|
Author
|
Topic: Equality vs Liberty
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 30 August 2005 03:48 PM
Could we have a third option, "Opportunity"?Seems to me it kind of splits the difference. If you have, say, the opportunity to go to University then taking that opportunity will go a long way towards equality. But if you choose not to, you've just enjoyed some liberty. Personally, I think people should have opportunities. If they choose to take them or choose to not, that's up to them.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dex
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6764
|
posted 30 August 2005 04:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Absolute equality means the absence of liberty (because the only way to accomplish it is through coercion). Absolute liberty means the absence of equality (because pure liberty would mean anarchy).Obviously, neither extreme would be good (in my opinion). But, that being said, which side of the spectrum do most babblers lean towards and why?
Honestly, I don't think a tradeoff needs to be made at all. From true liberty flows equality. By turning slaves free, getting rid of Jim Crow laws, instituting things like the Voting Rights Act, allowing women to vote, allowing gays to marry, we are at once making them more free and more equal to the 'most free' in society.The real tradeoff, in my opinion, is between maximizing personal liberty and protecting the liberty of others. To the extent that people are able to infringe on others' rights-- particularly, but not exclusively, if this infringement affects only a specific segment of the population-- both equality and average individual liberties are undermined. [ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]
From: ON then AB then IN now KS. Oh, how I long for a more lefterly location. | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
