POLL: WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT EQUALITY OR LIBERTY ???

[Whirlaway]

For my friends on the left, right and in the center..........what do you think is more important?

[icuminpeace]

Both, however my definition of equality is "equal treatment" of all human beings regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc. It means that if apply for a job, the best candidate will be hired, it means that I don't care what religion you practice, as long as you are capable of performing your job, you should have the job (a candidate not too long ago said that Muslims couldn't work in his cabinet, wonder how constitutional that was). It means that women should earn what the job pays, unlike what we have today where women earn less than men for similar jobs. It means people need to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their socio-economic status.

[Whirlaway]

I agree with your sentiments Icum; but are you willing to sacrifice some of your liberties if someone (other than yourself) decides there isn't enough "equality" in your business and forces you to hire someone who isn't the best candidate but will equalize perceived discrimination ?

[CuteOldGuy]

Liberty and equality are two sides of the same coin. If people have the freedom to choose for themselves how they overcome life's obstacles, they will be more successful. If people have a stake in who, when and how they help others overcome those obstacles, both will be enriched. There is no better quality of life than to be free to make your own choices, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences thereof.

[essence]

Fraternity.

[icuminpeace]

I don't think anyone should be forced to hire anybody, however if you have a job opening and a female applies, pay her the same salary that a male would earn. If you have a minority apply, pay him/her the same salary as anyone else. If you have a 50-year old apply, don't low ball him/her because you know it'll take him/her longer to find a job and is most likely to take anything just to have some income. If people behaved properly, perhaps affirmative action would not exist.

How do you suggest we fix the stated problem? Sometimes laws are well intended, horribly executed.

[joe bloe]

Freedom is more important. That's the conclusion reached by the founders; they got it right. The French Revolution, which happened thirteen years after ours, is grounded in the belief that equality is most important, not freedom. The French got it wrong. The socialists are still motivated by the false belief that equality is more important than freedom.

The relative importance of freedom and equality is the fundamental difference between what motivates the right and left.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

Fraternity.

Wrong

[icuminpeace]

Joe - so if freedom is more important, why have past GOP administrations along with GOP led congress curtailed Americans' freedom? See, that's why I don't trust either party because they say one thing and do another. It all sounds great in theory, but in reality all politicians are looking for is control and how do you gain control? By curtailing other people's freedoms. The more control they have, the less freedom you have. And please, I don't want to hear that Romney will be any different. I've said it before, GWB had a majority in congress for 6 years and didn't do any fundamental changes to fix America's problems (immigration, social security, medicare, housing, spending, and the list goes on). Romney will be exactly the same as Obama, as GWB, and as Clinton, as GHWB, as Reagan, as Carter, and so on.

If you don't believe me, let's talk in 2016 and see how my predictions went:
$20-$25T debt - Even if he wanted, Romney will be a pussy to make significant cuts. He'll be campaigning for his second term and so he'll try to keep the status quo in order not to piss off voters.
Housing not recovered - It'll take 20 years for housing to recover, regardless of who's in power. Houses were overpriced to begin with. Today's prices are more reasonable based on incomes. Actually, homes are more affordable today without any special programs.
High unemployment - We're in a global economy. Companies will move jobs to keep their costs low. Nothing the president can do unless he eliminates the minimum salary and Americans are willing to work for $2 a day. Tell me if that's going to happen.
High cost of oil - You can drill all day for the next 4 years, all that oil will go to the global oil market and will be consumed by the emerging countries, China, Brazil, India, Russia, etc. You think American oil companies will be nice to Americans and keep the oil they pump for the American market at lower costs? Why should they? Isn't this how capitalism works?

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Freedom is more important. That's the conclusion reached by the founders; they got it right. The French Revolution, which happened thirteen years after ours, is grounded in the belief that equality is most important, not freedom. The French got it wrong. The socialists are still motivated by the false belief that equality is more important than freedom.

The relative importance of freedom and equality is the fundamental difference between what motivates the right and left.

Joe, how do you manage to write such rubbish?

The French version is Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and I think you will find that liberty is pretty much the same as freedom.

This may help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%...raternit%C3%A9

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

Both, however my definition of equality is "equal treatment" of all human beings regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc. It means that if apply for a job, the best candidate will be hired, it means that I don't care what religion you practice, as long as you are capable of performing your job, you should have the job (a candidate not too long ago said that Muslims couldn't work in his cabinet, wonder how constitutional that was). It means that women should earn what the job pays, unlike what we have today where women earn less than men for similar jobs. It means people need to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their socio-economic status.

Every person of good will agrees that a fair system should provide equal opportunity. The problem is that liberals want a system that guarantees equal outcome. Implementing policies, designed to acheive equal outcome, instead of equal opportunity, is what is ruining our country. If equal outcome is guaranteed, regardless of the individual's behavior, a moral hazard is created that destroys the work ethic.

[icuminpeace]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Every person of good will agrees that a fair system should provide equal opportunity. The problem is that liberals want a system that guarantees equal outcome. Implementing policies, designed to acheive equal outcome, instead of equal opportunity, is what is ruining our country. If equal outcome is guaranteed, regardless of the individual's behavior, a moral hazard is created that destroys the work ethic.

Agreed!

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Every person of good will agrees that a fair system should provide equal opportunity. The problem is that liberals want a system that guarantees equal outcome. Implementing policies, designed to acheive equal outcome, instead of equal opportunity, is what is ruining our country. If equal outcome is guaranteed, regardless of the individual's behavior, a moral hazard is created that destroys the work ethic.

I agree with everything, apart from the fact that liberals want a system that guarantees equal outcome. Where do you get that idea from ?

OK, I know there are whacko liberals/socialists, same as whacko right wingers, who for example don't want school sports to have races because that means there are winners and losers.

But didn't that breed of idiots die out in the sixties/seventies ?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

I agree with everything, apart from the fact that liberals want a system that guarantees equal outcome. Where do you get that idea from ?

OK, I know there are whacko liberals/socialists, same as whacko right wingers, who for example don't want school sports to have races because that means there are winners and losers.

But didn't that breed of idiots die out in the sixties/seventies ?

Affirmative action is supported by liberals not conservatives. The goal of affirmative action is to achieve equal outcome, not equal opportunity. An unequal outcome does not prove that there was unequal opportunity.

Whites have an equal opportunity to play for the NBA; but only a small percentage succeed. The unequal outcome of whites in the NBA doesn't mean that the government should force the team owners to hire 65% white players.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

Joe - so if freedom is more important, why have past GOP administrations along with GOP led congress curtailed Americans' freedom? See, that's why I don't trust either party because they say one thing and do another. It all sounds great in theory, but in reality all politicians are looking for is control and how do you gain control? By curtailing other people's freedoms. The more control they have, the less freedom you have. And please, I don't want to hear that Romney will be any different. I've said it before, GWB had a majority in congress for 6 years and didn't do any fundamental changes to fix America's problems (immigration, social security, medicare, housing, spending, and the list goes on). Romney will be exactly the same as Obama, as GWB, and as Clinton, as GHWB, as Reagan, as Carter, and so on.

If you don't believe me, let's talk in 2016 and see how my predictions went:
$20-$25T debt - Even if he wanted, Romney will be a pussy to make significant cuts. He'll be campaigning for his second term and so he'll try to keep the status quo in order not to piss off voters.
Housing not recovered - It'll take 20 years for housing to recover, regardless of who's in power. Houses were overpriced to begin with. Today's prices are more reasonable based on incomes. Actually, homes are more affordable today without any special programs.
High unemployment - We're in a global economy. Companies will move jobs to keep their costs low. Nothing the president can do unless he eliminates the minimum salary and Americans are willing to work for $2 a day. Tell me if that's going to happen.
High cost of oil - You can drill all day for the next 4 years, all that oil will go to the global oil market and will be consumed by the emerging countries, China, Brazil, India, Russia, etc. You think American oil companies will be nice to Americans and keep the oil they pump for the American market at lower costs? Why should they? Isn't this how capitalism works?

Freedom is more important than equality or fraternity. For better or worse, America's political system is a two party system. Neither party is a perfect champion for freedom. The sad truth is that I have no choice but to vote Republican or Democrat. Yes, it is a lesser of two evils choice. A vote for the Libertarian party is closer to my belief system. It is also not practical. Unless the Libertarians can gain a plurality in a three way race, voting Libertarian is the equivalent of voting Democrat.

Romney is far from being a true conservative, but as bad as he is, he is significantly better than Obama. Obama is, in my opinion, a dangerous radical, who shares the same belief system as Saul Alinsky and the lunatics in the Occupy movement; he must not be allowed to continue in power.