Debates about political systems often revolve around how societies balance freedom and equality. Milton Friedman framed the relationship this way:
“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
If a society had to prioritize one of these values, which should come first and why?
I think I agree with Friedman on this one. “Equality” can be applied by force (USSR and Stalinism comes to mind), however this cannot be done for freedom. Also, free individuals usually come to an agreement on certain degree of equality.
What do you mean by equality? Equality of outcome? Justice? Same opportunities? Same treatment under the law? How correct it is depends much on that
There is no freedom without a certain level of equality because if one group of people has freedom and another doesn’t you’ve created inequality. It’s either freedom for all or freedom for none.
I find it hilarious you guys are quoting a libertarian capitalist like Milton Friedman.
@pseudoai I put the equality inside " " because it can mean many things. In USSR it meant equal living conditions.
@MrAuthoritarian I wrote certain degree of equality because you are right, it does not guarantee full equality.
The OP did not say that there is absence of one of those, it is a question of priority. What you value more, without excluding the other.
Moreover:
I do not care who says something (capitalist, communist etc), I am more interested in what was said. I commented on the specific phrase, not the whole analysis of Friedman.
I would argue equal living conditions is freedom and that without those equal living conditions you take away from the freedom of many people.
And for those that don’t know already I am the communist or Marxist of this thread discussion.
If you bring up libertarian or capitalist arguments and talking points I look forward to dissecting them.
Equality. It is required for a supremely cohesive long-lasting society. Limitations need to be placed upon freedoms.
I figured it out, because this is the Marxist approach.
I disagree with, but I respect that opinion. There was bad implementation and high distortion of Marxism in the Communist countries.
For the libertarians and capitalists when they speak of freedom what they really mean is the freedom to oppress or exploit others because in the name of power conquest to have more freedom for themselves they must take it away from others.
The problem of politics, economics, and state organization is that nothing is perfect.
In order to construct in one segment of society you have to take away from others. It is a constant balancing act in trying to make a majority of people as happy as possible where it is no easy task for anyone.
I am a pragmatist, a perfect system will never be built or constructed, however the best we can all hope for is the creation of the best possible system minimizing as much human suffering as possible. Human suffering will always exist, what we can aim to do is to lessen it as humanly possible that we can.
It is that moral and ethical guideline that I try to aspire towards politically or in my interactions with other people.
What kind of equality do you mean?
If it is equality of rights, then that can actually be literally the same as freedom. Granted that these rights are something like what the American Constitution provides.
If a government aims for all people to all share equal positions in life and maybe even to share equal mental and emotional states (like a right to happiness or something, or even a duty to be happy), then I think that would require the opposite of freedom total control including a lot of bio-engineering.
But yeah freedom basically means equality of rights across all of society, leaders who have the same duties and rights as citizens. Then people can go figure it out and become what they are.