Money equals Freedom and Happiness

There is the common saying that money can't buy happiness.  Well maybe it can help bring happiness.  In our modern society, the freest individuals are those who are monetarily successful.  They have a  disproportional share in how our government and country should be run.  People on lower economic rungs have to follow their laws without the same fair share in shaping them.  So money can buy freedom, and part of obtaining freedom is being able to meet your needs.  Since all basic human needs can be meet with money, money is a need.  Freedom comes from money in our society and that means that some people can find their own happiness while others are too poor to obtain their needs and therefore earn a degree of freedom to do what they please.

Self, Society, and Freedom

Although humans are social animals, perhaps the greatest limitation to each individual’s freedom is each other.  We are constantly thinking about how other people will judge us if wear a certain pair of clothes or perform some action out in public.  We’re also affected by peer pressure.  People often give into the will of others over their own at the constant urging of other people.  In many respects, ‘hell is other people.’  Even when we are alone, our minds still think about others would think if they ever found out.  Much of who we are and what we think are defined by society.  Would we still have racism and sexism if we grew up in a vacuum?  While we are constantly afraid of what others think of us, we require social interaction, else we would go crazy.  Solitude would became its only hell soon enough.  

Q&A: How does Existentialism and Marxism coexist with each other?

The two philosophies of Existentialism and Marxism seem to contradict with each other.  One places an importance on the individual and his/her freedom and the other stresses the importance of the group and their place in history.  While it appears that that two cannot coexist, there is actually a overlap of the two philosophies.  Existentialism wants the most freedom for the individual, and Marxism wants the most freedom for the masses.  In a Marxist society, both goals could be met.  A person's private freedom does not have to infringe upon the private freedoms of others.
Of course, young Sartre's radical freedom is at odds with Marxism, as is other existentialist philosophers. Some of the ideas behind existentialism like the idea that life has no meaning can push people to focus on this life and its ills and not to reach for an afterlife that has no empirical evidence for.  Authenticity is a common theme in both philosophies; Marxism wants people to work as how they want to and existentialists want people to be true to themselves.  Both ideologies have some common ground and both could easily mix if they were willing to flex a bit for the other.

Q&A: What are the limits of human freedom?

How far does human freedom go?  Is it as radical as Sartre claims it is?  I would say we are not so free, yet I agree with many of Sartre's points, even those from his earlier years.  Independent of socioeconomic conditions, humans are as free as their physical bodies let them.  Something such as alcoholism is a choice; the disease started with the victim, in full awareness, choosing to take the first drink and then every subsequent drink, though with less judgement and self-awareness.  Between periods of drinking, the victim will be sober and can make more rational decisions, though our endorphins might make the alcoholic feel inclined to drink again.  I also believe that humans could change themselves so that they wouldn't feel sad at a person's death, but I think that would make us emotionally dead, and that is not a life worth living.
In the real world, people are limited by their needs.  To acquire those needs, they need money, but with a lopsided spread of money, some people can not meet or fulfill their needs.  So people must focus themselves to making ends meet, and not to being his/her authentic self.  Some people are freer to pursue what they want than others.  Of course someone can decide that s/he is no longer going to work and is instead going to practice philosophy, art, and literature, but it's possible that s/he could die if they have no means to support themselves as s/he pursues his/her craft.