What are your core values?

[Ignorant]

Or, if you prefer, answer the question: What do you think makes a society successful? How do we measure its success? Your core values should naturally come up that way.

[Ignorant]

As for me...

I believe most passionately in freedom, security, representative government, and setting people up for success, where the latter three sort of follow from the first. Ultimately, my most core value is the belief in freedom.

My passion for freedom is rooted in the belief that everyone should be able to choose how they live their life, as long as it doesn't impede the freedom of others. Liberalism is pretty much that, though it can be understood multiple ways. I think almost everybody in the world believes in its core principles, yet any two people who believe in it can and often do disagree with each other. An example is that I believe libertarianism is a perversion of liberal ideals, but it's still clearly rooted in liberalism. Therefore it makes some sense to clarify what I think liberalism is or should be.

What makes us able to live a life of our choosing? It's not just the basic rights like freedom of speech, the right to private property, equality under the law, control over your own body, etc. It's also equal opportunity and the freedom not to be exploited by corporations. Here I believe the state plays a critical role, and it's where me and libertarians diverge.

Part of being able to live a life or our choosing comes back to the fourth point I mentioned initially: Setting people up for success. I strongly believe, both for moral and for economic reasons, that a child born in a lower class family should have the same opportunities as a child born in a rich family. It should not be the case that the rich kid can buy his or her way into good private schools while the poor kid, stuck in an underfunded public school system, gets left behind. The state plays a critical role there in making sure that, for one, the public school system is well-funded, and also that lower class families have the resources to set their children up for success. I tend to bring up The Wire, particularly its 4th season, as an illustration of how America has a lot to improve on when it comes to equal opportunity. We follow children growing up on the streets of Baltimore and, if we're being intellectually honest, we have a hard time arguing that they are "free" in any practical sense, or that their talents are being used for the good of society.

Then, the freedom not to be exploited. In a market-based economic system (which I believe in, by the way), corporations are incentivized to exploit the population for profit. A company wants to pollute the river because it's the cheapest way to get rid of their waste, but the people downstream want clean water. The lack of clean water makes them less free. Another example is health care, which is often an inelastic market ripe for exploitation. People should be free to choose the path that is medically best for them, and not be forced into bad choices because they can't afford the best treatment. That makes them less free. Here, the state plays a critical role in regulating conflicts of interest between corporations and the population.

Moving on to security. I am talking here about the sort of security we get from having a roof over our head, savings for a rainy day, and the prospect of being helped back up if we fall. It's again related to freedom: People who feel secure are more free to make choices. They are less worried about the "what if" scenarios. "What if this choice backfires?" A secure person will think "it's okay, we'll bounce back" whereas an insecure person will be worried about the consequences, and feel crippled to make choices that carry any risk.

Representative government is of course also vital for our freedom. Authoritarian rule makes us directly less free. It's important that our democracies remain strong, because it's the only way to ensure that our governments work for us. This point is of particular importance in the US, where structural reform is needed to preserve and improve democratic institutions.

[andy06shake]

Or, if you prefer, answer the question: What do you think makes a society successful? How do we measure its success? Your core values should naturally come up that way.

I try and follow 3 simply rules in life.

Take what you do not have.

Have what you cannot take.

And never hurt anyone weaker than yourself. 

As to what makes a society successful.

Imho, that would be balance, well-being, sustainability, and justice.

But i dont think a single metric can measure how successful we are as a whole.

[Ignorant]

I try and follow 3 simply rules in life.

Take what you do not have.

Have what you cannot take.

And never hurt anyone weaker than yourself.

This seems to be explicitly endorsing stealing from the rich. Is that the intent?

What does "have what you cannot take" mean?

[andy06shake]

As for me...

I believe most passionately in freedom, security, representative government, and setting people up for success, where the latter three sort of follow from the first. Ultimately, my most core value is the belief in freedom.

My passion for freedom is rooted in the belief that everyone should be able to choose how they live their life, as long as it doesn't impede the freedom of others. Liberalism is pretty much that, though it can be understood multiple ways. I think almost everybody in the world believes in its core principles, yet any two people who believe in it can and often do disagree with each other. An example is that I believe libertarianism is a perversion of liberal ideals, but it's still clearly rooted in liberalism. Therefore it makes some sense to clarify what I think liberalism is or should be.

What makes us able to live a life of our choosing? It's not just the basic rights like freedom of speech, the right to private property, equality under the law, control over your own body, etc. It's also equal opportunity and the freedom not to be exploited by corporations. Here I believe the state plays a critical role, and it's where me and libertarians diverge.

Part of being able to live a life or our choosing comes back to the fourth point I mentioned initially: Setting people up for success. I strongly believe, both for moral and for economic reasons, that a child born in a lower class family should have the same opportunities as a child born in a rich family. It should not be the case that the rich kid can buy his or her way into good private schools while the poor kid, stuck in an underfunded public school system, gets left behind. The state plays a critical role there in making sure that, for one, the public school system is well-funded, and also that lower class families have the resources to set their children up for success. I tend to bring up The Wire, particularly its 4th season, as an illustration of how America has a lot to improve on when it comes to equal opportunity. We follow children growing up on the streets of Baltimore and, if we're being intellectually honest, we have a hard time arguing that they are "free" in any practical sense, or that their talents are being used for the good of society.

Then, the freedom not to be exploited. In a market-based economic system (which I believe in, by the way), corporations are incentivized to exploit the population for profit. A company wants to pollute the river because it's the cheapest way to get rid of their waste, but the people downstream want clean water. The lack of clean water makes them less free. Another example is health care, which is often an inelastic market ripe for exploitation. People should be free to choose the path that is medically best for them, and not be forced into bad choices because they can't afford the best treatment. That makes them less free. Here, the state plays a critical role in regulating conflicts of interest between corporations and the population.

Moving on to security. I am talking here about the sort of security we get from having a roof over our head, savings for a rainy day, and the prospect of being helped back up if we fall. It's again related to freedom: People who feel secure are more free to make choices. They are less worried about the "what if" scenarios. "What if this choice backfires?" A secure person will think "it's okay, we'll bounce back" whereas an insecure person will be worried about the consequences, and feel crippled to make choices that carry any risk.

Representative government is of course also vital for our freedom. Authoritarian rule makes us directly less free. It's important that our democracies remain strong, because it's the only way to ensure that our governments work for us. This point is of particular importance in the US, where structural reform is needed to preserve and improve democratic institutions.

I would suggest that freedom and security are illusory notions at best.

There is no real freedom because human beings require sets of laws to interact with one another in groups.

Humans are social creatures, and true anarchy—and total freedom—leads to domination by the strongest and the survival of the fittest, which does not equate to real liberty for all.

Where security is concerned, that's often more a psychological construct than an absolute.

Nothing can guarantee complete safety.

And what we call security is usually a managed risk of sorts.

Nonetheless, they are both ideologies that most people cannot live without.

[andy06shake]

This seems to be explicitly endorsing stealing from the rich. Is that the intent?

What does "have what you cannot take" mean?

There are other ways to take things as opposed to simply tea-leafing.

But no, I don't have an issue, moral concerns, or conundrums about stealing from the rich.

After all, that's what they do to the poor.

And they simply could not exist without an underclass to facilitate their lifestyle choices or feed their bank accounts. 

As to having things that cannot be taken, integrity, dignity, self-respect, and honour would be some of those things.

Some of which amount to illusory notions also, but still serve a purpose, imho, the same as freedom and security, and make us who we are in life.

[UltraBudgie]

well i am not an apple so i don't have such a core but three things come to mind

1. dont do to others what you dont want done to you
2. every man and woman is a star
3. life is shit and the world is a toilet
4. everything is beautiful

take it as you will please

[andy06shake]

well i am not an apple so i don't have such a core but three things come to mind

1. dont do to others what you dont want done to you
2. every man and woman is a star
3. life is shit and the world is a toilet
4. everything is beautiful

take it as you will please

Number 4. 

Especially so in Summer. 

[Ignorant]

I would suggest that freedom and security are illusory notions at best.

There is no real freedom because human beings require sets of laws to interact with one another in groups.

It's not an illusion that I am free to criticize the government without being thrown in jail. It's not an illusion that I have a roof over my head, or that I can make risky choices and feel confident (secure) that I have a safety net to fall back on if things go awry. This freedom and security is not intrinsic, it's created by laws. There is a law that says I can't be thrown in jail for criticizing the government, and a law that says others can't enter my home without my permission. These laws protect my freedom and security. So while I take your point that we are not free to do whatever we want, I think that's oversimplifying matters and would point out that laws, ideally, often actually protect our freedom and make us more free to make choices in life.
 

Humans are social creatures, and true anarchy—and total freedom—leads to domination by the strongest and the survival of the fittest, which does not equate to real liberty for all.

Indeed. I therefore take the opposite position from yours: Laws are necessary to protect our freedom. As you pointed out, lawless society will quickly devolve into the strong exploiting the weak. This not only is not a free society, it's also an economically ineffective society [1].
 

Where security is concerned, that's often more a psychological construct than an absolute.

Nothing can guarantee complete safety.

And what we call security is usually a managed risk of sorts.

True enough, but in a society of laws where we can trust the government to enforce those laws, my psychological sense of security is at least based on reality. Of course lawlessness can still prevail, but I can safely assume people won't, for example, enslave me.

[1] This is convincingly illustrated in Why Nations Fail.

[andy06shake]

It's not an illusion that I am free to criticize the government without being thrown in jail. It's not an illusion that I have a roof over my head, or that I can make risky choices and feel confident (secure) that I have a safety net to fall back on if things go awry. This freedom and security is not intrinsic, it's created by laws. There is a law that says I can't be thrown in jail for criticizing the government, and a law that says others can't enter my home without my permission. These laws protect my freedom and security. So while I take your point that we are not free to do whatever we want, I think that's oversimplifying matters and would point out that laws, ideally, often actually protect our freedom and make us more free to make choices in life.
 

Indeed. I therefore take the opposite position from yours: Laws are necessary to protect our freedom. As you pointed out, lawless society will quickly devolve into the strong exploiting the weak. This not only is not a free society, it's also an economically ineffective society [1].
 

True enough, but in a society of laws where we can trust the government to enforce those laws, my psychological sense of security is at least based on reality. Of course lawlessness can still prevail, but I can safely assume people won't, for example, enslave me.

[1] This is convincingly illustrated in Why Nations Fail.

I certainly don't disagree with some of the above.

As to why nations fall...............

How long is a piece of string?

All nations, governments, and civilisations fail and fall in the end.

Then rise up and begin again anew.

At least that's what recorded history would seem to indicate.

As to law, without such it all goes breasts-up in a heartbeat.

The problem is that, in both our respective nations, justice can be purchased for a price.

It's kind of one of the real reasons as to why she is blind, among others.   

But you will only ever be as free as society allows, hence..................................

Well, we get what we pay for, and even freedom has its price.