Ham: Here's a question in search of an opinion. Which is more moral? A collectivist society in which no one is free but no one is hungry, or an individualist society in which everyone is free but a few go hungry?
(I'll tell you where I got it, and which society the author chose, after I've heard your opinions.) Ron: I think it depends on how one defines "free". My own opinion is That freedom is defined by degrees responsibility. Freedom is Relative to the values one holds. In each instance stated above, one freedom Is exchanged for another. In the collectivist society the people enjoy freedom from finding And maintaining Food, housing health care and clothing but they exchange the Freedom of personal choice. In the individualist society they are free to choose anything they wish But are burdened with the responsibility of attaining and maintaining food, clothing, health Care and housing, they bear full responsibility for their own survival. So who is more free? The one who is a slave to survival or the one Who is a slave to society? Seems like a simple question of choosing a master. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
