Freedom vs. Equality in the US

[dfr52]

I don't like compensating my writing style, but I'll try to "dumb it down" I guess.



I am not proposing absolute equality here.

I am saying many people seemingly embody the thought that the other extreme of absolute freedom is the ideal. But in their ideals, many forget that our society functions by limiting certain freedoms, and necessarily so. Further, under this ideal, people think any attempt at equality creates a threat to freedom. Which is far from the case.

As I said before, I see our society as made up of equality through difference - we are able to be different and pursue various things. But this is lined with the concept of "the Other" - people become so aware of difference that it becomes a threat to their individuality in their mind. It is a precarious situation where our society functions on people complementing one another - this requires a foundational sense of community, to know and allow that everyone has a different role in society. Some people cannot seem to balance the idea of maintaining a sort of social glue (i.e. given extent of equality) that facilitates a corresponding extent of freedom.

The social contract is what holds society togather. Too many freedoms can and will threaten this.

[themanishere]

The social contract is what holds society togather. Too many freedoms can and will threaten this.

Yeah, but at the same time the social contract is based on difference. The commonality is that we are all necessarily specialized. It is almost as though we only want to ensure the minimum aspects of whatever the social "glue" may be, in favor of individual freedom. But the social glue is what allows freedoms, so it is a contradictory view in my opinion.

[dfr52]

Yeah, but at the same time the social contract is based on difference. The commonality is that we are all necessarily specialized. It is almost as though we only want to ensure the minimum aspects of whatever the social "glue" may be, in favor of individual freedom. But the social glue is what allows freedoms, so it is a contradictory view in my opinion.

You are exactly right, but we live in a time where there is such a focus on the individual so the focus is on freedom even though it is the social contract that grants those freedoms. (sorry for the run on)lol

[daniel3417]

Very simply, it is infinitely easier to define freedom than it is equality. A governing body can much easier promote and defend freedom than it can equality because it's clear what freedom is.

Also, it is ingrained in our minds because that is exactly what our Government is supposed to do, "secure the blessings of liberty." If humanity was picked up and dropped off on a different planet, we would seek ways to better ourselves. This has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with freedom. Basically, I think to speak and act freely is innate and its side-effect is equality.

[themanishere]

There are negative side effects of freedom though. Obvious ones are crime, violence, etc. Our natural tendencies to act selfishly or in a self-determining way must be limited to a certain extent for society to function.

I think it a bit of an oxymoron to say the state "secures" freedom. Rather, it couples freedom with being unfree. Individuals have no control over the security of their freedom in society - that is one of the things the state does. If individuals took freedom into their own hands...well, that one is clear enough.

I guess inequality might boil down to some being more stratified in their unfreedom than others, through mechanisms such as law, norms and the force of the state.

[daniel3417]

There are negative side effects of freedom though. Obvious ones are crime, violence, etc. Our natural tendencies to act selfishly or in a self-determining way must be limited to a certain extent for society to function.

I think it a bit of an oxymoron to say the state "secures" freedom. Rather, it couples freedom with being unfree. Individuals have no control over the security of their freedom in society - that is one of the things the state does. If individuals took freedom into their own hands...well, that one is clear enough.

I guess inequality might boil down to some being more stratified in their unfreedom than others, through mechanisms such as law, norms and the force of the state.

I think those side effects have nothing to do with freedom. Enslaved people with no freedom act with perhaps more violence than free people do.

[themanishere]

I think those side effects have nothing to do with freedom.

With how restrictions are applied to freedom in our society, the effects do not. But I am speaking toward the thought many people have that what exists is the fullest extent of freedom (i.e. absolute freedom).

Are you saying there would be little violence/crime if people were completely free?

[daniel3417]

With how restrictions are applied to freedom in our society, the effects do not. But I am speaking toward the thought many people have that what exists is the fullest extent of freedom (i.e. absolute freedom).

Are you saying there would be little violence/crime if people were completely free?

No. I'm saying that in the boundaries of your argument of "Freedom v. Equality" neither has direct effects on violence. Societies were formed out of individuals thousands of years ago. They gave up said, "absolute freedom" for other things. In a free world, equality is just an understood segment.

[themanishere]

No. I'm saying that in the boundaries of your argument of "Freedom v. Equality" neither has direct effects on violence. Societies were formed out of individuals thousands of years ago. They gave up said, "absolute freedom" for other things. In a free world, equality is just an understood segment.

I am not saying either is directly constitutive of violence, but violence would be derivative of complete freedom.

I know people give up certain freedoms for society to function. But the perception today, especially in the US, is that freedoms should be less and less curtailed by state functions in general. I know the whole idea of "big government" spurs this mindset's opposition to control of freedom, and rightly so. However, because our lives have become so politicized, the individualistic perspective as such has translated to civic society, which only enables more capacity of the state (more big government) to control freedom because it further invades social/civil [and not political] issues. Essentially, the mindset aforementioned is thus counterproductive.

This is to say, not only is this perspective in opposition to big government and too much control (as it should be), but it has also created the notion of establishing a society where there are seemingly too many freedoms after breaking down the control. I believe this undermines the balance that, to function well enough, the state should restrict a given level of freedoms and guarantee others.

[daniel3417]

I can't follow you. I'm no dumbie, and I can't understand what you're saying. Reminds me of reading James Agee. More conversational, please.