Poor and Free or Rich and Oppressed?

[Dionysius]

i figure a poor democratic nation, provided the government
is doing its job, wont take too long to gain wealth.
why didnt you post a poll?

 

[King Flevance]

The question is still very vague on it's conditions even with the clarification. Freedom covers all aspects of life. Oppression covers a selective amount of them. Also, what is the land like in the poor country? Able to grow anything? What about game to hunt? Way too many X factors. Thisquestion sms out of touch with reality as there are probably more than 2 countries in the world in this scenario also as why wouldnt the rich one go conquer the poor one when doing so is so obviously in its nature.

Anyways, I would choose poor and free. I have faith that my God would provide for me. Without so many distractions it would also help me form a much better relationship with Him anyways. I also only grant Him the right to oppress me instead of other humans.

 

[Homie]

I don't care too much about politics, but would there be religious freedom?
In the oppressed country I mean

 

[Tycoon101]

Another thing:
Let's see- would you rather be poor and oppressed during the French Revolution, or rich and dead meat during the French Revolution?

 

[Evil Tyrant]

My choice would depend on the temperment of who is in charge of the oppressive nation. If he is a paranoid nut like Josef Stalin, I would rather live in the free country, but if the police are only going to arrest me for causing trouble, I would just keep my mouth shut and enjoy my wealth.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Don't speak out against the government then.

It's a simple arrangement: Food for obedience. You worship the state, you get payed. You don't you go to Siberia.

Though I would hardly call the USSR a wealthy nation back then.

If I don't like something, then i speak out against it. I don't want to be a slave to the state, I value my freedom above all else.

And also the upper Soviet heirachy was a 'rich society', i'm talking about those privaleged upper party members, not the USSR as a whole.

If youre a young single guy with no mouths other than youre own to feed, then sure, why not. But picture yourself with a wife and little Comrades to feed. Chances are you wouldnt be able to look them in the face and tell them, "Im going away for a few years, and you guys and mom are going to have to hang tough, because I think its more important that I go to jail for speaking against the government, than staying here with you and providing for you"

I am a young guy with no kids though...

Well think about it, that wasnt such a bad gig. Cool uniforms, plenty of trips to the decadent West, a nice dacha out in the country with a resident mistress, being driven around Moscow in a big lumbering black limo festooned with flags..you could do alot worse Comrade

Still, Freedom please!

 

[Stylesjl]

I'll say a few more things about each hypothetical situation since a few still had questions

1) In the oppressed rich scenario you will usually only be locked up by the government if you speak out or oppose them or do something that could be interpreted that way.

2) Religous freedom will be allowed in the opressed society, only that it may be subject to state control if it interferes with their power and that public religous worship may get you into trouble. In other words if it is quiet and not done in public or in groups you'll be fine.

3) The poor and free society has no prospects of becoming richer (including you personally). This could be so for several reasons, like a trade embargo (don't ask how it started), poor infertile land, poorly educated population, recent war, crime problem, lack of natural resources, but either way its a well running democracy.

 

[CaptainF]

I'll say a few more things about each hypothetical situation since a few still had questions

1) In the oppressed rich scenario you will usually only be locked up by the government if you speak out or oppose them or do something that could be interpreted that way.

2) Religous freedom will be allowed in the opressed society, only that it may be subject to state control if it interferes with their power and that public religous worship may get you into trouble. In other words if it is quiet and not done in public or in groups you'll be fine.

3) The poor and free society has no prospects of becoming richer (including you personally). This could be so for several reasons, like a trade embargo (don't ask how it started), poor infertile land, poorly educated population, recent war, crime problem, lack of natural resources, but either way its a well running democracy.

In that case I would easily choose wealth. If worse comes to worse, I could use that wealth to get the hell out of whatever dictatorial hell hole i'm living in.

 

[Souron]

If I don't like something, then i speak out against it. I don't want to be a slave to the state, I value my freedom above all else.

And also the upper Soviet heirachy was a 'rich society', i'm talking about those privaleged upper party members, not the USSR as a whole.

Freedom to do what? Critisize bad leaders? Vote for a head of state that will give you nothing in return? What good is that? Unless you actually plan to serve on a political office, democracy is not going to help you.

But money is freedom. It can by you fun, it can buy you education, it can buy you comfort.

What good is the right to vote if you do not have the time to use it? Even if you did sacrifice a meal for election day, how would you know which canidate to vote for?

I am a young guy with no kids though...

What about your mother and father? are you going to help them as they get old? It's nice not having any dependants, but it does not always work out like that.

 

[King Flevance]

Nice updates Stylesjl. I would still pick poor and free.

BTW: You should make emmigration illegal by execution in the oppressive country. This would stop all these rich immigrants coming into our poor people's country.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I missed the part where this stopped being hypothetical.

For me, poor and free, completely. First off, I don't need to be rich, secondly, money has less value to me then freedom, especially if it meant I had to be paranoid and such. I would rather live a poor life with freedom and control then a rich life where I have no clue what my gvoernment will do to me, and I don't really have freedom.

 

[King Flevance]

Ptftftftfth!

 

[HannibalBarka]

I am a father of two kids, so if being poor means that I won't be able to feed them correctly, won't have enough money to make them see the doctor when needed, and provide them with a decent eduction, than hell, I don't need freedom, and I'd rather be wealthy

 

[nc-1701]

Rich and oppressed with that kind of many I could hire a private militia.

Regime change FTW!

 

[Dann]

I think it's a fair assumption that all those who voted poor and free have never experienced what true poverty tastes like....

 

[bhsup]

Live free or die! Choose freedom anyday, because there is always the chance that you may drag yourself out of your poor conditions through hard work and determination.

EDIT: Do not confuse freedom with anarchy, by the way. "Freedom" can still have reasonable moral, social, and legal restraints in place.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Live free or die! Choose freedom anyday, because there is always the chance that you may drag yourself out of your poor conditions through hard work and determination.

He is saying you can't "The poor and free society has no prospects of becoming richer (including you personally)."

 

[bhsup]

Well then I'd still choose poor and free, but that's just not a realistic situation. Much like theoretical communism, that premise can't withstand real world application.