Priorities

[t_wolves_fan]

You have to pick which one you value more, or which is a priority for you. This has nothing to do with any particular system or country, it's just a simple question.

Which would you value more, if forced to choose between the two?

1> Economic security


2> Freedom to speak your mind






I choose 2.

[Rawthentic]

I would choose 2 as well. This gives the working class more space to get together and organize, compared to fascism or Stalinism.

[Demogorgon]

I choose number two as well. A collapsed economy can recover. It is a trickier job to take back freedom of speech.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I pick economic security. I'd rather have food and not be able to say what I want than starving with the freedom to speak my mind. Unfortunately the saying isnt true, you cannot infact eat your words.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 16, 2007 02:22 am
I pick economic security. I'd rather have food and not be able to say what I want than starving with the freedom to speak my mind. Unfortunately the saying isnt true, you cannot infact eat your words.
Ah yes, this brings up an important point. You can not make this decision for anyone else. Freedom of speech won't frree anyone, so you can not defend extreme poverty on the grounds that the people might have freedom of speech. Personally I am choosing the speech, as it can be used as a means towards economic security, but the opposite is not true. However you can live without free speech, but you can not live without at least enough economic security to feed yourself.

[RedAnarchist]

Definately 2

[Forward Union]

What use is one without the other?

[Jazzratt]

This is fucking bollocks.

Which would you rather have.

1) Lungs.

2) A heart.

I choose t_wolves_fan's severed head.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Wait, is this question regarding the individual, or society as a whole?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I choose #1 without the slightest hesitation. Having food on the table is a necessity. Freedom of speech is nice, but you won't die without it.

[Xilo]

I choose 1 as with money society could benefit from education and health provided with money. In the long run the public would be aware on what needs fixing in their socety such as the lack of freedom of speech.

[inquisitive_socialist]

this is almost too simple a question. you reduce to basic human concerns to a black or white choice, whereas in reality, its somewhere slightly in the grey area.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:06 pm
Wait, is this question regarding the individual, or society as a whole?
It's up to you.

Which is your priority?

[RaiseYourVoice]

i chose 1 and 2.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:57 pm
i chose 1 and 2.
Pick the most important one.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 17, 2007 01:41 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 17, 2007 01:41 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 09:06 pm
Wait, is this question regarding the individual, or society as a whole?
It's up to you.

Which is your priority? [/b]
Well I am going to choose to answer as an individual, as to answer in terms of an entire society would be quite hard and I would almost certainly end up contradicting myself, so yeah.

After careful consideration, I would have to say I choose 2, and furthermore I would implore all those who chose 1 to perhaps give the situation a second thought; I believe many people who chose 1 may have done so as the result of a knee-jerk reaction, or else they're just talking bullshit.

My reasoning is that many people on this board and in society as a whole have probably experienced economic insecurity at some point or another, first hand or otherwise. I know that, while I have never been poverty-stricken or any such thing, there was a period a while back where money was extremely tight and we had some problem with debt. I know I am probably one of the more lucky people on this board and indeed in society, as there are many out there who have been through worse than I.

However, I actually highly doubt that anyone on this board has been fully deprived of their freedom of speech. Yes, a few may have been told to shut up in a classroom, informed of their right to remain silent by police or subjected to a harsh lecture by relatives because of their views, but at the end of the day they can always talk to friends or comrades on RevLeft about their views and opinions. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think very few of us really know what it's like to be denied the right to speak your mind.

Oh, and freedom of communication and expression is how social progress is made, and I am all for social progress.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:57 pm
My reasoning is that many people on this board and in society as a whole have probably experienced economic insecurity at some point or another, first hand or otherwise. I know that, while I have never been poverty-stricken or any such thing, there was a period a while back where money was extremely tight and we had some problem with debt. I know I am probably one of the more lucky people on this board and indeed in society, as there are many out there who have been through worse than I.

However, I actually highly doubt that anyone on this board has been fully deprived of their freedom of speech. Yes, a few may have been told to shut up in a classroom, informed of their right to remain silent by police or subjected to a harsh lecture by relatives because of their views, but at the end of the day they can always talk to friends or comrades on RevLeft about their views and opinions. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think very few of us really know what it's like to be denied the right to speak your mind.

Oh, and freedom of communication and expression is how social progress is made, and I am all for social progress.
That is a fantastic point. Great post.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:57 pm
However, I actually highly doubt that anyone on this board has been fully deprived of their freedom of speech. Yes, a few may have been told to shut up in a classroom, informed of their right to remain silent by police or subjected to a harsh lecture by relatives because of their views, but at the end of the day they can always talk to friends or comrades on RevLeft about their views and opinions. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think very few of us really know what it's like to be denied the right to speak your mind.
You are comparing a limited economic deprivation with complete and full deprivation of freedom of speech. Thus you are skewing the scales in favour of option 2.

If we are to be fair, we must compare deprivations of a similar order of magnitude. Thus we must compare limited economic insecurity with limited restrictions on freedom of speech (e.g. being unemployed in a welfare state vs. facing a fine for expressing your political views), or we must compare full economic deprivation with a full loss of freedom of speech (e.g. starving without a single coin in your pocket vs. risking execution for criticizing the government).

For those who really believe that freedom of speech is more important than economic security, I have a question: How often do you use your freedom of speech? In other words, how often do you express unpopular opinions to someone other than your family and friends?

[Matty_UK]

Economic security needs to be defined....if economic insecurity means you are starving to death, then economic security is more important. If you mean you might have to go without luxuries for a limited period of time, then freedom of expression is more important; especially as RedStar1916 said since freedom of expression pushes forward social change and can solve problems of economic insecurity.

But it's a false dichotomy, and this question can only be asked to find out personal preference; you can't use this question to find out about someone's views on society, because I'm sure almost everyone would agree that both are very important.

[freakazoid]

I pick number 2. To be denied the freedom of speech is wrong, and to be economically insecure is fine by me because I can always live by hunting, fishing, and farming. To live outside of the economy, to live without the need for money.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:24 am
Economic security needs to be defined....if economic insecurity means you are starving to death, then economic security is more important. If you mean you might have to go without luxuries for a limited period of time, then freedom of expression is more important; especially as RedStar1916 said since freedom of expression pushes forward social change and can solve problems of economic insecurity.

But it's a false dichotomy, and this question can only be asked to find out personal preference; you can't use this question to find out about someone's views on society, because I'm sure almost everyone would agree that both are very important.
OK, fair enough.

Economic security: The knowledge, or assurance, that your basic needs will be provided for regardless of your ability or desire to work.


Freedom to speak your mind: For the purposes of this question refers specifically to being able to speak freely your opinion on your religious and political beliefs, especially the right to criticize those in power or the current order of society. The freedom to advocate for that which you believe is right and to criticize that which you believe is wrong.

It's not meant to be a "choice" per se between which one you hope society provides or which will exist in your individual life. Of course we hope to have both. As you suggest it should be, it's simply a question of which do you as an individual value more?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You are comparing a limited economic deprivation with complete and full deprivation of freedom of speech. Thus you are skewing the scales in favour of option 2.
That's because that was what the original question was asking. It pitted economic security against freedom to speak your mind. My assumption, which was verified by the thread starter later on, was that a lack of economic security does not necessarily mean complete economic deprivation. Thus I am not skewing the scales in either direction, but rather I am addressing the question asked as opposed to the question imagined.



For those who really believe that freedom of speech is more important than economic security, I have a question: How often do you use your freedom of speech? In other words, how often do you express unpopular opinions to someone other than your family and friends?
Actually I use it quite a lot, being interested in politics and debate and everything. My existence on the internet pretty much is me using my freedom of speech, and I'd say the same goes for a lot of people on here. However that's not my only reason for supporting freedom of speech, as I said earlier all social and political progress has in the past come from the free and open expression of ideas, be it with the consent of the outgoing order or without. If we are unable to speak our minds, nothing will change, ever.

Freedom of speech is a cherished and fundamental human right for a reason. Lack of it is extremely unhealthy, both in terms of an individual's mental health and from the point of view of society as a whole.