Fairness and Freedom New Zealand and USA

[The Magic Pudding]

David Hackett Fischer:  And we happened to be passing through Canterbury while a by-election was underway, and it looked like an American election but it didn't sound like an American election. We couldn't quite sort that out, and then suddenly it dawned on us that none of the New Zealand candidates were very actively interested in talking about liberty and freedom. But they were passionately engaged in talking about fairness, and not fairness in detail but as the organising principle of an open society. And that got us started.

Michael Duffy: Yes, this idea of fairness, it's not something that many of us here would have thought about much before, but Americans don't talk about it all that much, do they?

David Hackett Fischer: Not so much. I think in daily discourse we use 'fairness' as much as any other English speaker, but we don't think about organising our politics or our Constitution around an idea of fairness. In New Zealand it's in the Bill of Rights, fairness and something that is called natural justice. And Geoffrey Palmer, who drafted the New Zealand Bill of Rights, said that natural justice can be understood as fairness. We don't have that word in our Constitution, though much is said about freedom and liberty.

David Hackett Fischer: Well, in America the British colonies were settled in a period when in the mother country there were bitter struggles under way in the politics of Britain, and there were questions more about tyranny, about power in that regard. But then in the 19th century when New Zealand was settled, I think many people who came from Britain did not feel that their liberty was problematic to them. They did feel that England was bitterly unfair in its social conditions, social structure. And I think they came to New Zealand with a determination of building a society that could in some way correct or speak to that sort of problem. Both of these groups of settlers were interested in creating the good society, a society that would be a kind of model to the old world. But they had different purposes in mind that way. They came from their experience.

I found this interesting, the US idea of freedom does puzzle me somewhat.  Canada I think was settled in the same period as the US and they seem to embrace the fairness principle.  The obvious reason to me Commonwealth peoples don't have the freedom obsession is we didn't fight a revolutionary war.

There's audio or transcript available - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/david-h-fischer/4020230

[Siz]

Wow! The idea of fairness as a discrete political pursuit from freedom totally resonates with me. This gives me hope that, at least somewhere, there is a context given to the ideal of personal freedom which acknowledges social justice as a primary consideration.

Is this idea portable? Hmm, I'm not so sure people in arrogant and selfish societies like USA and some European heavyweights are capable of seeing the wood amongst the trees.

This idea certainly brings some focus to my own thinking on the social equation. Once again pragmatism holds the higher ground.

[Stevil]

Freedom and liberty is certainly taken for granted in NZ although we do have contention with the Maori people who the colonials signed a treaty with rather than conquered.

We don't extend it to mean we ought to have the right to buy an M16 at the local dairy, or that we ought to arm ourselves for self defence against crims or the government.

I'm glad we don't have as much propoganda as USA does, we certainly don't have to pledge alegance to the flag in schools.

Being such a small country, we get much more exposure to what other countries are doing and we even play in world series tournaments that includes other countries.

But freedom and liberty does seem to be a moot point, and it seems quite American. We need to have an NZ identity.

[Crow]

I prefer the idea of fairness over the idea of freedom.

With the concept of freedom in a political setting what is freedom? We have heard it be used to argue a persons right to own slaves and a persons right not to be a slave, so how much water does the concept actually hold politically except for being free from the British. The entire concept of freedom and liberty in a governing system sounds like a an absurd paradox to me, government is meant to create restrictions that are then imposed by authority, that is the total opposite of freedom. A system of anarchy sounds more apt but I have never read "The Bill of Rights" so it might actually say something along the lines of "liberty and freedom yada yada... but not if it breaks points A, B, & C".

Fairness on the other hand is quite straight forward in a political setting, with any of the blurry areas being clarified because that's only fair. I like it quite a lot. It also seems attainable rather than political wishful thinking that in reality would never be realistic.

[Ali]

Wow! The idea of fairness as a discrete political pursuit from freedom totally resonates with me. This gives me hope that, at least somewhere, there is a context given to the ideal of personal freedom which acknowledges social justice as a primary consideration.

Is this idea portable? Hmm, I'm not so sure people in arrogant and selfish societies like USA and some European heavyweights are capable of seeing the wood amongst the trees.

This idea certainly brings some focus to my own thinking on the social equation. Once again pragmatism holds the higher ground.

Siz, I'm rather surprised and pleased with you.     I would have thought that you would embrace the US ideal of "freedom" over "social fairness" (seeing as how you don't even want the poor to procreate  )

Being an American, I suppose that I was raised with the concept of "freedom" and I do think it's important.  One example of this that I've noticed on this board where I seem to be at odds with other cultures is my fervent belief in "freedom of speech" - even when that speech is ugly.  It still shocks me that someone can be jailed in other countries for racist tweets.  I'm of the Voltaire school of thought on that "I disapprove of what you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it."  (although I guess he didn't actually say that.)  So when it comes to personal actions, speech, and thought, I do believe in the importance of freedom. 

Economically, I'm much more interested in fairness.  I think it's absolute crap that people get paid below a living wage for a full time job, and then people blame them for needing to be on assistance.  The wealth distribution in this country is fucked.  Charts like at the link below make me crazy mad.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

[DeterminedJuliet]

I think concerns about "fairness" moreso than freedom is definitely a Canadian thing. It's interesting, because I've never really thought about it in those terms before, but it makes a lot of sense. I think a large part of it has to do with the fact that we're such a bloody large country, but pretty much all of the power is centralized into one or two areas (Ontario and, nowadays, Alberta). So you have the far East Coast and the far West Coast constantly in a struggle to keep the power houses "honest", as it were.

Then there's the whole, Nation within a Nation that is Quebec. Their struggles also seem to be directed more towards ensuring fair treatment rather than freedom (because, really, Quebec pretty much does its own thing anyway, legally.) Interesting. I wonder if a parliamentary system re-enforces this vs. the American system.

[Siz]

Wow! The idea of fairness as a discrete political pursuit from freedom totally resonates with me. This gives me hope that, at least somewhere, there is a context given to the ideal of personal freedom which acknowledges social justice as a primary consideration.

Is this idea portable? Hmm, I'm not so sure people in arrogant and selfish societies like USA and some European heavyweights are capable of seeing the wood amongst the trees.

This idea certainly brings some focus to my own thinking on the social equation. Once again pragmatism holds the higher ground.

Siz, I'm rather surprised and pleased with you.     I would have thought that you would embrace the US ideal of "freedom" over "social fairness" (seeing as how you don't even want the poor to procreate  )

While I am an advocate of 'freedom' I do not - and have never - championed it over social fairness. My views, which tend to rile many, are born of a pursuit of pragmatic social and economic fairness. What is normally in contention, however, is my hard-nosed idea of what is fair!

To reiterate past assertions, I have much sympathy for the unfortunate poor who are trampled by governmental policy and social injustice with no realistic offer of a hand up. There's no fairness here. Neither is there fairness in taking without giving back (which as many rich are guilty of as poor). Yes I take a harsh stance, but pussyfooting around 'personal freedoms' is hardly progressive as we are discovering in this thread.

The ill-worded nonsense that is the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' in no part mentions 'fairness', only 'freedom'. It will be used as a shitty stick forevermore with which to beat those of us who dare to promote fairness over freedom.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But isn't the desire for fairness a form of the desire for freedom?  Why do I care if someone else has a lot more advantages and rights than I do? Isn't it at least partially because that limits my freedom?  If I do not have equal access to education, to financial capital to start a business, to the voting booth to express myself politically, to the press to express myself, then my freedom is limited.  Unfairness limits freedom.  So it still seems like freedom is fundamental, even more so that fairness.  We are not always going to be equal in everything, but we should have the freedom that comes from an equal opportunity, an equal chance.

[Siz]

But isn't the desire for fairness a form of the desire for freedom?  Why do I care if someone else has a lot more advantages and rights than I do? Isn't it at least partially because that limits my freedom?  If I do not have equal access to education, to financial capital to start a business, to the voting booth to express myself politically, to the press to express myself, then my freedom is limited.  Unfairness limits freedom.  So it still seems like freedom is fundamental, even more so that fairness.  We are not always going to be equal in everything, but we should have the freedom that comes from an equal opportunity, an equal chance.

Yes. But equality has more in common with fairness than freedom.
Freedom will always favour the advantaged unless fairness is first addressed.

[Crow]

[Ecurb Noselrub]
I'd rather say that freedom is a form of fairness. You can promote freedom without the need to promote fairness, but freedom is naturally promoted within fairness.

[Ali]
I find this point intriguing that you find it shocking that somebody was jailed for spouting hate. I personally see no difference between a person being foul and vile through speech than a person physically abusing another for the same reasons, they are both forms of abuse. I agree with freedom of speech but when it encroaches on the lives of others in a negative way for something they can not help, then that person needs to be made aware that it isn't acceptable in the same way it isn't acceptable to punch somebody in the street because they may not be the same as you, if that happens to be legal action then I am all for it, though I think imprisonment is a bit useless in such a case as it's more likely to radicalise that individual more.

[Ali]

[Ali]
I find this point intriguing that you find it shocking that somebody was jailed for spouting hate. I personally see no difference between a person being foul and vile through speech than a person physically abusing another for the same reasons, they are both forms of abuse. I agree with freedom of speech but when it encroaches on the lives of others in a negative way for something they can not help, then that person needs to be made aware that it isn't acceptable in the same way it isn't acceptable to punch somebody in the street because they may not be the same as you, if that happens to be legal action then I am all for it, though I think imprisonment is a bit useless in such a case as it's more likely to radicalise that individual more.

I really do find it shocking.  It seems like such a slippery slope to me.  Like, if a person could be jailed for spouting one form of unpopular opinion because it potentially is harmful, like racism, then who is to say that a person couldn't be jailed for spouting another kind of unpopular opinion that is commonly considered harmful, like atheism?  Like, if as a society, the majority of people agree that religion is good for society, then what would stop them from jailing people who disagree and are outspoken in their atheism?  Certainly atheism is unpopular, and some might say that it "hurts their feelings".  AD has expressed multiple times that the images thread is hurtful to him; what if we were potentially jailed for posting things that are hurtful to him as a Christian?

Please understand me, I'm not defending racism, and I'm not likening atheism to racism.  I'm just trying to explain why I feel that freedom of speech (all speech, even unpopular speech) is so important.

[Siz]

'Being' racist in the UK isn't a crime. The crime was 'inciting racial hatred'. Of course our judges are at liberty to interpret that as they see fit (based on social pressure of course). I'm not sure that tweeting racial slurs is necessarily incitive, but if one is allowed to get away with it, so the racist flood gates will open. That be ugly - and unfair.

How does it work in the US? Does freedom of speech truly give a free stage to anyone who wants to speak?

[Ali]

'Being' racist in the UK isn't a crime. The crime was 'inciting racial hatred'. Of course our judges are at liberty to interpret that as they see fit (based on social pressure of course). I'm not sure that tweeting racial slurs is necessarily incitive, but if one is allowed to get away with it, so the racist flood gates will open. That be ugly - and unfair.

How does it work in the US? Does freedom of speech truly give a free stage to anyone who wants to speak?

Yes.  I think that the only time it would be against the law is if you did something that foreseeably caused a dangerous situation (like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater when there was no fire.)

ETA:  Or sometimes (I think depending on the state)it's illegal if it could be interpreted as directly threatening an individual.  Like for example, I know in some states it's against the law to burn a cross on someone's front lawn (that's like an old time KKK threat) but it's legal to burn a cross at a KKK rally where no one individual is being threatened.  And legal to have a KKK rally where lots and lots of hate speech would be going on.

People in the US are not jailed for racist words, tweets, et cetera.  They are still judged in the court of public opinion which is exactly as it should be, but they wouldn't be thrown in jail for it.

[Stevil]

We are not always going to be equal in everything, but we should have the freedom that comes from an equal opportunity, an equal chance.

I agree with this.

Free education and lack of elite private schools puts the poor on a level playing field with the rich. A poor child can get the same education and same prospects for a job, can get themselves out of the poverty cycle. Well, as long as the govt provides enough support for the family to survive such that they don't take their children out of school and into work in order to support the family.

But this could be fairness or freedom, it fits both labels.

[Stevil]

Siz, I'm rather surprised and pleased with you.     I would have thought that you would embrace the US ideal of "freedom" over "social fairness" (seeing as how you don't even want the poor to procreate  )

Interestingly,
NZ government recently made an arrangement such that Women on DPB (Domestics Puposes Benefit - Solo Mums requiring government financial support) can choose to get long term contraceptives for free (at the expense of government)

Instead of seeing this as freedom (without financial pressure) to choose contraceptives, many saw this as abhorrent government forcing poor not to have children.
State pressure worries beneficiaries
Stuck for ideas, Govt preys on powerless