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.
Do we need governments? Yes, a government provides structure in a globalized world like the one we live in. The city has it's rights and so do provinces (I'm Canadian), and feds, should they be knocked down a little? I suppose they should in some cases.
Survival of the fittest is an evolutionary concept concerned with genes. It is irrelevant to social values and society. Applying it in such a way begins the thought of social Darwinism, race theory and eugenics, all misinterpretations of evolutionary theory.
Survival of the fittest states that species with the strongest genes are able to survive, and thus pass on their genes through reproduction while species that are not able to adapt, become extinct. This at no way attempts to justify the gap between rich and poor and poverty. It does not state that human poverty is a natural part of evolution or that its beneficiary or justified.
It belongs no where in political thought.
As of the other questions....equality or freedom?
I sense the whole thing to be purely ideological anyway. It does not attempt to at all analyze any material thing, but asks for an opinion on a completely abstract concept that's void of reality.
Survival of the fittest is an evolutionary concept concerned with genes. It is irrelevant to social values and society. Applying it in such a way begins the thought of social Darwinism, race theory and eugenics, all misinterpretations of evolutionary theory.
True, but it shouldn't be hard to understand what I meant.
I'm keeping the topic vague because I'm primarily interested in understanding what other people think and their position on what they want from their government with no labels attached.
