Ok, so I'll start off by saying this question is sort of ripped off from my government course I took last semester, but it's still valid.

Down to buisness:

It's a general trend that in democratic governments that have more personal freedoms
there is less economic equality, ie. the US.

The question is (and I'll leave my opinion out of it right now) where do you think the line should be between freedom to start a buisness or live your life and spend your money how you see fit, and providing an equal economic life for all?

quote:

---

I do not believe it is the governments responsibility to enforce economic equality but it is their job to ensure all people are free.

---

Agreed. I believe that the government is not in any way or form repsonsible for making sure Americans are equal in terms of economic standards; rather, I believe in the government ensuring our freedoms so that we can ensure our own economic stability.

quote:

---

The problem I have with linking freedom to the government is that it implies that liberties and freedoms are not inherent to life, but are provided by the government.

---

While I see you point here, in an ideal world the government would be observant and respectful of basic human liberties and provide governing according to those liberties. You hit a powerful nerve (in a good way) for me here, because the constant struggle between opposing sides on what exactly are basic human rights is the entire reason (in my opinion) that there is such political battles within our system today. Defining what is moral, what is acceptable, what is "right"...it's obviously a never-ending war that will never stop, and I believe as long as our country exists, we all will continue to feel that tension.

quote:

---

Therefore, how can they provide, let alone ensure, freedom? If a government was continuosly able to do that, it would not be a government, but an anarchy.

---

First off, read my last comment. In an ideal world, all beliefs which come with the maintenance and prolonging of freedom would be apparent to the government and the people, and the government would operate within those guidelines. Since we (obviously) do not live in a peaceful, ideal world, the best any government, group, or individual can do is continue to develop their own system of belief according to what they think is correct. Secondly, if a government were able to as you said, "continously" be able to make legislation around what our basic human liberties are, how on earth could you define that as an anarchy? Go back to government class because you have your terms mixed up.

Some local governments have tried to pass laws, but thier all tied up in the legal system. I'm not sure if the supreme court has ruled on anything. But there is no national law against it.

quote:

---

This it mostly false. Right now, burning the flag is technically protected under the first amendment. There some congressmen who occasionally try and get a anti-flag burning amendment through but it's sort of a joke. As for people seeing you, that's sort of mob rule, it's still illegal if you beat someone up for it. And in all likelyhood you'll still be prosecuted for assault. I don't know where you got that it was illegal in the US.

---

Isn't there a law that you can't harm the flag? The people seeing you is more of a social stigma thing, of course they would be arrested as well, but it'll be kinda hard for you (if you were the flag burner) to explain why you were arrested, I mean, no one would like to hear their countries flag was burned...

quote:

---

You can't burn the American flag in the US either. Of course, you won't be decapitatded and burned alive like perhaps in China, but you'll get arrested and if some people see you, seriously injured.

---

This it mostly false. Right now, burning the flag is technically protected under the first amendment. There some congressmen who occasionally try and get a anti-flag burning amendment through but it's sort of a joke. As for people seeing you, that's sort of mob rule, it's still illegal if you beat someone up for it. And in all likelyhood you'll still be prosecuted for assault. I don't know where you got that it was illegal in the US.

quote:

---

Go to China and start calling denoucning the government and burning the Chinese flag. See how long it takes until you dissappear.

---

You can't burn the American flag in the US either. Of course, you won't be decapitatded and burned alive like perhaps in China, but you'll get arrested and if some people see you, seriously injured.

quote:

---

Originally posted by soar747:
Excuse me, government founding freedom? Has nobody rememered the ban on gay marriage? Oh yeah, real freedom!

(somebody please enlighten me)

---

Go to China and start calling denoucning the government and burning the Chinese flag. See how long it takes until you dissappear.

Excuse me, government founding freedom? Has nobody rememered the ban on gay marriage? Oh yeah, real freedom!

(somebody please enlighten me)

Regarldless, it didn't aswer the question. Though I can imagine it'd unfortunately become redundant to all other poltical discussions here, where as this one ask for a contemplated value judgement.

While the irasible core of any answer for me has to start with personal freedom as paramount, inequality needs adressing. So, while personal is most important, I would hope the recent anecdotal evidence (and one can argue that while countries with more freedom do have vast inequality it is also true that lack of personal freedom didn't lead to greater equality) doesn't mean there is causal linkage and instead there is a way that true freedom - including the freedom of opportunity that is not always inluded - can actually reduce inequalities. By which I mean, unjust inequalities, not those determined by merit or just systems.
For instance, the lazy or unmotivated will always be at a disadvantage and with freedom for all we cannot lower the bar for those who won't compete.

So, aside from the rambling: personal freedom is key, I'm not sure it has an inverse relationship to equality. Maybe the opposite in fact, with a few caveats.

I don't want to get too mixed up in this one, but I noticed marine hadn't tried refuting. Thought that was a bit of a laugh.

Government is something that generally controls and regulates (within specific boundaries) the lives of its citizens. Therefore, how can they provide, let alone ensure, freedom? If a government was continuosly able to do that, it would not be a government, but an anarchy.

quote:

---

Personal responsibility falls under the responsibility of the individual.

---

Department of Redundancy Department.

The Government is a legal structure that provides legitmacy. The problem I have with linking freedom to the government is that it implies that liberties and freedoms are not inherent to life, but are provided by the government.

In a government founding freedom whose else would hav the job of ensuring freedom?

Personal responsibility falls under the responsibility of the individual.

Is it really the government's repsonsibility to ensure freedom, or our personal responsibility?

freedom is doing as you wish as long as it does not violate the freedoms of others.

I do not believe it is the governments responsibility to enforce economic equality but it is their job to ensure all people are free.