It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rank Your Priorites: Liberty or Equality?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
A few conservative intellectuals have started discussing which of these two concepts is more important; liberty or equality. Not that one is important and the other is not, but which has priority. It's blatantly obvious to me that liberty has priority, because without liberty, equality means nothing. In the Soviet Union there was equality: Everyone was poor. In the last fifty to sixty years there has been a shift in the attitudes of many in the US. Taking liberty for granted, they campaign for "equality". But to these people, equality is an ill-defined term. I would support equality of opportunity to the death, while I would gladly die to prevent a society that enforces equality of results. I would rather see the entire culture destroyed than have that happen.

So which is it? A person may theorize that conservatives gather in the Liberty camp while liberals gather in the equality camp, but I don't think it will be that clearly defined. I've talked to a lot of LBJ/Jimmy Carter/Obama liberals lately who are getting very nervous about federal intrusion into our lives. They are beginning to see the downside of governmental servicing of the "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme" population.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Liberty above all else.

Equality as the state or the social engineers would define it is a myth.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Technically, liberty IS equality.

Liberty means that each of us can create any wealth if we so desire, by creating our own business. This also helps create jobs for other people whom are no so industrious but desire to stay active and participate in the economy.

Liberty means that the law recognizes us all EQUALLY, no matter what position or title in life you have. From the bum on the street and outcasts, to the mayor governor and federal servants. They are all EQUAL under the law, when Liberty and Justice are upheld.

SO called "communism/socialism of wealth/economics" by force is not economic equality, it is economic fascism because in reality, a dictator always takes charge of such systems/mechanisms. History proves this.

Regulating every aspect of commerce is not equality, it is playing favorites because someone always eventually benefits from such regulations. And in our case, those regulations benefit the large corporations, while being a massive detriment to the formation of new businesses. This is called putting a stranglehold on the legislative system to control the economic system in order to form and protect a Monopoly. Which is technically illegal in many ways.

Having a truly free market with Wise and Sensible regulations (very few rather than many), is much closer to a world of Liberty and True Equality.

You know that in the ghetto and inner city streets, that kids in the poorest rungs of life are the MOST INSPIRED by "Capitalist spirit". When taught how they can create their own enterprise and make their OWN money, they are actually Interested and care. They want to TRY it!

Why???

Because kids in the ghetto feel left out. They don't feel equal to anyone. They are outcasts.

When you show them their capability to create new wealth and make their own destiny economically, they become determined and focused and it is very inspiring. They actually do make new businesses and lead successful lives, many of them do.

Free Market = Equality
Controlled Market = Totalitarianism

Liberty IS Equality.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Office 4256
A few conservative intellectuals have started discussing which of these two concepts is more important; liberty or equality.


If they want the short reply here.

That is like asking me "Which is more important? Using the bathroom or using the restroom?"

Both.

I use them both at the same time.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I don't know why there cannot be both.

And I couldn't answer the question unless I had a clear definition of each. Both mean different things in different contexts and to different people.

[edit on 4/1/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
A great Italian philosopher whose name is too controversial to credit here once noted that is it a scientific truism that "any two things that are equal are, in fact, the same thing." Unless you and your neighbor are the same person you cannot be equal and any attempts to artificially engineer your equality will only meet with frustration.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Usually liberty is equality where it counts the most.

Equality is a poor excuse to take away liberty.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by atreides
A great Italian philosopher whose name is too controversial to credit here once noted that is it a scientific truism that "any two things that are equal are, in fact, the same thing." Unless you and your neighbor are the same person you cannot be equal and any attempts to artificially engineer your equality will only meet with frustration.


It is all relative though I suppose.

You and your neighbor are both humans, thus equal in that respect.

But no, you are not equal in the respect that one of you is in a wheelchair, while the other is a star athlete. Or when 1 is in a coma, and the other is a rocket scientist.

There is no true physical equality of the body specimen. Each body is composed slightly differently.

But all bodies are homo sapiens sapiens. This is another fact.

So equality is purely relative to the context. As BH so wisely pointed out.

I suppose Liberty has it's own relative perceptions that may seem contradictory on the surface but in reality are total legit solid differences when viewed up much closer.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
liberty.... before anything else that is in this nation



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by atreides
A great Italian philosopher whose name is too controversial to credit here once noted that is it a scientific truism that "any two things that are equal are, in fact, the same thing." Unless you and your neighbor are the same person you cannot be equal and any attempts to artificially engineer your equality will only meet with frustration.


It is all relative though I suppose.

You and your neighbor are both humans, thus equal in that respect.

But no, you are not equal in the respect that one of you is in a wheelchair, while the other is a star athlete. Or when 1 is in a coma, and the other is a rocket scientist.

There is no true physical equality of the body specimen. Each body is composed slightly differently.

But all bodies are homo sapiens sapiens. This is another fact.

So equality is purely relative to the context. As BH so wisely pointed out.

I suppose Liberty has it's own relative perceptions that may seem contradictory on the surface but in reality are total legit solid differences when viewed up much closer.


It is not at all relative and is a fairly simple question.

Are you your neighbor?

If you have normal access to the sense of sight, you should be able to establish - for yourself - that you and your neighbor are in fact separate objects. If you actually are your neighbor then an anomolous quantum event has occurred on your block and you should contact the Smithsonian immediately.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Give me liberty. I could care less whether or not I'm equal to some rich useless idiot or to an unfortunate homeless person. Without liberty we have nothing.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by atreides

It is not at all relative and is a fairly simple question.


I will reword in hopes you see what I am trying to say.

If "Liberty" exists "Politically" or "Economically", than this by definition CREATES "Equality" among all citizens under the law, with equal protections from violations of their "Liberties".

Like I said, I use the bathroom AND the restroom at the SAME time.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
By trying to separate Liberty and Equality, in this context, what is actually happening is a revert to Totalitarianism, not Liberty.

See, when you consider yourself better than your neighbor, and justify harming them and their liberties so that you personally can have "liberty" is not liberty at all, it is Fascism or Totalitarianism or Authoritarianism etc etc.

The only way YOU can have liberty, is if EVERYONE ELSE has liberty too. THUS making everyone equal in the eyes of law.

By definition in this context, Liberty IS Equality.

And separating the two terms in some fit of "Im a Republican conservative" is actually a clever trick to keep you feeding the Corporate machine that is destroying this nation and the Constitution.

In reality, you must consider your neighbor as your brother, your full fledged equal politically.

By respecting your neighbor's Liberty and thus their Equality to yourself, you are promoting True Liberty.

When one person has no liberty, no one has liberty.
When one person is not equal, no one has equality.

They are deeply rooted in each other.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by atreides

It is not at all relative and is a fairly simple question.


I will reword in hopes you see what I am trying to say.

If "Liberty" exists "Politically" or "Economically", than this by definition CREATES "Equality" among all citizens under the law, with equal protections from violations of their "Liberties".

Like I said, I use the bathroom AND the restroom at the SAME time.


This has nothing to do with anything at all.

I'm talking about an etymological imperative that rejects equality. Two things that are equal are the same thing. If many things are equal then many things are, in fact, not many things but one thing. The simplest of powers of observation should allow you to conclude that more than 1 human being exists.

The concept of equality is scientifically irreconcilable when addressing multiple, independent objects existing in autonomous units of space-time. Reframing the definition of "equality" to fit a social science viewpoint results in a decaying mechanism in civil and political organization.

Equality does not, and cannot, exist. This is not really open for debate anymore than the law of gravity is open for debate. It is a scientific truism.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Office 4256
 


I think you raise a hugely important question. But before I answer I have a question of my own. Is there equality when governments(including members of the police force) are governed by a different set of laws than the people. Is there equality when:

- Assulting a police officer carries a more harsh maximum pentalty than assulting a frail old lady, or anyone else for that matter?
- Committing a crime because of hate carries a more harsh pentalty than commiting the same crime because of greed or sadism?
- Government may take your property without your permission. But you may not take government property without their permission?

I find that many government efforts to force equality do the exact opposite. For example, the whole point of the US "affirmative action" program is to force in "equal opportunity" based on skin color in one group at the expense of giving equal opportunity based on job performance. So on the whole you have sacrificed liberty without increasing fairness/equality.

I think ultimately, equality and liberty are very complimentary and go hand in hand. I suppose if I were forced to chose between being equally enslaved as everyone else in a state of just scraping by economically, or being free as a bird in a state of poverty, I'd chose free as a bird in a state of poverty while the elite live in luxury. To me there are more important things than money... like being able to live my life the way I want so long as I'm not harming others. Fortunately, liberty seems to eliminate poverty, so in real life we get to kill two birds with one stone.

Look at the US. They were economically very free and prospered. Now their liberties have decayed and poverty is starting to rampage out of control.

Liberty is the path to equality.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by civilchallenger]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I don't have a problem with equality, but I'm not going to stand still and wait for everyone else to catch up to me, ha.

It's crazy, but some people believe equality means taking the top down to the lowest common denominator.

If you want equality, get your ass in gear and catch up to everyone else!!!

Gee, seems like coveting is vogue these days. "Whaaaaa, I wan't a lollypop too, mommy, whaaaaa. Make somebody give me one, take someone else's lollypop away and give it to me." Sure, here, have mine, but beware, I wiped it on my ass first, ha. Still want it?

Like another poster said here, I do not give a damn about "stuff" equality either. In my book, equality merely means equal rights .. equal rights to succeed or fail, all based upon my own worth and merit and effort. Don't make life simple for me or I could turn into a blood sucking leech too, ha.

I'm not a coveter, and it wouldn't be right for me to demand you make me as equally well off as you, that's just wrong and immoral. I have no right to demand anything of anyone with this one exception: Leave me the hell alone!!!

Give me liberty.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Divinorumus]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I agree wholeheartedly that liberty is equality, for me you cannot have one without the other.

Truly equal people must be free, even being a Democratic Socialist I believe that everyone should have the freedom to enterprise. What separates me from Communists is that I do still believe that private industry, citizen-owned and operated still gives the best results to progress through innovation. This is one of the many reasons why Communist nations, most specifically the Soviet Union, fail.

Government cannot dictate innovation, they can request it, but they cannot demand it from their citizens. Also Communism creates a dual-class environment for citizens, not intentionally but in practice. The party bosses and officials will always have dominion over the workers, this is not liberty because the connected still have power over the masses.

The republic, and other forms of representative democracy are the best system yet devised for both liberty and equality. One citizen, one vote is the way of it. Those citizens must also be able to sell their labor in a free and equal marketplace. The government must be able to compete for labor with private industry but must never be able to circumvent the market by offering a better class of citizen for their own workers.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't know why there cannot be both.

And I couldn't answer the question unless I had a clear definition of each. Both mean different things in different contexts and to different people.

[edit on 4/1/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]


Let me rephrase the question (partially): Which is most important? In the OP I tried to state that both were necessary for a free society. Liberty (for all) will achieve equality, whereas equality will not necessarily achieve liberty, as numerous examples show.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Liberty of course. Liberty provides for equal opportunity. Equality cannot be enforced like the communist believe. People can only be given equal opportunity it is up to them what they achieve and their chances of achievement are greatest when Liberty and freedom are maximized.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Office 4256
 


As I've said, equality is non-existent.

You might as well ask: "What is more important, horses or unicorns?"

Horses are more important because unicorns don't exist.

Liberty is more important because equality doesn't exist; it's a middle-school social studies theory.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join