Foxy “We have chosen to emphasize personal liberty, an emphasis that can lead only to social inequality.”

I see no problem with making that choice. I would suggest “Social equality” is something which can only be administered by the state or some other collective authority to regulate and presumably reign in the benefits which might accrue from the pursuit of individual liberty.

Lenin said the same thing, in a different way (and bluntly more effectively)

“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state”

I make no apology for placing my faith in personal liberty at the expense of social equality and limitation to the authority of the state.

It is simple really

‘Life’ and free will and ultimately "personal growth" is experienced through the expression of personal choice personal preference, personal self interest and produces personal reward.

Compliance with externally imposed rules designed to ensure we conform with the social edicts of the state and aspire only to those levels ascribed by the state('glass ceilings', be they in pursuit of equality or just the status quo) is mere ‘existence’

and I, personally, do not want to merely ‘exist’.

The other thing, millions died at the hands of communisms attempts to enforce equality of outcome upon them and something else Lenin said

“the goal of socialism is communism”

Col, you're in great form here,

'At the end of the day, ‘sentimentality’ never produced any worthwhile result, it only makes people feel good in the moment.'
Too true.

'Of course, what is also being assumed with an expectation of ”Equality of Outcome” is that everyone wants the same outcome or is striving for some common goal.'

I see so much harm has been done in the world by people thinking they know what's best for other people. I've always seen this a big flaw in gender equity arguments which constantly ignore differing goals in life that men and women may legitimately have.

US “Col, you're in great form here,”

Thankyou US

Individualism is my “passion”.

It is my one core belief, from which all my other values derive their direction, like a compass point.

I believe people, even if they do not know what is best for themselves, are entitled to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be.

Some will fail (maybe just bad dreams) but when the state denies everyone from the opportunity to dream, they kill the individual.

Many folk compare humanity to the productive orderliness of an ants nests, where everyone with a role within a rigid social hierarchy.

But we have free-will and ants lack cognitive skills.

“I see so much harm has been done in the world by people thinking they know what's best for other people.”

Exactly, no one knows what is best for anyone else, let alone everyone else.

I know only that the best way of pursuing personal growth, fulfillment, success or whatever we care to call it, is to allow people to decide for themselves.

But it is better to fail as a result of making your own mistakes than failing because of mistakes the state demanded to make for you.

“I've always seen this a big flaw in gender equity arguments which constantly ignore differing goals in life that men and women may legitimately have.”

It does not apply simply to gender but to everything.

Check out Maslow’s hierarchy. The socialists are stuck on the base level because that is how they measure everything, in terms of material needs.

Bronwyn, every child is entitled to excellence in education. By lumping all children together according to their age, not stage of learning ability, there will necessarily be kids labelled 'slow' or 'gifted'. It's a nonsense.

Col: by equating Social equality within the narrow framework of communism, you show yourself to still be stuck somewhere in the early 60's.

I've told you before; Lenin is dead and so is communism.

It is simplistic for you to imply that the only possibilities are either full state control or no government interference.

It pragmatic to be aware that a group of disenfranchised people in your community will affect you. You cannot isolate yourself from any section of your society.

The sentimentalists are those who keep on and on about how those who have achieved have done that with their own two hands, all by themselves. That you deserved it. With which comes the implication that those who do not have financial or housing security or physical health deserve that too.

The only sentimentalist is you Col, with your unwavering belief in that ideology: Libertarianism.

Embracing free market economics, does not mean that there is no place for the State to ensure and encourage that the wealth generated benefits all of society. You know, being aware of the Pareto principle.

And your last little note on Maslow, what a stupid remark for you to make. If the first step is not met it is not possible to get to the next step.

You rail against people expecting to be rewarded for nothing. Imagine the State determining how much you should earn, can't possibly share my wealth with anybody-that's communism/socialism. If your resentment at paying taxes and social services is not about your material wealth than what is it? You are all about material wealth and the personal freedom it brings.

You've been reading a few too many American self improvement books.

I'm finding myself after starting this thread largely sitting on the sidelines following the arguments and contributing little. I hope thats not bad manners, I'd expected to post more but as the discussion has developed I've not felt that I've had much to contribute.

I can appreciate the points Col makes and generally agree but I'm also aware that as an individual I owe much to those who have gone before. I can appreciate that choice is probably the only thing that is truly ever mine and the most precious thing I have. I can also appreciate that without "society" my life would be vastly poorer and probably vastly shorter, that I'm not independant of others.

In the middle is a balance between freedom and responsibility. As Col points out governments don't do well at compassion but overall neither have individuals when governments don't try.

At one end of the spectrum is survival of the fittest and at the other a lack of choice for the individual and meaning stripped from life.

There is a balance which neither we as individuals or our governments will ever get and keep right so maybe to use a cliche it's more a journey than a destination.

R0bert

Yvonne “I've told you before; Lenin is dead and so is communism.”

but his useful idiots live on.

“full state control or no government interference.”

Find where I have objected to the role of government
as regulator, please read my posting history and
note, I have consistently described the appropriate
role of government as regulator versus that of
operators of commerce.

“You cannot isolate yourself from any section of
your society.”

I don't seek to, I would be happy to sell everyone
the benefits of my businesses, unfortunately
not many private individuals have a need or resources
for them, let alone understand what they do
(so I largely rely on the bigger corporations and yes,
government,

My income is your taxes at work, how ironic).

“those who do not have financial or housing security
or physical health deserve that too.”

We should all be free to plot and follow our own
destiny, that some destinies lead to pixies and other
sentimental childhood fantasies is a better destination
than a government enforced path, which ends somewhere dreamed
up by the Brothers Grimm.

“sentimentalist is you Col, with your unwavering belief
in that ideology: Libertarianism.”

Not sentimental at all, passionate yes but someone said
of me, many years ago, that I had dreams but dreams
founded in reality.

And even as an accountant, I do understand and
respect the significant differences between logic, emotion
and the dross which associates with sentimentality.

“wealth generated benefits all of society.”
through the imposition of taxes the wealth benefits
more than just the earner, however, it should not be
used to cosset the indolent.

“Maslow, what a stupid remark for you to make.
If the first step is not met it is not possible
to get to the next step.”

What an ignorant and stupid comment Yvonne,

The whole point with Maslow, he is about self perception
and not material comfort. Anyone can be at any level
regardless, it is all in our own mind.

I guess you are not managing to stand even on level
one, more like slipped and landed on your arse