What is more important to you, fiscal/economic freedom or social freedom?

Question

I'd prefer more fiscal freedom. Having some social freedoms taken away doesn't bother me as much as being raped in taxes and fees by the government to pay for programs that I'll never use or them giving my tax money away to welfare moochers.

I'm libertarian so I believe we are entitled to both, but I prefer having more fiscal freedom if there was a choice.

Welfre is a social program. Social freedom is not having government intervention in your personal lives as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses freedoms.

Answer 1

Are you refering to basic fundamental human rights by the term "social freedom"? Perhaps freedom of speech, religion, right to assemble, and right to due process of law are just not as important to you as a few bucks in your wallet or a new ipod. Frankly folks with your attitude don't deserve the great nation that is ours, and certainly don't appreciate the sacrifices others have made for those very rights you hold to be less important than a new laptop.

Answer 2

I prefer social freedom. Taxes are a fact of life. If you want any government you're going to have to pay them. The loss of social freedom under a Taliban like fundie government would be worse.

Answer 3

What do you mean by "social freedom?" It seems to be that thing you describe as social freedom (like welfare) are more social entitlement than freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose without government interference what you want to do with your life, your money, your property, your faith, etc, as long as you do not interfere with other people's freedom.

Answer 4

If you have fiscal/economic freedom in the true sense IE: you are very rich then you can control your environment to the point you have total social freedom by not coming into contact with anybody you can not fire for saying that they do like what you doing.

Answer 5

inevitably freedom reward the folk who take section in despite sphere maximum. those with extreme ranges of social participation tend to income maximum from social freedom and individuals with extreme ranges of economic participation tend to income maximum from financial freedom. inevitably they are the two appropriate by using fact social participation helps financial participation. If a society priorities financial freedom above social freedom the effect would be bigger financial opportunities that basically benefit those with finished social participation. the folk and communities you socialise with commonly ensure your financial participation and positioned it seems that in case you have no longer have been given any acquaintances or do no longer fit in with helpful people, you could no longer prevail economically except in staggering circumstances. So in case you like a honest society you will possibly desire to positioned social freedom in the previous financial freedom. in case you will possibly be able to desire to make society fairer you will possibly desire to tackle barriers to social freedom and this places a burden on financial freedom. people who're properly located to apply financial opportunities commonly go with a honest society yet have incredibly no interest in making it fairer and as a result downplay any social justice schedule as risky by using fact it limits financial freedom. This purely embodies thinly veiled selfishness and indifference yet has grow to be common in a society the place financial opportunities are transforming into greater freely obtainable. selfish and indifferent persons are basic even nevertheless it truly is troublesome while those people sell selfishness and indifference as virtues and inspire people to forget egalitarianism by using fact they warn it truly is risky for society. those people deserve no longer something besides shame yet they continuously discover corporation with different shameless people who agree they have not have been given any reason to experience to blame for the sake of somebody's "bleeding coronary heart".