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.

 

Liberty over Equality

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Liberty is the freedom from restraints on thought or on action. The ability to be free from slavery and captivity, it is the maximum of individual responsibility, dignity, and development. You are free to become a millionaire or live in poverty. That is your right so long as you do not infringe upon another person’s right to do the same. You are free to attend college for five PhD’s if you so choose but it also the freedom to never have attended school so long as it was your choice.

Equality is the belief that everyone should be equal. The right to live the same standard of living as everyone else, responsibility is deprived and human innovation is stifled. You are not allowed to be a millionaire because there are limits to your wealth. You are required to have that standard of living just the same as everyone else. You are free to attain however high or low the educational attainment you choose because those who have a higher education are required to be equal to those with lower education.

Liberty when the term is correctly understood means everyone is free to fail or succeed. Success is not guaranteed to you but rather you are free to be as successful as humanly possible. You do not have the right to infringe on anyone else’s freedoms either to help yourself or put/keep them down. You will not receive special privileges that others do not. Whatever you do in private that does not harm anyone else or infringe on another person’s liberty should be free without infringement from any governing authority.

Equality does not offer you what liberty does. Under equality you live in the same status as your neighbors with no hope of ever achieving anything higher than that. It requires that those who are more successful have their earned income taken away and given to those who have not rightfully earned that income. Under any other circumstances such things as that would be considered theft.

The Liberty/Equality debate goes beyond simply income though it extends to even social issues. On the issue of homosexual marriage there is a big difference between their interpretations of why it should be legal. The Liberty side argues it is not the decision of anyone else on who someone should be allowed to marry while the Equality side argues that marriage should be legal for everyone. While most would say “aren’t those basically the same?” the answer is no. One requires permission and the other says you are free to do that.

On the issue of civil rights those who espouse equality say that this should be enforced even in private areas such as restaurants, stores, buses, etc… While those who espouse liberty say that everyone is free to make these decisions whether we agree with those decisions or not, if a racist decides to bar African Americans from entering his establishment then they should not be allowed and if people do not like this establishment’s policies they are free to not go there or protest it.

The state however should not make any discrepancies between any people regardless of race, sex, class, education, or any other form of grouping people together. No person or group of persons is above the law.

A major part of having an economy based upon the principles of Liberty and Liassez-faire is to never have any favorability of anyone or anything. This means regardless of how large a business is they are no more economically important than the smallest business in the country. The whole ‘too big to fail’ debacle would be non-existent in that economic system. Free Trade policies would operate as they should with no international body or corporation having the ability to make any decisions regarding our trade policies.

Many people hold the belief that in order for a civilized society to function there should be policies in place to equal out the inequalities that are caused by liberty. The problem with this belief however is that it requires redistributions and the removal of freedom. Under a strict interpretation and enforcement of equality certain members of society would be punished and others subsidized by the law enforcing body.

I am sure many people may disagree with me on this issue and argue that it is necessary to enact laws to counter the huge inequalities in society but I do philosophically disagree with this belief. We are all free to ‘sink or swim’, we can either make it or we do not make it. That however is left solely up to ourselves, the individual.

So long as the system is free without any restraints on anyone from doing whatever they so choose, subsidizing particular groups of individuals or businesses, or having the well-to-do rigging the system against those who are working their way up, as long as those things do not occur society will benefit and we will reach the very maximum of civilized society.
edit on 12/2/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


No disagreement from me and I will keep this on my favorites. Excellently put together and a good flow of logic regarding the difference between the two: Liberty and Equality.

I will keep an eye on this thread as it could become an interesting debate of philosophical nature.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I am pleased to see that you enjoyed my personal interpretation of the differences between Liberty and Equality. Many people truly believe in equality over liberty or a combination of the two but they fail to recognize that equality counteracts liberty in every instance. The only acceptance of equality in society is in law.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Misoir, I am coming to love your brain.

Both freedom and equality are both so important, I have scarcely ever separated the two, and find it distasteful to try and do so. You have done it, and have done it very well.

Yes, while both are desirable and essential to our way of life, above all, we must have freedom.
Freedom to achieve, freedom to fail. Freedom to rise above, freedom to fall behind.

We can't live any other way.

I appreciate your thoughts, as ever.

BUT. The two are closely interwoven. With our freedoms, we might try to do anything. But without equality, we might not have the fair chance to succeed.


edit on 12/2/2010 by ladyinwaiting because: Just saying.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Misoir, you most eloquently stated my beliefs.

May I copy your post and frame it for the wall by my desk?

Your thoughts are like a breath of fresh air.

Thank you for sharing.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
As long as equality is not legislated and is only held by individuals and by the law than it is perfectly acceptable and in no ways does it violate our freedoms. I believe all people are equal and all people are free just as I believe that should be a commonly held belief.

As previously stated as long as equality is not legislated it is acceptable.

I suppose we agree on what I just stated?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dizziedame
 


Thank you for your very positive response.

You have my permission to copy the words from my OP and do as you want with them.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Equality in many ways has been legislated. I have no objections to this.

Why do you? Would you do away with the Amendment of Equal Rights for Women?
Among other minority groups?
edit on 12/2/2010 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


When there is liberty there is no need for legislating equality. I would however not repeal the equal rights amendments.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I'm very happy to hear you wouldl not be in favor of repealing the ERA.

To do so, would be a giant leap backwards for our civilization/society.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
In this context, which I agree with by definition and how each can compromise the other, I am left to wonder how anarchy would be any different from liberty at its purest.
Is government not for the people, by the people? Where do we begin to define the restrictions or mandates of any society as an obstruction to liberty, and how do these laws, if you will, propagate the idea of equality?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


The major single characteristic that separates Liberty from Anarchy is that Liberty still believes strongly in the necessity of a state. The preferred state by most who herald Liberty is a Constitutional Republic with very minimal abilities. Those elected act as Representatives and not as Delegates unlike in Democracy.

The government is needed to keep liberty strong. While it is seen as a negative entity it is still perceived as being necessary to protect the liberties of man. Sometime Anarchy and Liberty may sound alike in thought but in practice they are actually quite different.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I think you and I have different beliefs in what equality is. Theres this idea from many people, conservatives in particular, that equality equates to "force" or "affirmative action" when it is not necessarily so. To me equality is the recognition that all american citizens hold equal constitutional rights and nobody, not the states, not the federal government, has the right to strip that from you. Alot of people have purposefully spread disinformation about equality to make people fear things about it that just isn't necessarily connected. Equality is the recognision that we are all born equal, and our rights stay the same.

"Equality" to me has little to do with force.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
The argument I would inject is that by forcing the people of a society into accepting that everyone is equal does more damage to the society. It becomes an unintended consequence of such a practice. Our ability to freely choose what we wish (liberty) comes into direct conflict of forced equality.

Equality should only be recognized by Law. All sections of a society fall under the same Law. That is the premise that was partially adopted within this country. Actually, one could easily claim that such amendments as Women's Suffrage is a mute point but was needed to guide the culture of Liberty for All.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Only loosers call for "equality".



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by lucid eyes
 


Can you be more constructive or expound on your view point?

Why are they losers? What about equality and the call of such makes one a loser? Is there any point in which equality should be applied and not be called a loser for doing so?

I know this seems hard to respond to in your extent of your views that those who call for equality are "losers". Use critical thinking, a bit of intuition and some general thought to fill out your views.

This is my challenge to you Lucid Eyes
edit on 3-12-2010 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Liberty,when responsibly enjoyed,results in treating others as equals.

I guess I am just too responsible to make it in this world.

No place to go anyway........



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
One cannot be completely free when societal issues are involved,as in dealing with others.

The golden rule comes into play,and often,one must look past the morals of others which conflict with one's own.

If we refuse to let things go to a point,we are all less free as a result.

There are things wrong with this world,they always have been,and always will be.

He who cannot reason is a fool.
He who will not reason is a bigot.
He who dare not reason is a slave.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
Liberty,when responsibly enjoyed,results in treating others as equals.

I guess I am just too responsible to make it in this world.

No place to go anyway........


Express this more...

If liberty means that one has accepted responsiblity and enjoyed said responsibility, then comes equality, how does this happen?

What is it about living live as liberal as possible exhibits the characteristics of and equation of equality?

Is this to say that all those that live their lives in liberty treat others as equals?

Those questions are not meant to beret your point of view but rather dig further into your logic and knowledge. Please participate and engage in such a discussion.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
One cannot be completely free when societal issues are involved,as in dealing with others.


I can be completely free while dealing with that of the society. Think of it this way. You are on a team (of any sort, this which represents a society). That team is presented with a difficult situation and task. You are still free to decide the best course of action, are you not? Regardless if that action is accepted and implemented, each were able to freely choose and decide which action would be taken regardless of any other factors regarding the person themselves. This is the beauty of true liberty.

True liberty does not care if one is black and the other is white. Those that love liberty only care that others are not overstepping their boundaries in terms of another liberties and that they do not ask more or special treatment because of status or some other factor.



The golden rule comes into play,and often,one must look past the morals of others which conflict with one's own.

If we refuse to let things go to a point,we are all less free as a result.

There are things wrong with this world,they always have been,and always will be.

He who cannot reason is a fool.
He who will not reason is a bigot.
He who dare not reason is a slave.


Doesn't the Golden Rule only really apply to those that adhere and understand it? Can we apply the rule equally to those that never understood it nor prescribed to it?

My conflict is not with what you have said but the lack of substance. I believe you have some good ideas regarding the nature of Liberty and Equality that would serve better if you expand upon those ideas.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join