sharp_dressed_left

3

sharp_dressed_left wrote

What kind of equality are we talking? I assume you mean the sharing of resources and opportunity etc to a reasonable extent - but although I agree this would create an environment for a valuable kind of freedom to flourish, I don't think it's inevitable. For example, if you see freedom as the ability to act or be according to your purpose, surely equality doesn't entail that different purposes are catered for, that there is a true variety of opportunities and luxury resources that allow for this kind of freedom? So can you just explain what you mean by inevitable?

3

sharp_dressed_left wrote

By losers who do you mean?

If you don't have a certain level of equality between people - i.e. access to food, shelter, water, etc. Then surely those fortunate enough to happen to naturally have resources would only have freedom in theory - in practice would their freedom not be overshadowed by their moral obligation and human compassion to share their resources with their less fortunate neighbours? Thus willingly sacrificing a significant portion of their freedom go preserve life in the absence of societal equality? And if you don't think humans are so compassionate, then it works the other way round. Where those fortunate enough to have the resources to do something with their freedom would be under constant threat of attack by the less fortunate, desperate for the basic resources. And so the fortunate few's lives, security and freedom are so precarious without equality?

2

sharp_dressed_left wrote

Can you define your terms? Do you mean: meaningful freedom is where every member of society, through access to a basic level of resources, is physically able to ahieve their will?

Because many more mainstream conceptions of freedom - such as republican and classical liberal - define freedom as the absence of obstacles imposed by agents. Therefore the indirect social and physical obstacles that prevent some agents from achieving their purposes, while others steam ahead, are not seen as a concern for politics. And that, I assume you'd think, is unequal.

So do you thind we should change our definition of freedom for basic political discourse?