- Capitalism and Alternatives -

I'm not now either

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on January 17, 19100 at 15:29:03:

In Reply to: You're not normally this obtuse, Gee. posted by Farinata on January 17, 19100 at 11:52:45:

: : Freedom yes, equality no.

: How do you justify this on the broad scale, Gee?

Justify? By freedom I mean very simply freedom of action unhindered by the coercive actions of others (not by the rough weather, your illness, bad luck, visual impairment etc). So being stuck on a desert island leaves you as free as being a millionaire in New York, just with a lot less choices. And Equality I explained below - that people are not equal in terms of ability in real life, thats all.

: If you believe in freedom without equality, do you believe that those with more ability in certain spheres should have the freedom to dominate and control others of lesser stature?

See above for the answer 'no' to be made clear.

: Do you really think that might makes right?

No, I am no majoritarian.

: Quite simply, freedom isn't universally applicable unless there is a complete equality of freedom for all.

That could work many ways depending on how you define freedom and equality now couldnt it?

: You're oversimplifying, Gee.

No, I'm calling the obvious into a field where it is often deliberately ignored.

: Person A is more intelligent than Person B; does this mean that A has less right to existence or freedom?

Same freedom as defined by "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" (The Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789)

We can argue over what constitutes 'injury', but not the principle.

: 'Superiority' in terms of brains, brawn or bullshit is an entirely subjective perception.

In the first its objective - Einsteins mathematics vs mine, his are more accurate and more useful. In the second its objective - Arm Wrestle Mike Tyson for evidence - he can exert more force.

You can question the value statement implicit in the term 'superior' but not the facts.

: Possession of these qualities doesn't necessarily make a person more worthy of life than someone else.

Dare I ask what does? I ask 6 billion people and would I get 6 billion distinct answers? It does (would in the 'state of nature') make a person with that intelligence more likely to survive. Is that 'nature' saying he is more worthy of life? Or is that just reality for you.

: in the eyes of society, an 85-year-old has as much right to life as a 25-year-old.

Thats the idea supported by the notion that we have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". This isnt a question about who has more right to be alive.

: That's what 'equality' means in this context, as you should already know.

Then it means the equality under the quotation of the declaration above - and cannot be a list of goods for others to be obliged to provide for.

So were agreeing.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup