Which Do You Favor More?

[Fox McCloud]

Economic Freedom or Civil/Social Freedom?

While I feel that both are highly important, at the end of the day, I'll admit I value economic freedom a little more than I value social/civil freedom. Not so say I want to live in a country that has 100% economic freedom and only 20% civil/social freedom or anything of that nature, it's just as I said, I value economic freedom a little more.

[Kludge]

100% economic freedom means absolute ownership of property IMO, so government as we know it couldn't exist.

[nate895]

Economic Freedom. Economically speaking, I will actually use economic freedom much more than civil and social freedoms (I would never do drugs, marry a dude, or anything immoral like that), so I tend to favor them more.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

100% economic freedom means absolute ownership of property IMO, so government as we know it couldn't exist.

Yeah, but you do believe in the state, so I guess you'd be inclined to favor civil/social freedom more? ;)

[angelatc]

I don't think you can realistically separate the two.

[RockEnds]

I don't think you can realistically separate the two.

I agree.

[heavenlyboy34]

i don't think you can realistically separate the two.

+20/20

[Theocrat]

Though I agree with many on this thread that it's difficult to separate economic freedom from civil/social freedom, I voted in the poll that I valued civil/social freedom more. Without "splitting hairs" too much, it seems to me that you wouldn't be able to secure economic freedom without first establishing civil/social freedom. After all, the Pilgrims came over here to escape civil/social (religious) tyranny first, not economic infringements of the monarchy.

[nate895]

Though I agree with many on this thread that it's difficult to separate economic freedom from civil/social freedom, I voted in the poll that I valued civil/social freedom more. Without "splitting hairs" too much, it seems to me that you wouldn't be able to secure economic freedom without first establishing civil/social freedom. After all, the Pilgrims came over here to escape civil/social (religious) tyranny first, not economic infringements of the monarchy.

Many Arab countries have much more economic freedom than us, and yet they have so much less social freedom.

[Theocrat]

Many Arab countries have much more economic freedom than us, and yet they have so much less social freedom.

Which Arab countries have more economic freedoms than us, in terms of availability to capital and protection of private property for both those governing and those being governed?

[nate895]

Which Arab countries have more economic freedoms than us, in terms of availability to capital and protection of private property for both those governing and those being governed?

The United Arab Emirates. When I was a member of Model UN, which I have since resigned from considering I hated both the UN and no country on Earth represents my views, I represented them and learned that they have vast amounts of economic freedom, but that they have limited social freedoms. They are very wealthy countries, but you can do so little with the wealth, so they still are economically restricted, but just not from a business standpoint.

[Theocrat]

The United Arab Emirates. When I was a member of Model UN, which I have since resigned from considering I hated both the UN and no country on Earth represents my views, I represented them and learned that they have vast amounts of economic freedom, but that they have limited social freedoms. They are very wealthy countries, but you can do so little with the wealth, so they still are economically restricted, but just not from a business standpoint.

What good is economic wealth if you can't do anything with it? I wouldn't call that economic freedom, but I do understand what you're saying.

[nate895]

What good is economic wealth if you can't do anything with it? I wouldn't call that economic freedom, but I do understand what you're saying.

What I mean is that you can't use it to do "immoral" things, political activity, or non-Muslim religious activity. You can still use it to purchase most goods and services, just not ones that aren't Imam-approved. In fact, they have more malls per capita than we do.

[Theocrat]

What I mean is that you can't use it to do "immoral" things, political activity, or non-Muslim religious activity. You can still use it to purchase most goods and services, just not ones that aren't Imam-approved. In fact, they have more malls per capita than we do.

I see. Don't you think that shows how much civil/social freedom is "more valuable" than economic freedom? If civil liberties to own property and the freedom to purchase goods and services based on one's social/religious beliefs and benefits are restricted, then economic freedom will be hindered, as you've mentioned.

[nate895]

I see. Don't you think that shows how much civil/social freedom is "more valuable" than economic freedom? If civil liberties to own property and the freedom to purchase goods and services based on one's social/religious beliefs and benefits are restricted, then economic freedom will be hindered, as you've mentioned.

I want both, I just think that economic freedom is better because you can use it to gain the other type of freedom. We live in a society where we don't have to worry (for now, at least) about freedom of speech or religion, and if we can get the money to speak our mind, we can use it to expand our other freedoms.

[RockEnds]

I agree with Theo in that if the two could be separated, I would place a greater personal value on civil freedom. However, the economic slavery under which we currently toil is nothing less than tyranny. While I am aware that attempts have been made in theory to separate the two, I do believe this notion is naive. They are, in reality, inseparable.

[smileylovesfreedom]

social/civil freedom because what good is money if you have no freedom to spend it on things you believe in?

[Theocrat]

I want both, I just think that economic freedom is better because you can use it to gain the other type of freedom. We live in a society where we don't have to worry (for now, at least) about freedom of speech or religion, and if we can get the money to speak our mind, we can use it to expand our other freedoms.(Emphasis mine)

That assumes that civil/social freedoms already exist in society to allow for the liberty to "expand other freedoms." Freedom can't be bought with money, anyway. Otherwise, it's not truly freedom.

[nate895]

(Emphasis mine)

That assumes that civil/social freedoms already exist in society to allow for the liberty to "expand other freedoms." Freedom can't be bought with money, anyway. Otherwise, it's not truly freedom.

But, money is the tool that is most effective in gaining it. Without resources, including money, we can't expand our freedoms.

[Theocrat]

But, money is the tool that is most effective in gaining it. Without resources, including money, we can't expand our freedoms.

As an example, how would money secure the freedom to worship God freely without civil government intrusion?

[nate895]

As an example, how would money secure the freedom to worship God freely without civil government intrusion?

Simple: If I don't have it, I spend money to make a pamphlet on why I should have it, or maybe I spend money on a candidate's election who wants it, or I spend money to get guns (through one means or another) to use against the oppressive government.

[Theocrat]

Simple: If I don't have it, I spend money to make a pamphlet on why I should have it, or maybe I spend money on a candidate's election who wants it, or I spend money to get guns (through one means or another) to use against the oppressive government.

Once again, all of those actions assume that civil/social freedoms are there first to make pamphlets (freedom of the press), run for office and have (fair) elections (freedom of assembly), and acquire guns (freedom of self-defense) without government interference.

[nate895]

Once again, all of those actions assume that civil/social freedoms are there first to make pamphlets (freedom of the press), run for office and have (fair) elections (freedom of assembly), and acquire guns (freedom of self-defense) without government interference.

No, I can do all those things on the black market, except for elections, which would be the purpose of guns.

[Theocrat]

No, I can do all those things on the black market, except for elections, which would be the purpose of guns.

If you have to do those things on a black market, then it only shows that you don't truly have economic freedom, my friend.

[nate895]

If you have to do those things on a black market, then it only shows that you don't truly have economic freedom, my friend.

I have enough to make money. The kind of freedom I am talking about is the ability to open a lawful business without much hassle. You shouldn't have to go through mounds of rules and regulations just to figure out the exact rules for everything. Of course, either of these freedoms leads to the desire to have the other.

[Theocrat]

I have enough to make money. The kind of freedom I am talking about is the ability to open a lawful business without much hassle. You shouldn't have to go through mounds of rules and regulations just to figure out the exact rules for everything. Of course, either of these freedoms leads to the desire to have the other.

I agree, buddy. :)

[Mini-Me]

I don't think you can realistically separate the two.

I agree with this take. You may be able to separate them for a short time, but the erosion of one type of freedom will inevitably result in the subsequent erosion of the other. It may take a while, but it will eventually happen, because in both cases the government has the means within its grasp to "use its judgment," grow more powerful, and start destroying the other type of freedom.

To give an example:
If you do not have free speech, privacy rights, self-ownership, etc., you will not be able to prevent the government from infringing upon your property rights or devaluing your currency for very long. If you do not have property rights, your living standards end up becoming dependent on the mercy of the government, and the government can use that as leverage to become more and more powerful and start ignoring your other rights.

Both are absolutely necessary if either are to be maintained indefinitely.

EDIT: However, I should mention two additional things.
First, it can be difficult to categorize certain freedoms as civil/social or economic. For instance, gun rights imply the right to buy and sell firearms and ammo (tending toward the economic side of things), yet they also imply the right to carry (which tends toward the civil/social side of things). Freedom in economic transactions also kind of entails free speech.
Second, if civil/social freedoms are only somewhat infringed (e.g. things like sexual freedoms and drug use - although the latter entails economic freedom too, btw) but speech is still free and the government still represents the people, those missing freedoms are unlikely to lead to further erosions, and they'll be relatively easy to restore. On the other hand, if property rights are only "somewhat" infringed through something like a property tax, the government programs relying on that tax money will be very difficult to destroy, making the tax itself very difficult to destroy, making you pretty much a perpetual serf. Therefore, if you're starting out at a state of complete freedom, I'd say economic freedom is probably the one that's most dangerous to let slip.

[youngbuck]

I voted for civil/social freedom.

[TheEvilDetector]

I think they are both very important, but since I am forced to pick one, I choose economic freedom.

That's the freedom I need to make and save money, so I can (amongst other things) buy a ticket to fly to a place where I can practice my civil/social freedom to my heart's content, before returning to make more $$$.

Hehe.