When it comes to government, everybody wants equality and freedom. However, is believed that increasing one will often decrease the other.
Which kind of government would you rather live under?
A government that focuses on equality? or A government that focuses on freedom?
Would you rather live under a government based on the survival of the fittest? or Would you rather live under a government based on everyone supporting each other?
Would you rather live under a government revolving around the safety of the people through means of interference of higher authority? or Would you rather live under a government that focuses on having little authoritative interference, often ignoring safety regulations?
If you consider yourself a political person, simply answer these questions and let everybody know where you stand on equality and freedom.
I will delete any posts that contain the following words: communist, capitalist, socialist, republican, democrat, left and right (in reference to political standing), nationalist, and conservative.
I do not want such broad labels to be applied to anyone in this thread. I do not wish to have any debates on which stance, equality or freedom, is more effective.
Ok this will be hard, like you said you can't have an increase of one without the decrease of another. #1 I think freedom is the one to be more focused on #2 i do agree with survival of the fittest #3 government revolving around the safety of the people through means of interference of higher authority( learning towards this, not 100% of safety #4 i think America has an overall good mix of these and that they should learn a little more towards survival of the fittest.
Indeed. For many ideologues, it is not possible to have freedom without equality. Although my preference in this context is the preservation of freedom.
Would you rather live under a government based on everyone supporting each other?
This. The alternative is a return to 80s Thatcherism where millions went needlessley unemployed and slipped into poverty traps simply due to a dogmatic pursuit of social darwinism.
Would you rather live under a government that focuses on having little authoritative interference, often ignoring safety regulations?
What do you mean by ignoring safety regulations? They are the ones that put these regulations in place. They cannot ignore their own legislation. That said, I generally prefer an outlook of negative freedom, especially in a social sense, by the government, although there should be some exceptions.
#1 Freedom. #2 Survival of the fittest. Stop babying people. #3 Government intent of safety. I don't want to die because of some retarded thing that happened because some company got lazy.
1. Freedom, equality is fairly impossible. It's a good idea, but there are examples of its failure. Personal rights are often limited.
2. Supporting each other, I think a government should help its people, not let them die off and all that. In my opinion, a government that does that is hardly a government.
1. Equality is freedom. 2. Supporting each other is the surest way to equality. It's best when everyone collectively works together for the good of all. 3. It depends on the safety regulations you are talking about. Government should be able to step in on something like food standards so people don't get food poisoning. But the government shouldn't pass laws restricting civil liberties (ex. Patriot Act) in the name of defense or terrorism.
1. Freedom - I'd rather be free than know I'm not getting oppressed.
2. Survival of the Fittest - This way the country would prosper and there would be more of an economy and money. Just and opinion.
3. Safety through means of authoritative interference. - We don't need multiple riots, and when the revolt starts then the authority would kill anybody in it, that just doesn't work.
This is a personal opinion, if you have a problem, comment on my profile.
Freedom, an individual should have the right to say or do as they please as long as they do not harm anyone else or the property of another. Also, it is the government's job to provide reasonable freedom to its citizens while it is the job of the people to provide equality. People should be equal in the eyes of the government and justice system however the amount of equality a, private buisiness for example, provides to its customers or in its hiring process is up to them.
I lean towards survival of the fitest with some helping each other. People must be held accountable for their actions and if they make a decision that blows up in their face then they must live with the consequences as much as they get to live with the rewards if it is successful. However, I also believe people shouldn't die due to stupid decisions and especially if something is not their fault they should recieve some aid, though only enough to survive and get back on their feet and no more.
It is neither the government's job nor right to tell me how to live my life. If I want to eat fattening food every day of my life then that is my decision. If I want to go smoke Pot every day again that is my decision and as long as I don't drive or do anything that would cause me to harm others due to it then it isn't the government's place to tell me yes or no. Now, harder drugs such as crack, meth, PCP and so I don't include in this "legalize" list as they basically turn the individual into a zombie of sorts that will steal, destroy and/or kill for more drug of choice, so they go against my do as you want as long as you don't hurt others in the first paragraph. I believe the government has responsibility to provide me with up to date safety information and warning however the final decision must rest with me. If I still want to do something unhealty or stupid, that is my decision, but I have been warned.
Those are my opinions. I believe more in freedom than security and say if you want security buy a gun and and lock your doors at night. Also, I'd like to add another question(s) to this list if NoName doesn't mind;
What do people think about city governments? Do we really need them anymore, especially their ordinances. If you own a property, house for example, should you not be able to do anything you want with your property as long as it stays on your side of the property line? Should city governments be able to pass laws for the city when the state already has the situation under control? And, what about housing community regulations/laws? As they aren't governments and everyone living in that community owns their property should the individual property owner not have the final say on whatever they put on their property or should it be up to a local gestapo?
