Bush V Castro

  • News
  • Thread starter flotsam
  • Start date
  • #26
356
2
russ_watters said:
Status is outcome and opportunity is starting conditions. Perhaps you don't agree that only equality of opportunity should be guaranteed, but surely you've heard that idea before? It's an important part of the basis of modern western political theory! People say "level playing field", not "tie score in the game".
I just don't see the difference. If you have more money than someone you can get a better education than them. That's not equal opportunity.
 
  • #27
30
0
Smurf said:
utter nonsense. freedom and equality are synonymous. there is no conflict, there never was.
And they both are equally important. Liberal socialism stands for both.
 
  • #28
356
2
X-43D said:
And they both are equally important. Liberal socialism stands for both.
No it doesn't. You can't force equality.
 
  • #29
30
0
Smurf said:
No it doesn't. You can't force equality.
True because the rich don't won't equality.
 
  • #30
356
2
X-43D said:
True because the rich don't won't equality.
no, because in order to force something on someone you have to have more power than them. You're not equal if you have more power than them.
 
  • #31
221
0
Smurf said:
I don't know. I think it stands to reason that if people are unequal, someone will be less free. I think it's you who has the burden of proof to show that they're different or opposed to eachother.
Smurf you TOTALLY ignored my post! I gave you a situation where your theory is totally bollocks..

Anttech said:
eh? So if everyone is free, then everyone will be equal?
This is in contridiction with Evolution.. The strongest, fittest and most well adapted survive..

So in a nongovermental raw animal situation like for example in the perhistoric man situation would you say everyone was equal although they were totally free from any outside influences that we today have? I would say nope
Freedom and equality are not the same thing, thus, there two totally different meanings in the English lang. One doesnt equate the other

Lets say I am 6"4 and you are 4"9 (being a smurf) and we are both free to fight each other. I am also a martial arts expert. We have a fight, I win you lose. This is because I am bigger than you, we are not equal in stature.

Even if you did define the premises for your statement, I doubt you would be able to make it any more true.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
30
0
Ancient populations were not free from natural forces but they were completely free from man-made institutions such as capitalism and the state.
 
  • #33
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
5
X-43D said:
Ancient populations were not free from natural forces but they were completely free from man-made institutions such as capitalism and the state.
Well they were tribal from the git-go, so they had a form of state, not completely disentangled from religion. Saying these things are "man-made" begs the question of their non-evolutionary origin.
 
  • #34
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Besides, it's hard to see what's "unnatural" about man-made institutions. Is man not a part of nature? It's also a little difficult to think of capitalism as a man-made institution. All it is is the lack of state regulation of commercial transactions, leaving all details to the privately negotiated contracts between buyer and seller. It's the items exchanged that are man-made.
 
  • #35
356
2
Anttech said:
Smurf you TOTALLY ignored my post! I gave you a situation where your theory is totally bollocks..



Freedom and equality are not the same thing, thus, there two totally different meanings in the English lang. One doesnt equate the other

Lets say I am 6"4 and you are 4"9 (being a smurf) and we are both free to fight each other. I am also a martial arts expert. We have a fight, I win you lose. This is because I am bigger than you, we are not equal in stature.

Even if you did define the premises for your statement, I doubt you would be able to make it any more true.
I didn't address your post, and I'm not going to now, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
  • #36
30
0
selfAdjoint said:
Well they were tribal from the git-go, so they had a form of state, not completely disentangled from religion. Saying these things are "man-made" begs the question of their non-evolutionary origin.
They were tribal or clanish but there were no laws which protected money ownership. There was no market system.
 
  • #37
221
0
Smurf said:
I didn't address your post, and I'm not going to now, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
Fair enough... I suppose it was extemly complex :tongue2:
 

Related Threads for: Bush V Castro

  • Last Post
9
Replies
222
Views
26K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Top