be listening or doing things to help the rich at the expense of ordinary people they tend to lose office like maggie did and gordon brown and new labour are about to. Look at the furore over the 10p tax rate. Labour MP's didn't notice then started shitting themselves as their constituents started complaining.

When it comes to universal healthcare I think the US is having a debate we had sixty years ago. The question should perhaps be is it fair not to have it? Are you free citizens in a democracy determining how things are done or supplicants begging for crumbs from the ruling classes.

Hmm. Well the Americans had their casualty rates in their Civil War. Agree completely about the overseas vote but it took a Bevin (or Bevan. I always confuse them) to make it real, and it's uncertain how modern demographics can support it. Fortunately things seem to be going ok in the basic structures at the moment.

Don't think we had a debate. Warfare did it. Shock education you wouldn't wish on anybody, but a sign that we have a responsive democracy: our government and system responded to it.

I think I will get better at organising my replies, but it's a bit late just now. Goodnight!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:14 pm

The more I think about it, the more I come back to one basic question: Should I have the right to spend your money. Waaayy oversimplified and highly generalized, my answer has to be a resounding NO!

Using this as a basis, I will attempt to address your whole post. I notice that you repeat (or rather rephrase) yourself, which means either I'm not getting through to you or you think you're not getting through to me.

gmc;867458 wrote: Put yourself in the position of a soldier in the war of independence. You're now free but you can't vote because after all it's only right that those who are men of substance and have most at stake in the county should have the most say in how it is run.

They will after all be paying more in taxes than you and some actually own property and truly men of real worth. Fair and equitable I hear you say? Or do you say I am the equal of any man matter his station in life and my voice will be heard in the councils of government whether you like it or not. Why did you bother fighting what is your much vaunted freedom for if it was not to have an equal say in the society you live in? When did you become convinced that an individual has no right to have a say in how government is run and that to suggest it do something to provide for the poorest was somehow going to destroy that very freedom you fought for? Did you just swop one set of rulers for another? Never once did I say anyone should have no vote at all. That was your inferrence.

gmc wrote: It wouldn't do to have the riff raff demanding things like free education or healthcare now would it? Or even, god forbid, equal treatment and the right to equality before the law (even of they can't pay for it) to defend themselves from the rapacious money grubbers in society. Good grief they might even object to vital industry polluting the environment and affecting company profits-who cares if people die as a consequence they are of little worth cos they have no money, no property and don't pay taxes. They should have no say in how things are done.Um, I'm betting you're venting and aren't really looking for a response here.

gmc wrote: Why should your children be disadvantaged because you can't pay for further education yet they are just as capable-or maybe even more so than the child of a rich man and who knows given a chance they may actually contribute more to society. If you are a member of society do you just do what is expected of you with no say in the matter and no right to expect anything in return. Again, you're running with the 'no vote' thing I've already addressed. However, even in the most evil of societies you paint with your rant (and yes, my friend, you're ranting) education of even the poorest is an investment in the future of the entire society. Rich people understand spending a little to profit alot.

gmc wrote:

Why should a nurse be paid less than say Paris Hilton? Society clearly values paris more than sally (made up person) the nurse because she earns more. If sally does her back in and can't work any more losing her job and work healthcare benefits but if her child needs healthcare is it right she gets less professional care as a consequence of her newly found poverty.

If Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, the Carlyle group and the bin men all went on strike whose absence would you notice first and have the most impact on society? If making money is the only criteria for judging someone's worth to society you wind up with some very strange role models.Society has very strange role models. But to your point, if Donald Trump went home for a few days, weeks, whatever, no one would notice. But Donald Trump's body is not as valuable as the bin men's bodies. Now, if Mr Trump rolled up all his toys, closed all his businesses and took all his stuff with him, don't you think we'd notice? Tens of thousands of people would be without work. I'm sorry, how many bin men were you referring to in your scenario?

gmc wrote: Actually I don't really know how your healthcare works so I don't know the validity or otherwise of any analogy I use. But every American medical drama has a bit where somebody doesn't get the treatment they need because they have no insurance-or they get treatment they don't need because the hospital makes money on it. Yeh, that's the latest scare tactic. Truth is, having a little money is worse than having no money at all. Illegal aliens get better health care than middle class Americans.

*The rest was a response to Clodhopper, so I won't respond except to the last bit.*

gmc wrote: When it comes to universal healthcare I think the US is having a debate we had sixty years ago. The question should perhaps be is it fair not to have it? Are you free citizens in a democracy determining how things are done or supplicants begging for crumbs from the ruling classes.

Are you free and equal or neither?Don't confuse fair with equal. Equality is only fair when you require equal input for equal output, and neither of our societies do that. Therefore, equality is inherently unfair.

Your second question is wildly leading. How are those who make more money (and create more jobs and wealth for others, btw) free when they are forced to pay the lion's share of public benefits? How is that equality.? Your way is neither.

I think it would be far mor fair and equitable to consider the amount of money (income tax) a citizen contributes. Consider this:

Every citizen gets one vote (one man, one vote) plus an additional vote for, say, every $1000 he paid in income tax the previous year.Any employed worker pays more than $1000 in income tax annually. Also, many of the mega-rich claim little or no regular income; most of their money is through more passive income sources such as stock investments. The more money you make, the more votes you get. Now there's a real positive incentive to be employed!

IMO, that's far more fair than the current system, and far more equal.

So far, this thread has only served to convince me my sig is right, at least for me.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 pm

posted by accountable

Using this as a basis, I will attempt to address your whole post. I notice that you repeat (or rather rephrase) yourself, which means either I'm not getting through to you or you think you're not getting through to me.

I am a bit but I'm not sure whether I'm expressing myself badly or you're just thick:D

posted by accountable

Never once did I say anyone should have no vote at all. That was your inferrence.

I wasn't talking about voting per se. but rather pointing that the argument out against universal suffrage at the time of the american war of independence was that the opinion of people of worth-the rich property owners in other words-counted for more than anyone elses because they had more at stake and therefore they and only they should have any say in the decision making process.

Would you-had you been a soldier who risked life and limb in battle but owned no property have thought that a reasonable case?

posted by accountable

I believe everybody should be able to speak their opinion without fear of legal retribution. Such an opinion is just as right and meaningful as anyone else's regardless of monetary stature (bad phrase but it get the idea across I think) social standing, or anything else because for a person to exercise that right does not require diddly from anyone else. No one else even needs to listen. But for a person to claim and exercise a right to healthcare, many people would be required to contribute. The ones that contribute ought to have a say not only about the healthcare issue, but about their contribution as well. That puts their opinions as more meaningful.

I think it would be far mor fair and equitable to consider the amount of money (income tax) a citizen contributes. Consider this:

* Every citizen gets one vote (one man, one vote) plus an additional vote for, say, every $1000 he paid in income tax the previous year.

Any employed worker pays more than $1000 in income tax annually. Also, many of the mega-rich claim little or no regular income; most of their money is through more passive income sources such as stock investments. The more money you make, the more votes you get. Now there's a real positive incentive to be employed!

IMO, that's far more fair than the current system, and far more equal.

You are coming out with the kind of argument used by those who would place themselves above those around them and look down on those they regard as the feckless poor. To express my opinion in the more forceful language I might use on a British forum-that's a load of bollocks and I passionately disagree with you.

If you think that fair and just then fine but just because someone has been more financially successful in life than another who perhaps chose a different lifestyle, didn't get the same opportunities or was too slow to see or whatever the reason them does not imo make them better, more intelligent or better able to make decisions as to how things should be. It is an argument I will always disagree with. Universal suffrage, one person one vote regardless of position in society social justice and equal justice for all.

Actually companies pay the most tax. Why not forget democracy and freedom and just let the companies run the place. After all the executives have shown their greater ability by getting to their positions haven't they? How about those guys that in the banking system that decided ninja loans were a great idea? they've really proved their capability and all the people being foreclosed are clearly too stupid to have any say at all.

I can't see anyone being daft enough to vote for such an electoral system-really are you going to accept that some numpty with a better paid job than you is actually better qualified than you decide weighty matters of government? When did you decide you couldn't be trusted?

posted by accountable

Um, I'm betting you're venting and aren't really looking for a response here.

I was a bit- occasionally some posters on this forum occasionally express the opinion that big business should be left unfettered and that those who complain about being poisoned by heavy industry and call for control to be imposed are dangerous radicals threatening the fabric of society.

posted by accountable

Again, you're running with the 'no vote' thing I've already addressed. However, even in the most evil of societies you paint with your rant (and yes, my friend, you're ranting) education of even the poorest is an investment in the future of the entire society. Rich people understand spending a little to profit alot.

Yes a little I suppose. I just can't believe that anyone is prepared to accept that they have no right to expect anything and should be grateful for what they get. Touch your forelock and ask for a job at the factory gate ever so humble and grateful for the minimum wage and the education that enables you to work there. true you can make your own way but it's a lot harder starting out with nothing. don't question the natural social order if you're poor it's your fault and what you say doesn't matter.

posted by acountable

Society has very strange role models. But to your point, if Donald Trump went home for a few days, weeks, whatever, no one would notice. But Donald Trump's body is not as valuable as the bin men's bodies. Now, if Mr Trump rolled up all his toys, closed all his businesses and took all his stuff with him, don't you think we'd notice? Tens of thousands of people would be without work. I'm sorry, how many bin men were you referring to in your scenario?

What about Paris Hilton? :sneaky: Donald trump is a property developer, it's not hard especially of you have lots of money to begin with, real wealth is made by people who create things, the engineers and scientists who might not make as much money as Donald trump but arguably have a bigger long term affect.

After a few weeks the disease raging through your cities would bring home the fact that you need everybody in society to make it work. Putting a value on someone based on what they earn just doesn't work in the long run.

You need to decide what role govt should play in providing for it's people and from what you are posting decide whether you really want to live in a liberal democracy or a right wing authoritarian society where people are free to speak out just so long as they realise their opinions don't matter and don't expect to be able to change things.

posted by clodhopper

Hmm. Well the Americans had their casualty rates in their Civil War. Agree completely about the overseas vote but it took a Bevin (or Bevan. I always confuse them) to make it real, and it's uncertain how modern demographics can support it. Fortunately things seem to be going ok in the basic structures at the moment.

Don't think we had a debate. Warfare did it. Shock education you wouldn't wish on anybody, but a sign that we have a responsive democracy: our government and system responded to it.

I think I will get better at organising my replies, but it's a bit late just now. Goodnight!

Oh we did. Changes like that don't just happen out of the blue-it's a long process and it was change driven from below and made because no one was going to be allowed to stop it. Governments rule at the whim of the people. When they start to convince themselves they have a right to rule they get changed-sooner or later.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 17, 2008 4:42 am

gmc;867963 wrote: I am a bit but I'm not sure whether I'm expressing myself badly or you're just thick:D:wah:

gmc wrote: You are coming out with the kind of argument used by those who would place themselves above those around them and look down on those they regard as the feckless poor. To express my opinion in the more forceful language I might use on a British forum-that's a load of bollocks and I passionately disagree with you. No, I'm not, and I could say that you're arguing for communism by saying that no man owns anything but is onlly allowed to keep it so long as the state, I'm sorry, the people, don't want it.

gmc wrote: If you think that fair and just then fine but just because someone has been more financially successful in life than another who perhaps chose a different lifestyle, didn't get the same opportunities or was too slow to see or whatever the reason them does not imo make them better, more intelligent or better able to make decisions as to how things should be. It is an argument I will always disagree with. Universal suffrage, one person one vote regardless of position in society social justice and equal justice for all. Government programs need money. If you enjoy refurbishing and selling vintage cars and make millions doing it, and I enjoy refurbishing and selling vintage handkerchiefs and make enough to squeak out a bare living, why do I have as much right to your money as you? Really. I want to know.

The system of universal suffrage (everyone gets a vote) with additional votes granted to those paying additional income tax (not having additional wealth, there's a difference) still allows voting blocks of lower-income earners to override higher-income earners. The numbers would still be in their favor, should there ever be a need.

gmc wrote: Actually companies pay the most tax. Why not forget democracy and freedom and just let the companies run the place.Same reason pets aren't allowed to vote: companies aren't citizens.

gmc wrote: After all the executives have shown their greater ability by getting to their positions haven't they? How about those guys that in the banking system that decided ninja loans were a great idea? they've really proved their capability and all the people being foreclosed are clearly too stupid to have any say at all.It's really all or nothing with you, isn't it?

gmc wrote: I can't see anyone being daft enough to vote for such an electoral system-really are you going to accept that some numpty with a better paid job than you is actually better qualified than you decide weighty matters of government? When did you decide you couldn't be trusted?It's not trust, ya Scottish galoot. It's freedom of choice without freedom from consequence. Why should I have a right to spend more of your money than I spend of my own?

Better qualified? No. Nor does any person have more of a right to earnings than the earner. Tell me why they should.

gmc wrote: I was a bit- occasionally some posters on this forum occasionally express the opinion that big business should be left unfettered and that those who complain about being poisoned by heavy industry and call for control to be imposed are dangerous radicals threatening the fabric of society. I haven't seen it, but you've stretched my words farther than my meanings as well, so I'm sure you have (seen it).

gmc wrote: Yes a little I suppose. I just can't believe that anyone is prepared to accept that they have no right to expect anything and should be grateful for what they get. Touch your forelock and ask for a job at the factory gate ever so humble and grateful for the minimum wage and the education that enables you to work there. true you can make your own way but it's a lot harder starting out with nothing. don't question the natural social order if you're poor it's your fault and what you say doesn't matter.[quote=gmc]We don't have caste in the US so keep that social order tripe on your side of the pond. People make it with nothing every day.

So yes, be grateful for a job if you're not willing to create one on your own, because someone else created it for you. Do you have any idea how much work it takes to create a job? Yes, take the wage you're offered gratefully and prove that you're worth more, or find another employer who appreciates your contribution more - or strike out on your own, because no one owes you anything without your contribution. Each of us have equal freedom to decide how we are going to live. There's no reason others should be obligated to pay the consequences of our decisions.

[quote=gmc]What about Paris Hilton? :sneaky: Donald trump is a property developer, it's not hard especially of you have lots of money to begin with, real wealth is made by people who create things, the engineers and scientists who might not make as much money as Donald trump but arguably have a bigger long term affect. They were your examples, remember?

gmc wrote: After a few weeks the disease raging through your cities would bring home the fact that you need everybody in society to make it work. Putting a value on someone based on what they earn just doesn't work in the long run. Sure it does. The bin men just got a big raise when they went on strike, didn't they? Well, they would've here, unless someone else was willing to do the job without the raise. I suppose your gov't would have them all arrested for not realizing how much they were already valued.

gmc wrote: You need to decide what role govt should play in providing for it's people and from what you are posting decide whether you really want to live in a liberal democracy or a right wing authoritarian society where people are free to speak out just so long as they realise their opinions don't matter and don't expect to be able to change things.Wow. Those are the only two options you see? I think both of our views fit under the liberal democracy label, then.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 18, 2008 5:33 am

gmc;868809 wrote: The dictionary definitions are the same in both countries.

oxford english dictionary

liberal

• adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

• noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.

— DERIVATIVES liberalism noun liberality noun liberally adverb.
By your own definition, you're not liberal. I'm more liberal than you are.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:14 pm

Accountable;866743 wrote: Okay, we're close. How can a society address gross inequality amongst its population without removing or at least curtailing somebody's freedom?

I think the difficulty we're getting into is a difference in the definition of equality. You appear to be equating that to equal wealth? I certainly spread it far wider than that - if someone values their free time over materiel possessions then by all means cut down on the hours you work - just don't whinge that you cannot afford x, y or z.

Society needs to ensure that a person's potential is not determined by where they are born or to whom. What you do with that potential should be up to you, not whether you're born in an area with sh!t schools where gangs rule because the police won't go in or whether you're born to old money and daddy's connections will get you a job tomorrow.

Accountable;866743 wrote: As I have said many times in earlier conversations. We agree here. In fact, I'm sure you, gmc, and I would be happy living in any of our individual ideal societies, though I think we'd be most comfortable in gmc's. He's kinda between you & me, I think. :-6

but, obviously, my society would be better than either :wah:

Accountable;866743 wrote: When I mentioned stealing, I was just listing that as one option among many, not that he should be able to do it with impunity.

Fair enough

Accountable;866743 wrote: But it's not, is it? Those with more to give are required to give more, aren't they, while those with nothing pay nothing for the same level service.

Now you are moving from the original theoretical idealised society to a specific instance. Why should those rules apply - if you want different and can think of a set of rules that would work then go for it.

Accountable;866743 wrote: Don't presume to tell me what I'm implying, young man. You can only infer with certainty. ............ of course you're right this time, but don't get cocky.

If your meaning is unclear then I can infer what you intended - if the meaning is clear and the logical conclusion of your statements is so then you're implying it.

This is true for the eunuchs amongst us as well :p

Accountable;866743 wrote: Gotta run but I've got more to say on this one.

Look forward to it :-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:20 pm

Accountable;866778 wrote: I am implying that to set up a competely equal healthcare system imposes more on those with more than on those with less, in direct cost terms rather than proportion.

I agee about the harm, but I'm not versed enough to address the how.

Only in your current society - in an ideal society you can set the rules to be whatever you see as fairest as long as you can show that those rules would be sustainable.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:27 pm

Accountable;866790 wrote: Not to throw your words back at you (well, okay it is to throw your words back at you :yh_tong2) but people freely choose to be unequal. They freely choose family over that CEO position or salesman of the year award. They freely choose to work for fulfillment or for money. Shouldn't they be held (or simply allowed to be) responsible for the consequences of those decisions?

I do not see my statements as contradictory.

What do you see as equality? If someone chooses to live for work rather than for family so be it. If they choose to work only as much as required to support their chosen lifestyle then so be it. Are those two people unequal? If they live by their choice then no.

Obviously people must be held responsible for the consequences of their choices - where have I suggested otherwise?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:31 pm

Accountable;866796 wrote: It truly seems to me that both you and Bryn are saying that so long as we can have freedom and equality we will strive to have it so, but when it comes to having to choose either one or the other, equality will always come out on top. It's just too radically different a concept for me to simply accept. It just doesn't resonate. It will take some really convincing rhetoric to bring me to that conclusion.

Where have I said that?

I demand my freedom!

(That includes the freedom to act against my own self interest or my own safety).

I also put the onus on society to provide an equal starting point for all of its citizens.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:35 pm

gmc;867458 wrote: Put yourself in the position of a soldier in the war of independence. You're now free but you can't vote because after all it's only right that those who are men of substance and have most at stake in the county should have the most say in how it is run.

posted by accountable

They will after all be paying more in taxes than you and some actually own property and truly men of real worth. Fair and equitable I hear you say? Or do you say I am the equal of any man matter his station in life and my voice will be heard in the councils of government whether you like it or not. Why did you bother fighting what is your much vaunted freedom for if it was not to have an equal say in the society you live in? When did you become convinced that an individual has no right to have a say in how government is run and that to suggest it do something to provide for the poorest was somehow going to destroy that very freedom you fought for? Did you just swop one set of rulers for another?

It wouldn't do to have the riff raff demanding things like free education or healthcare now would it? Or even, god forbid, equal treatment and the right to equality before the law (even of they can't pay for it) to defend themselves from the rapacious money grubbers in society. Good grief they might even object to vital industry polluting the environment and affecting company profits-who cares if people die as a consequence they are of little worth cos they have no money, no property and don't pay taxes. They should have no say in how things are done.

Why should your children be disadvantaged because you can't pay for further education yet they are just as capable-or maybe even more so than the child of a rich man and who knows given a chance they may actually contribute more to society. If you are a member of society do you just do what is expected of you with no say in the matter and no right to expect anything in return.

posted by accontable

Why should a nurse be paid less than say Paris Hilton? Society clearly values paris more than sally (made up person) the nurse because she earns more. If sally does her back in and can't work any more losing her job and work healthcare benefits but if her child needs healthcare is it right she gets less professional care as a consequence of her newly found poverty.

If Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, the Carlyle group and the bin men all went on strike whose absence would you notice first and have the most impact on society? If making money is the only criteria for judging someone's worth to society you wind up with some very strange role models.

Actually I don't really know how your healthcare works so I don't know the validity or otherwise of any analogy I use. But every American medical drama has a bit where somebody doesn't get the treatment they need because they have no insurance-or they get treatment they don't need because the hospital makes money on it.

posted by clodhopper

I don't think it;s so much that as we have a different cultural experience of warfare. WW1 wiped out a generation and people came out of that saying never again and massive societl change followed. Our leaders had lost their credibility, ww2 it was right now we are really going to change things. It was the soldiers overseas whose vote swung things to labour and the introduction of the welfare state. the debate was over the bastards were going to do what they were told.

We still have that kind of attitude-so do most of western europe in that the debate is how we make society better not whether it is fair that high earners should pay more in tax for things that don't benefit them personally. A function of government is to take action to make life better for everybody. When they are perceived not to care, not to be listening or doing things to help the rich at the expense of ordinary people they tend to lose office like maggie did and gordon brown and new labour are about to. Look at the furore over the 10p tax rate. Labour MP's didn't notice then started shitting themselves as their constituents started complaining.

When it comes to universal healthcare I think the US is having a debate we had sixty years ago. The question should perhaps be is it fair not to have it? Are you free citizens in a democracy determining how things are done or supplicants begging for crumbs from the ruling classes.

Are you free and equal or neither?

Excellent post - thank you.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:52 pm

watermark;867889 wrote: wow! probably but they wouldn't be worth much at this point. okay I'll try

Firstly I never knew free verse equal was an age old debate. This is a new debate for me. This debate may be something that philosophy has addressed before (philosophy and me haven't always kept good company hehe so wouldn't know).

Aren't people always going to differ in what we can contribute, but that individuals should have the freedom to determine their own potential to contribute, not society?And that it's our collective job as a society to encourage the individual to find his or her niche? Maybe not actively doing anything but at least not standing in someone's way? That's what I see so often, others are always hindering other people by being shallow and bigoted.

In the meantime the rich may have to help the poor get something they couldn't on their own. The poor need to know that crime won't be tolerated (laziness and theft are crimes imo)

I agree with whoever made the comment about progressing towards a better society. I too don't believe anything will ever be ideal here. The ideal condition implies stagnation or lack of change and we all know that is an impossibility.

However we can always strive to make this a better place. Sounds so trite what I just said, true though in my book (just so long as I don't have to move my butt off the couch).

Erin

The debate's been going on since the first Shaman and the first clan chief decided they'd set the rules and everyone else had better make their breakfast pronto!

People are not equal, not everyone can be a brain surgeon just as not everyone can be a stevedore or a mineworker. It is part of society's job to decide what value to place on each job - is the strategist who dictates the company's direction more valuable than the worker who produces the goods? There are two directions a society can go - "to each according to his contribution" or "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". An effective and efficient society should probably combine the two but the real question is how?

And given that the real question is how and given that we are where we are the even realer question is how do we get to there form here?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:57 pm

Accountable;867938 wrote: The more I think about it, the more I come back to one basic question: Should I have the right to spend your money. Waaayy oversimplified and highly generalized, my answer has to be a resounding NO!

So far oversimplified as to be meaningless. You have to differentiate between society and the individual. Should society have the right to spend money gathered equally for all of it citizens for the good of society as a whole?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun May 18, 2008 4:00 pm

Bryn Mawr;869112 wrote: So far oversimplified as to be meaningless. You have to differentiate between society and the individual. Should society have the right to spend money gathered equally for all of it citizens for the good of society as a whole?

Yes...

But not limited by...

Should be mandated...