Which is more important: "Life being fair" or "Freedom"?

[TonyOlsen]

Which is more important: "Life being fair" or "Freedom"?

Which of the 2 items is more important (overall) than the other?

Should government try to enforce fairness?

[avergbear]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you are not free, then someone else decides what is “fair, and that ain’t fair.

[Mohawk5]

Freedom above all else. Without freedom we are just pawns.

[TonyOlsen]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you are not free, then someone else decides what is “fair, and that ain’t fair.
No, I'm not talking about "Fairness" by itself, but "Government enforced fairness", which conflicts with "Freedom". Everytime the government enforces some form of fairness doctrine, Freedom is lost. Those that oppose a government "fairness doctrine" are those who believe that Freedom is more important. Those that believe in a government "Fairness Doctrine" believe that government controlled/enforced "fairness" is more important than the freedom lost.

Does that help?

...but "yes", I agree with you. Government enforced "fairness" is a pipe dream. Life ends up being more unfair with government intervention than without it.

[nunyadb]

Screw "fair", you leave me free, to make my own choices , and I'll be able to
take it from there.
Simple proposition ain't it.

[johnrocks]

Freedom but it seems that between the "crisis" that the GOP screams about(War on Terror) and the ones the DNC harps about(Global Warming and UHC) , about 98% of the country has turned to government to save their skeered asses!

[Vaard]

freedom with government is a pipe dream as well.......

there is no such thing as freedom under government....

[Jim50]

Which is more important: "Life being fair" or "Freedom"?

Which of the 2 items is more important (overall) than the other?

Should government try to enforce fairness?


Proud LIBERTARIAN since 1980.

[TonyOlsen]

freedom with government is a pipe dream as well.......

there is no such thing as freedom under government....
I thought the founding fathers did a good job.

Our country, from my perspective, has had the most freedom of any country in the world.

...and, "No", Anarchy is NOT freedom.

[Antrel]

Definitely freedom. But freedom isn't what the conservatives and politically involved libertarians want - for them, it's about "enough freedom" for themselves, while maintaining and introducing measures to reduce their personal stake in society. How many conservatives would be willing to drop the taxes funding our military presence throughout the world? Taxation of any amount is force and many would rather fund a military to fight abroad so they may never have to face a reality of picking up a weapon and becoming an insurgency of their own, risking their lives and the lives of their families. Further, who would be willing to abolish state and local taxes and rid themselves of the justice system prosecuting and taking freedom away from individuals we, humans who bleed, deem guilty? How many would abolish all drug prohibition? Legalize prostitution? It's not "freedom," it's "their freedom," and the circumstances fair to them, which is all any government advocate can intellectually honestly suggest.

[Antrel]

I thought the founding fathers did a good job.

Our country, from my perspective, has had the most freedom of any country in the world.

...and, "No", Anarchy is NOT freedom.Anarchy is freedom. Your government is, has always been, and will only ever be force.

[Kea]

Anarchy is freedom. Your government is, has always been, and will only ever be force.

Anarchy comes from no government. The framers of the Constitution did not advocate for no government, just LIMITED government. As a free people we give some of our freedom for a civil society.

[Antrel]

Anarchy comes from no government. The framers of the Constitution did not advocate for no government, just LIMITED government. As a free people we give some of our freedom for a civil society.The framers of the Constitution also did not advocate freedom, many of them slave-owners themselves to boot. You, personally, may give to the government, but everything that the government receives from me is taken, and I face its force if I take measures to minimize its seizure.

[Kea]

The framers of the Constitution also did not advocate freedom, many of them slave-owners themselves to boot. You, personally, may give to the government, but everything that the government receives from me is taken, and I face its force if I take measures to minimize its seizure.

you actually mean confiscated, don't you?

[rhet 2]

Life is NEVER "fair" -- do-able, survivable, winnable and losable, tough, easy, hard, soft, simple, complicated, aggravating, pleasing -- but NEVER "fair"

[Thanatos144]

Anarchy is freedom. Your government is, has always been, and will only ever be force.

anarchy is selfish.

[Antrel]

you actually mean confiscated, don't you?No, but you can apply the term if you'd rather.

[Antrel]

anarchy is selfish.So?

[TonyOlsen]

Definitely freedom. But freedom isn't what the conservatives and politically involved libertarians want - for them, it's about "enough freedom" for themselves, while maintaining and introducing measures to reduce their personal stake in society. How many conservatives would be willing to drop the taxes funding our military presence throughout the world? Taxation of any amount is force and many would rather fund a military to fight abroad so they may never have to face a reality of picking up a weapon and becoming an insurgency of their own, risking their lives and the lives of their families. Further, who would be willing to abolish state and local taxes and rid themselves of the justice system prosecuting and taking freedom away from individuals we, humans who bleed, deem guilty? How many would abolish all drug prohibition? Legalize prostitution? It's not "freedom," it's "their freedom," and the circumstances fair to them, which is all any government advocate can intellectually honestly suggest.
I don't know what you mean by "introducing measures to reduce their personal stake in society".

Also, to a Conservative and Libertarian, having a military is NOT so that we can have a "presence" in the world, but so that we can defend our Life, Liberty, and Property.

Libertarians seek the greatest possible Liberty for themselves and everyone else. If you life, liberty, and property are not defended, then you lose freedom when someone takes away your life, kidnaps you, burns your house, steal your propety, or other things falling under "Life, Liberty, and Property". The most Liberty a country can get is when government does NOTHING more than defend Life, Liberty, and Property.

Anarchy doesn't exist... there will always be something to fill the void. Even the mob riots in California many years ago showed the social patterns of one or a few in the crowd leading the rest to do what they did... even if it was on a subconsious level. A heirarchy will always exist, and if you shot for Anarchy, you'll likely end up with someone taking you over, and you'll end up with Tyranny.

...that's why some Communists see Anarchy as a means to achive Tyranny... because without government defending your life, liberty, and property, it's easier for Tyranny to take over.

The ideal... the most Liberty possible is when government (ie. "force") is limited to defending life, liberty, and property. That's the Libertarian ideal... and also the ideal of many Conservatives.

Under that system anything that doesn't take away another person's Life, Liberty, or Property would be legal. What are those things?... well.. that's where you get into the details that even Libertarians aren't always agreed on.

It should be allowed to take your own life, remove your own Liberties (through addictions), and destroy your own property... but not someone else's. So, I could do drugs, so long as I don't put anyone's life in property and so long as I don't seek to take away someone else's liberty (by trying to get them addicted). So, it would be illegal to pump drugs into the air in a subway station... since you'll end up making other people addicted, which is an afront on their Liberty.

...then there's the blurry area of sexual addictions. Seeing sexuality in public can trigger natural sexual addictions, which is a lose of liberty. If a person seeks that himself/herself, without triggering anyone else's addictions, then that's a different story, but to me this would mean that sexuality would be illegal in public, but not in private... under the defense of Liberty. But I know this very quickly becomes a blurry area.

[Charlie A]

To quote Walter Wallace...

"FREEEEDOM!!! Argh..."

:)

[TonyOlsen]

Life is NEVER "fair" -- do-able, survivable, winnable and losable, tough, easy, hard, soft, simple, complicated, aggravating, pleasing -- but NEVER "fair"
Agreed. That's why I see government's attempt to pass "fairness" laws as their sublte attempt to further Tyranny... we give up our Lierties a piece at a time, one generation at a time.

If they move slow enough, human beings will acclimate, and most of them will never miss the freedoms they never knew.

[TonyOlsen]

According to the results of this poll, NO ONE who voted here would ever approve of any type of "fairness" laws that our politicians have, do, and will attempt to pass. Since such laws take away a piece of freedom for the sake of "fairness".

Does that mean we're all united to stand up against our politicians, and vote them out, if they ever attempt to pass "fairness" laws?

[nunyadb]

According to the results of this poll, NO ONE who voted here would ever approve of any type of "fairness" laws that our politicians have, do, and will attempt to pass. Since such laws take away a piece of freedom for the sake of "fairness".

Does that mean we're all united to stand up against our politicians, and vote them out, if they ever attempt to pass "fairness" laws?

What do you mean "attempt" ?
They've been doing so in small bites for 40 years now.
Wake up, here's a cup of coffee, we've got work to do.

[Andrew_980]

What do you mean "attempt" ?
They've been doing so in small bites for 40 years now.
Wake up, here's a cup of coffee, we've got work to do.

As much as i agree with you, i worry that there is nothing we can do. Neither side would dream of relinquishing power

[harumph]

The voting is very telling.
And encouraging.

[LouC]

Which is more important: "Life being fair" or "Freedom"?

Which of the 2 items is more important (overall) than the other?

Should government try to enforce fairness?

Freedom ensures the greatest fairness.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

This poll is worded so broadly it is essentially meaningless.

Equality of opportunity is a myth too.

[TonyOlsen]

What do you mean "attempt" ?
They've been doing so in small bites for 40 years now.
Wake up, here's a cup of coffee, we've got work to do.
No, I didn't mean that government hasn't "attempted to pass 'fairness' legislation", but instead has failed to "provide 'fairness' through legislation". Yes, government has passed many "fairness" bills, but those have failed to make life more "fair"... as a previous poster pointed out: "Life is not fair".

...and yes, we have a lot of work to do. :-) Thanks for participating in the fight to restore our liberties. :-)

[TonyOlsen]

As much as i agree with you, i worry that there is nothing we can do. Neither side would dream of relinquishing power
...and yet the power still resides (at least for the moment) with the voters.

...so if the voters wake up and educate themselves (in a true unbiased manner), then there is hope that we can again restore full Liberty to this country.

[Antrel]

I don't know what you mean by "introducing measures to reduce their personal stake in society".

Also, to a Conservative and Libertarian, having a military is NOT so that we can have a "presence" in the world, but so that we can defend our Life, Liberty, and Property.

Libertarians seek the greatest possible Liberty for themselves and everyone else. If you life, liberty, and property are not defended, then you lose freedom when someone takes away your life, kidnaps you, burns your house, steal your propety, or other things falling under "Life, Liberty, and Property". The most Liberty a country can get is when government does NOTHING more than defend Life, Liberty, and Property.

Anarchy doesn't exist... there will always be something to fill the void. Even the mob riots in California many years ago showed the social patterns of one or a few in the crowd leading the rest to do what they did... even if it was on a subconsious level. A heirarchy will always exist, and if you shot for Anarchy, you'll likely end up with someone taking you over, and you'll end up with Tyranny.

...that's why some Communists see Anarchy as a means to achive Tyranny... because without government defending your life, liberty, and property, it's easier for Tyranny to take over.

The ideal... the most Liberty possible is when government (ie. "force") is limited to defending life, liberty, and property. That's the Libertarian ideal... and also the ideal of many Conservatives.

Under that system anything that doesn't take away another person's Life, Liberty, or Property would be legal. What are those things?... well.. that's where you get into the details that even Libertarians aren't always agreed on.

It should be allowed to take your own life, remove your own Liberties (through addictions), and destroy your own property... but not someone else's. So, I could do drugs, so long as I don't put anyone's life in property and so long as I don't seek to take away someone else's liberty (by trying to get them addicted). So, it would be illegal to pump drugs into the air in a subway station... since you'll end up making other people addicted, which is an afront on their Liberty.

...then there's the blurry area of sexual addictions. Seeing sexuality in public can trigger natural sexual addictions, which is a lose of liberty. If a person seeks that himself/herself, without triggering anyone else's addictions, then that's a different story, but to me this would mean that sexuality would be illegal in public, but not in private... under the defense of Liberty. But I know this very quickly becomes a blurry area.Liberty is freedom. There's no "defending liberty" in any amount of separation from freedom. Of course a military can be purely intended for personal defense and security, but one organized and funded through taxation is one organized through force, which is a direct contradiction to liberty. Freedom is an absolute, it cannot be taken apart, and applied partially. Most other concepts we consider freedom are simply privileges, and nothing more.

How does the government defend "life, liberty, and property?" Unless privately and completely voluntarily funded without the use of force or coercion, and being completely defensive in nature, defending those parties completely voluntarily partaking, it cannot do so in a method that is not force, and even if it were to adhere strictly to said circumstances, it ceases to exist as a government.

You can argue the practicality, or the perceived lack thereof, of anarchy, but it doesn't change the facts. Force is not liberty. What you desire isn't freedom, but an enforced standard of living, ensuring certain privileges, which is the same logic as the Democrat pushing socialized medicine. Freedom is not privilege, it's responsibility. I'm sorry, but libertarian government is an oxymoron, just as "enforcing liberty" is.

[croupier101]

they aren't mutually exclusive.

[Andrew_980]

...and yet the power still resides (at least for the moment) with the voters.

...so if the voters wake up and educate themselves (in a true unbiased manner), then there is hope that we can again restore full Liberty to this country.

Oh if thats all it would take we are doomed

[dad49er]

Freedom for whom to do what?
If it is the freedom to worship as we please (or not) I vote freedom.
If it is the freedom to speak our mind I vote freedom.
If it is the freedom to discriminate because of race, sex, health, sexual orientation I vote fairness.
If it is the freedom to pay a unfair wage, and not provide safe and healthy work environment I vote fairness.

[Thanatos144]

Freedom is just that

Liberty is a duty to freedom.

[GregMartin]

Life is not fair and never will be fair.

We need Freedom to deal with its unfairness in the best way we see fit, so that at least when crap happens, any more crap coming because of the cleanup is our own fault.

[TonyOlsen]

Liberty is freedom. There's no "defending liberty" in any amount of separation from freedom. Of course a military can be purely intended for personal defense and security, but one organized and funded through taxation is one organized through force, which is a direct contradiction to liberty. Freedom is an absolute, it cannot be taken apart, and applied partially. Most other concepts we consider freedom are simply privileges, and nothing more.

How does the government defend "life, liberty, and property?" Unless privately and completely voluntarily funded without the use of force or coercion, and being completely defensive in nature, defending those parties completely voluntarily partaking, it cannot do so in a method that is not force, and even if it were to adhere strictly to said circumstances, it ceases to exist as a government.

You can argue the practicality, or the perceived lack thereof, of anarchy, but it doesn't change the facts. Force is not liberty. What you desire isn't freedom, but an enforced standard of living, ensuring certain privileges, which is the same logic as the Democrat pushing socialized medicine. Freedom is not privilege, it's responsibility. I'm sorry, but libertarian government is an oxymoron, just as "enforcing liberty" is.
You've lost your freedom... when your dead.

That's why life is worth defending.

Likewise it is justified to forcibly (if needed) stop someone from kidnapping or raping someone else. ...that's defending "Liberty/Freedom".

...and without the preservation of property, our market falls apart. Which may be fine with some... but it is easier to say it than it is to willingly live under the unbelievable destitude and poverty that countries without a free market live under. some may call it greed - but I call it mutual benificience.

...and that's how you end up with force ONLY being justified for some situations involved defense of Life, Liberty, and Property.

... NEVER more than that.

[TonyOlsen]

Oh if thats all it would take we are doomed
An educated aware and awake electorat means the destruction of Tyranny.

...so who is the "We" you mention?

[LindaLR]

Freedom for whom to do what?
If it is the freedom to worship as we please (or not) I vote freedom.
If it is the freedom to speak our mind I vote freedom.
If it is the freedom to discriminate because of race, sex, health, sexual orientation I vote fairness.
If it is the freedom to pay a unfair wage, and not provide safe and healthy work environment I vote fairness.

Waiter, get this man a bottle of "fair", and make it snappy.

[TonyOlsen]

Freedom for whom to do what?
If it is the freedom to worship as we please (or not) I vote freedom.
If it is the freedom to speak our mind I vote freedom.
If it is the freedom to discriminate because of race, sex, health, sexual orientation I vote fairness.
If it is the freedom to pay a unfair wage, and not provide safe and healthy work environment I vote fairness.
Congratulations... the indoctrination has paid off...

...you're 50% Socialist. The government will be stopping by to remove your property shortly... please stand by.

[bitterclingerincalif]

Apologies if this has been stated before, but you can do something about "Life being fair". Denial of "Freedom" harder to remedy.

[The Duke]

"Fair" is equal opportunity, not equal results. This is something the left does not seem to grasp.

[TonyOlsen]

"Fair" is equal opportunity, not equal results. This is something the left does not seem to grasp.
The free market provides "Equal Opportunity". Anyone can work hard and be successful.

Socialism provides "Equal Results"... everyone ends up being equally poor.

[TonyOlsen]

Here's a great video that addresses this very well!:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc

Awesome!

[johnrocks]

An awful lot of my thoughts can be whittled down to this one quote by the late and great Robert A. Taft.....

"When I say liberty…I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they wanted to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world"

[curtis123]

Which is more important: "Life being fair" or "Freedom"?

Which of the 2 items is more important (overall) than the other?

Should government try to enforce fairness?


Nothing is ever "fair", especially life.

One person's fairness is another person's theft.

[tom1468]

If it is the freedom to discriminate because of race, sex, health, sexual orientation I vote fairness..
Does government fairness solve this? How many laws does one need regarding this crap and still no solution.
Equal opportunity allows one a path to overcome it. You want a fairy tale , go buy a book. Life is what it is, you can not force someone to like another, your only forcing it to be done with the lights off, instead of in the open but make no mistake your not changing anything


If it is the freedom to pay a unfair wage, and not provide safe and healthy work environment I vote fairness.
Feel free to quit your job if you do not like your wage or its working conditions, that is freedom but to force someone else to give you something is the opposite of freedom. You want a better wage, feel free to earn it

[Colorado Mom]

Life is not fair. Fair is a subjective term.

Life can and should be Just. Justice is defined by law and morality. As a nation we are a Just nation, not perfect, but Just.

If our goal is fairness, we will be an epic failure. Fairness is relative and subjective. You can not please everyone.

Freedom is Just. It provides equality and opportunity while protecting citizens from gross injustice. However, it can't and never will be fair.

Fairness is juvenile and the beginning stepping stone of Justice that you teach a toddler.

First you teach fairness, then the toddler learns that life is not always fair. This enables you to teach them Justice (the bigger picture).

[The Duke]

Me workingn 50 hour weeks to support my family after I attended college rackingn up $20,000 in debt in student loans (which I have paid back by the way) and then paying into a system that gives the same guy in my class at high school who smoked weed, played video games, got drunk, and can't hold down a job because he's irresponsible benefits since he is "poor" is not fair. The system proposed by the left is not "fair".

Life is not fair. I worked hard, took advantage of any opportunity I could and now own my own home in a good neighborhood and can support my family because i've worked my arse off to get here. Student loans, scholarships, and working part time jobs when I needed too, because that is what I had to do.

I have a buddy in college who had everything paid for him, was given $1,000 a month in cash to spend on whatever he wanted, and upon graduation got a cushy job at his dad's buddy's business. That's not "fair", but I certainly don't begrudge him taking advantage of any opportunity he had. Some people will get an easier path, and its not "fair", but its not "fair" to try to tear him down because of something like jealously or envy. More power to him.

[Kea]

Which is more important? FREEDOM by a long shot.

[TonyOlsen]

Nothing is ever "fair", especially life.

One person's fairness is another person's theft.
Yeah...

it's called "Socialism"

[TonyOlsen]

Does government fairness solve this? How many laws does one need regarding this crap and still no solution.
Equal opportunity allows one a path to overcome it. You want a fairy tale , go buy a book. Life is what it is, you can not force someone to like another, your only forcing it to be done with the lights off, instead of in the open but make no mistake your not changing anything



Feel free to quit your job if you do not like your wage or its working conditions, that is freedom but to force someone else to give you something is the opposite of freedom. You want a better wage, feel free to earn it

Well said! :D:clap::flag:

[Rurudyne]

"Fairness" is an abominable concept fit only for playground ethical systems and brain cheese derived from the ramblings of 18th and 19th century head cases.

[TonyOlsen]

Me workingn 50 hour weeks to support my family after I attended college rackingn up $20,000 in debt in student loans (which I have paid back by the way) and then paying into a system that gives the same guy in my class at high school who smoked weed, played video games, got drunk, and can't hold down a job because he's irresponsible benefits since he is "poor" is not fair. The system proposed by the left is not "fair".

Life is not fair. I worked hard, took advantage of any opportunity I could and now own my own home in a good neighborhood and can support my family because i've worked my arse off to get here. Student loans, scholarships, and working part time jobs when I needed too, because that is what I had to do.

I have a buddy in college who had everything paid for him, was given $1,000 a month in cash to spend on whatever he wanted, and upon graduation got a cushy job at his dad's buddy's business. That's not "fair", but I certainly don't begrudge him taking advantage of any opportunity he had. Some people will get an easier path, and its not "fair", but its not "fair" to try to tear him down because of something like jealously or envy. More power to him.
It's interesting how some on the Left will use the teachings of Jesus in a distorted why to justify Socialism, and yet those same people missed the command "Thou shalt not covet!". Oh the hypocracy.