Freedom and equality (philosophy after lunch)

[Rudy Tamasz]

Recently I've had to prepare a document on provision of services to vulnerable groups of population. When the doc was being cleared by various offices, they required me to insert language that essentially mandated that each group achieve equal degree of well-being as a result of services provided to them. Equality of opportunities was not enough, I was told, as it may perpetuate the status quo and consolidate the gap in well-being between different demographics. I disagreed but complied, as it was useless to start a fight for many reasons. I concluded, however, that freedom and equality are not compatible. Freedom leads to competition, competition produces winners and losers who are not equal. If one needs equality, then he or she has to engineer it and impose it on others. Success is not guaranteed and then the proponent of equality might face discontent from those who think they could have been winners.

[gadjo_dilo]

Wow....Some of us have interesting jobs....

OK, there are losers and winners but maybe at the beginning there was a equality of chances.

[gadjo_dilo]

Freedom leads to competition, competition produces winners and losers who are not equal.
Since we're at the after lunch hour of phylosophy:
I'm the eternal loser, I've always been, even when I wasn't free. Or does it mean that in order to don't be a loser I shouldn't be free?
But what is freedom? Freedom to....what? And don't we have different "tastes of freedom"? And should freedom be equally spread or according to our coverage with responsabilities? Shouldn't freedom be deserved, gained, lost, regained?

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:etc.

[airshifter]

Recently I've had to prepare a document on provision of services to vulnerable groups of population. When the doc was being cleared by various offices, they required me to insert language that essentially mandated that each group achieve equal degree of well-being as a result of services provided to them. Equality of opportunities was not enough, I was told, as it may perpetuate the status quo and consolidate the gap in well-being between different demographics. I disagreed but complied, as it was useless to start a fight for many reasons. I concluded, however, that freedom and equality are not compatible. Freedom leads to competition, competition produces winners and losers who are not equal. If one needs equality, then he or she has to engineer it and impose it on others. Success is not guaranteed and then the proponent of equality might face discontent from those who think they could have been winners.

You should stay quiet Rudy, even as much as I agree with your apparent disgust. There is a large US population that wants equality granted, no matter how little they try to achieve it.

[race aficionado]

OK, there are losers and winners but maybe at the beginning there was a equality of chances.

There in lies the bigger question: equality of chances - something that is very rare indeed - and starting with that common inequality premise, the winners are those that were provided a better chance.
. . . . and the losers: life sucks, then you die.

[airshifter]

Since we're at the after lunch hour of phylosophy:
I'm the eternal loser, I've always been, even when I wasn't free. Or does it mean that in order to don't be a loser I shouldn't be free?
But what is freedom? Freedom to....what? And don't we have different "tastes of freedom"? And should freedom be equally spread or according to our coverage with responsabilities? Shouldn't freedom be deserved, gained, lost, regained?

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:etc.

I think all basic freedoms should be granted providing the persons with such freedom prove they are responsible enough to maintain it. Most societies will restrict freedoms via incarceration, limited job access, etc in the cases of people that don't play by the rules of society.

And to overcome the feeling of being the eternal loser, you must first convince yourself that you are capable of being more, if that is in fact what you desire. I stress the individual part of that statement, since "winning" and "losing" for many people are defined by expectations of society and not their true personal desires. As an example I know people who make very little money but are winners in my book and their own. I know very wealthy people that are losers in every sense of the word.

[airshifter]

There in lies the bigger question: equality of chances - something that is very rare indeed - and starting with that common inequality premise, the winners are those that were provided a better chance.
. . . . and the losers: life sucks, then you die.

As much as I often agree with you Race, in this instance I can't. Though some gain unfair advantage to get ahead in life, that is by no wrong doing of their own in most cases.... it's simply an opportunity that came their way. I know a lot of people that had no more opportunity than the next guy but made the best of it also.

[race aficionado]

As much as I often agree with you Race, in this instance I can't. Though some gain unfair advantage to get ahead in life, that is by no wrong doing of their own in most cases.... it's simply an opportunity that came their way. I know a lot of people that had no more opportunity than the next guy but made the best of it also.

I agree with your premise - I'm one of those that had an opportunity and I made the best of it.
I also know of others that did not have that much of a chance but they made the best of it and are doing even doing better than I.

I was going with the premise that as opportunities go, the equality of such chances is very low indeed and thank goodness for human perseverance that we still have winners. I would prefer a more even playing field.

[gadjo_dilo]

. . . . and the losers: life sucks, then you die.

Now I hope you guys willl finally understand my feelings

[ioan]

Freedom (ofcourse within the legal limitations) and equality of opportunities/chances can be granted in a well thought out system.
There is no way to grant equality, one of the reasons for this is that we are not born equal, no matter what some people like to claim/believe.

As for talking about freedom, not an easy task, because in a certain way and proportion we are all bound by laws, habits and feelings, not to mention indoctrination. The conclusion is that no one is nor could ever be 100% free.

[anthonyvop]

Equality doesn't just mean the right to have everything go well.

Equality also means the right to fail.

[gadjo_dilo]

And to overcome the feeling of being the eternal loser, you must first convince yourself that you are capable of being more, if that is in fact what you desire.

That's mission imposible as I don't have any ability , I destroy everything I touch and I can't handle relationships of any kind -not even in my own family.



. I stress the individual part of that statement, since "winning" and "losing" for many people are defined by expectations of society and not their true personal desires. As an example I know people who make very little money but are winners in my book and their own. I know very wealthy people that are losers in every sense of the word.
I don't care if society considers me a loser and I don't care about money or wealth. The real problem is the person I am.

[gadjo_dilo]

Freedom (ofcourse within the legal limitations) and equality of opportunities/chances can be granted in a well thought out system.
There is no way to grant equality, one of the reasons for this is that we are not born equal, no matter what some people like to claim/believe.
We're equal in front of God but you don't believe in him. :devil:


As for talking about freedom, not an easy task, because in a certain way and proportion we are all bound by laws, habits and feelings, not to mention indoctrination. The conclusion is that no one is nor could ever be 100% free.
But in our country most of people consider freedom a total absence of the laws....They have only rights and any intervention of an authority is percieved like a scandal, an offence to democracy. At the same time authorities use to "change" the rules or to adapt them to imposed needs. That's why I live with the feeling that some of us are more equal than the others.
As for freedom, I honestly think it should be restricted for some of us. The simple thought of some public figures moving (too)freely among us makes me feel unconfortable. :laugh:

[D-Type]

Freedom and equality are simply different concepts. Let's take a simplistic example.
A teacher has taken a group of 10 year olds down to a pebble beach.
The teacher says "You are allowed to throw stones into the sea"
The kids are now free to throw stones into the sea
But they are not free to throw them at each other (this presupposes the teacher has absoluteauthority which the kids accept)
The kids don't have to throw a stone - they are free not to.
Each of the kids has an equal opportunity to throw a stone (This presupposes they are all physically normal and know how to throw.
Those who have chosen to throw a stone do so.
Now, let's ask the question "Did they all throw the stones equally far?"
The answer will be "No"
So, in spite of the feedom and equality of opportunity they have been given, the result is not equality.

If the objective was to achieve equality, the teacher would have to establish the distance the least able child can throw a stone - let's assume it is 5.5 metres)
The teacher would then have to order the children to throw their stones exactly 5 metres (this presupposes the children can judge the distance they can throw accurately)

We now have three concepts: freedom of choice, equality of opportunity and equality of achievement. And these are almost mutually exclusive. Only almost as in a random world, mathematically it is possible that a circumstance can occur where all three can occur together.

In my pebbles case, all the children have equality of opportunity, they could exercise their freedom by choosing to throw a stone, and they could further exercise their freedomby choosingto throw their stones 5 metres.

In a real world, absolute freedom of choice cannot be allowed to exist as society (or the government) must control some choices for the benefit of society as a whole. We can strive to offer equality of opportunity inlimited fields. But to have equality of outcome, this can only be done by curtailing people's freedom to achieve more than the lowest can achieve.

Confused? So am I - even with a highly simplistic example!

[Rollo]

In a real world, absolute freedom of choice cannot be allowed to exist as society (or the government) must control some choices for the benefit of society as a whole. We can strive to offer equality of opportunity inlimited fields. But to have equality of outcome, this can only be done by curtailing people's freedom to achieve more than the lowest can achieve.

It's here that you start to talk about the governance of freedom and equality; since there will always be people who through self-interest (rational or otherwise) will try to injure someone else's freedoms and degree of equality, rules and regulations need to be enacted and agreed upon.

Governance itself arises out of a social compact, which is either based on maintained power and or the common interest of society and the common rights of man; and conversely the reasonable expectations which derives from those common interests and rights.
I'm also careful to draw the distinction between Governance and the Government: the former which is a concept, the latter which is a thing. Governance always happens irrespective of whether or not there is a "government" which handles it.

[Starter]

Confused? So am I - even with a highly simplistic example!
Confused? No, pretty simple really. Though I do understand why some people can't, or won't, grasp the concept of the differences.

[airshifter]

That's mission imposible as I don't have any ability , I destroy everything I touch and I can't handle relationships of any kind -not even in my own family.



I don't care if society considers me a loser and I don't care about money or wealth. The real problem is the person I am.


If you destroyed everything you touch you couldn't post as your computer would be broken. And accept it or not, but you have "relationships" of sorts here in this forum. Hell none of us can much get along with family! :)

If you don't much care about money or wealth, what is it you want and don't have? Chances are you can find it if you really want it.

[gadjo_dilo]

If you destroyed everything you touch you couldn't post as your computer would be broken. .

I was sure somebody would say this (men and their logical thinking..... :p ). But the fact is that a month ago I had to apply for a new computer at work. Then I bought a tablet and after 2 weeks I had to send it back for service. Sometimes I send posts from my phone but thanks God it's still working.

And accept it or not, but you have "relationships" of sorts here in this forum..
Come on....G_d is not the real me. She takes advantage that nobody knows her real name, would never meet her in flesh and blood and benefits of wonderful tools like google and copy-paste. :laugh:
Then posting on a forum is more of a communication. When I post on a forum I don't have the guarantee that somebody would read that. Most of the times people don't get what I'm talking about and my only friend left the forum a few years ago.


Hell none of us can much get along with family! :) ..
Ironically I get along very well with my family ( all aromanians do ) but more and more often I feel it's more of a moral obligation than real care.


If you don't much care about money or wealth, what is it you want and don't have? Chances are you can find it if you really want it.
I want to escape the feeling that "I'm from another movie" if you know what I mean.

[gadjo_dilo]

In a real world, absolute freedom of choice cannot be allowed to exist as society (or the government) must control some choices for the benefit of society as a whole. We can strive to offer equality of opportunity inlimited fields. But to have equality of outcome, this can only be done by curtailing people's freedom to achieve more than the lowest can achieve.


It's a vicious circle. Even if in an absurd way the equality of outcome can be guaranteed it's again the free will that determine our choices ( good, bad, errored, compromised, etc. ). At the end of the day I might be free to throw a pebble and I know I'm able to send it exactly 5 m far but I simply don't want to do it.
Then who cares how far I throw the pebble as long as I was able to exceed the limit established by a norm?

P.S. Love the example with throwing pebbles. Just reopened some old wounds. In the elementary school sports hours we had to throw an annoying ball of "oina" ( that's a national sport although I never heared of somebody playing it ) and of course there was a limit of how far we should throw it. And I ( the eternal loser, remember? ) was never able to do it. Funny thing, I met accidentally an old school colleague who's greek and the first thing she remembered was our fight ( she was also a loser but at least she's fine now) to exceed that bloody line. :laugh:

[Rudy Tamasz]

Come on....G_d is not the real me. She takes advantage that nobody knows her real name, would never meet her in flesh and blood and benefits of wonderful tools like google and copy-paste. :laugh:

Rudy's not my real name, either. But Rudy talks and behaves pretty much like his offline twin does. In other words, you on this forum is still you. If you stay here and like it, that's a part of you life and a valuable one.


Then posting on a forum is more of a communication. When I post on a forum I don't have the guarantee that somebody would read that. Most of the times people don't get what I'm talking about and my only friend left the forum a few years ago.

Based on my observations you've been a part of many interesting conversations and that says a lot.


Ironically I get along very well with my family ( all aromanians do ) but more and more often I feel it's more of a moral obligation than real care.

The Fathers of the Church have taught that the outer part of your personality is just as important as the inner part. The two are interdependent as they improve and educate each other. I.e. if you behave decently and friendly with people even when you're not really into it, the inner "nasty" part of yourself will eventually catch up with your outer "classy" part and become more harmonious. What feels like an unnecessary obligation one day can become a true affection the next day.


I want to escape the feeling that "I'm from another movie" if you know what I mean.

You might as well think that all other movies are just prequels to your own.

[gadjo_dilo]

Rudy's not my real name, either. But Rudy talks and behaves pretty much like his offline twin does. In other words, you on this forum is still you. . Nah.....For me it's just a good opportunity to make me believe I'm not the horrible person I have become. If in real life I'd say what I say here people would say I'm gaga-crazy. :devil:


You might as well think that all other movies are just prequels to your own.
What shall I do if the movies belong to different trends? You can't relate burlesque comedy to italian neorealism or free cinema to hollywood musicals....

[airshifter]

Belonging in another movie isn't anything wrong IMO. Not all movies appeal to all people. We have the freedom to make our own movies.

If you look at many visionary leaders (as they eventually came to be known as) they were often not accepted earlier in life and seemed to be "in the wrong movie".

Earnest Hemingway, Winston Churchill, Vincent Van Gogh, and Abe Lincoln all had some type of mental illness. In the not too distant past many of them would have been strapped down and heavily sedated as they didn't fit the mold of society at the time.

[Rollo]

If you look at many visionary leaders (as they eventually came to be known as) they were often not accepted earlier in life and seemed to be "in the wrong movie".

Read "The Psychopath Test" by Jon Ronson. He looks at the 20‑question Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which is supposed to detect psychopathy and concluded that many of the traits on the checklist are seen in the business world and government, as assets. It makes you wonder just how many psychopaths actually do run the world.

[gadjo_dilo]

That's great guys. Now you're suggesting I'm mentally ill or even a psychopath.
Next week I'll go for some checks.... :laugh:

We have the freedom to make our own movies. .
Yeah but unfortunately the cast and the scenery are generally imposed. :devil:

If you look at many visionary leaders (as they eventually came to be known as) they were often not accepted earlier in life and seemed to be "in the wrong movie"..
Hey! You’ve got it wrong. I’m too serious, polite and educated to don’t be accepted. I just don’t feel comfortable. Because the values of the society I live in aren’t mine and I have to do too many efforts to adapt to the new rules.

Earnest Hemingway, Winston Churchill, Vincent Van Gogh, and Abe Lincoln all had some type of mental illness. In the not too distant past many of them would have been strapped down and heavily sedated as they didn't fit the mold of society at the time.
Now wait a minute...I’m not a genius and I don’t think I’m in advance of our times. On the contrary, I think I landed in the wrong century. :laugh:

It makes you wonder just how many psychopaths actually do run the world. .
But if you want to rule the world you need a dose of madness....

[airshifter]

That's great guys. Now you're suggesting I'm mentally ill or even a psychopath.
Next week I'll go for some checks.... :laugh:



We didn't suggest either. In my case I'm just giving example of people that don't "fit in".

[ioan]

We're equal in front of God but you don't believe in him. :devil:

Which means we are not equal, not even in front of your god. ;)



But in our country most of people consider freedom a total absence of the laws....They have only rights and any intervention of an authority is percieved like a scandal, an offence to democracy. At the same time authorities use to "change" the rules or to adapt them to imposed needs. That's why I live with the feeling that some of us are more equal than the others.
As for freedom, I honestly think it should be restricted for some of us. The simple thought of some public figures moving (too)freely among us makes me feel unconfortable. :laugh:

Isn't it impressive how people didn't yet grasp what democracy means, after 22 years?!

[gadjo_dilo]

Which means we are not equal, not even in front of your god. ;)

You're wrong. "My" God loves us equally.



Isn't it impressive how people didn't yet grasp what democracy means, after 22 years?!

I can't see why we need a point 0 in understanding it. Some of us knew its meaning before that but couldn't enjoy its taste.