Social Doesn't freedom inevitably lead to inequality?

[Here's the thing]

I'm not sure how progressives think you can have freedom, while at the same time, make sure everyone has a good job, good healthcare, and a decent place to live.

 

[bobgeese]

Equality is a fairy tale.

 

[nac386]

You are going to have to expand upon your OP so that people know exactly what you were trying to say. Having access to work and healthcare is not in opposition to freedom, that sounds ass backwards.

 

[Papi Chulo]

There will always be inequality. If you take away freedoms, with socialism and totalitarian governments, you will have the elites in government and then the commoners or the rest of the population

 

[Gutter Chris]

I'm not sure how progressives think you can have freedom, while at the same time, make sure everyone has a good job, good healthcare, and a decent place to live.

Yes

And I'm not trying to make everyone equal and neither are a lot of others

Equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity kinda thing. Like give everyone the same chance for an awesome education and healthcare and then you can sort of let the chips fall where they may interfering only when necessary.

 

[The ScorpioN]

You are going to have to expand upon your OP so that people know exactly what you were trying to say. Having access to work and healthcare is not in opposition to freedom, that sounds ass backwards.

Everyone has access to work and healthcare. Having access =/= getting it for free

 

[nac386]

Everyone has access to work and healthcare. Having access =/= getting it for free

Nothing like this is expressed in the OP. This is why I’m asking him to expand on what he’s trying to communicate, so that we know how to respond.

 

[nostradumbass]

You are going to have to expand upon your OP so that people know exactly what you were trying to say. Having access to work and healthcare is not in opposition to freedom, that sounds ass backwards.

It is in opposition because everything in politics is at the cost of something else, since no place has infinite resources. When it comes to positive rights, if something is "guaranteed for free", someone has to be forced to provide it.

 

[MilesAbove]

When you see the world through a purely capitalist paradigm, yes.

 

[whaleshark]

Diversity is strength is the only true rule

 

[AntiStasi]

When you see the world through a purely capitalist paradigm, yes.

People aren't equal. Equal rights under the law is important for stability in society. How many different forms of Marxism do we have to try before we realize it always leads to starvation?

 

[grimballer]

progressives dont want equality they want equity

 

[Kandyland]

I'm not sure how progressives think you can have freedom, while at the same time, make sure everyone has a good job, good healthcare, and a decent place to live.

Some people on the left don't understand the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. They are not synonymous with each other.

 

[freakroor]

Freedom to do what???

 

[andnowweknow]

The deeper truth is that everything...EVERYTHING...is a balancing act. Democracy is simply an effort to make things better for the most people. Democracy was never a pursuit of perfection, inequality is inevitable.

 

[The ScorpioN]

When you see the world through a purely capitalist paradigm, yes.

What paradigm do you view the world from that gives you freedom and equality simultaneously?

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

Yes

And I'm not trying to make everyone equal and neither are a lot of others

Equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity kinda thing. Like give everyone the same chance for an awesome education and healthcare and then you can sort of let the chips fall where they may interfering only when necessary.

The letting the chips fall where they may will only lead you back to the same position you started at.

There is no way to perfectly dish out equality of opportunity to everyone. What if you were born to shit parents? What if you have persuasive friends that turned you the wrong way? What if you got molested as a child? What if you're just lazy? What if you're just not intelligent?

There is no way to get everyone on equal ground and there's no way to ever prove who needs the help and who doesn't. You can't police everyone's life and say ok this person needs this amount of assistance and that person needs that amount of assistance. There is simply no way to ever make it equal for everyone because there are so many variables that are out of our control.

 

[Papi Chulo]

Yes

And I'm not trying to make everyone equal and neither are a lot of others

Equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity kinda thing. Like give everyone the same chance for an awesome education and healthcare and then you can sort of let the chips fall where they may interfering only when necessary.

Code for socialized and more govt run medical care. That's gonna end in less freedom

 

[nac386]

Some people on the left don't understand the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. They are not synonymous with each other.

The question I would pose is, how do you provide equal opportunity to two people with completely different levels of access?

Let’s say person A lives in a poor, rural community with underfunded schools and poor facilities. There are no quality community colleges nearby, and work is low-wage manual labor without an education. The internet connection is in-and-out, and sometimes entirely unavailable, and the technology is dated due to funding.

Person B lives in a wealthy urban community, with strong public and private school systems all around the area. Funding is never an issue, they have the latest technology, and high paying jobs are abundant.

Do these two people have equality of opportunity? If so, how do you justify that position? If not, how do you provide equality of opportunity to these people?

Spoiler

If you said no, they do not have equal opportunity, and want to provide additional assistance in some way, you’re now talking about equity.

 

[djacobox372]

progressives dont want equality they want equity

I keep hearing this from conservatives, but 99% of progressives I see are for equality and don't support equity (as defined by conservative strawman builders)--that's limited to a rare few communist. I'd be surprised if the "equity" side of the progressives is more common than the "white-power" side of conservatives.

How about we debate the commonly held believes of progressivism and conservatism, and not the fringe which the vast majority of each side wants no part of.