[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Ron Kulp]

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.