Posted on 07/28/2010 7:47:58 AM PDT by Zanton
Individual liberty vs. coercive social equality -- that's pretty much the uber-debate and story of the past 220 years! Freedom for the individual to economically and socially rise or fall, based on justice and the merits -- or at least based on the fairly-reliable and relatively-fair opinions of the free market and free society -- is the great political and social goal of all time. Forced equality of the individual with his fellows -- based on some sort of allegedly-wise-and-virtuous tyrannical and coercive government social mechanism -- is the all-time great evil.
It's not that. The Founders were for social equality as well. The question is, equality of people in terms of what?
The Founders answer this question by saying, "In terms of opportunities;" and the socialists, "In terms of outcomes."
The standard for Equality was equality before the law. The idea was that Government could only treat citizens equally and not show preference. That all went down the rabbit hole during the Tammany Hall Irish experience. It has been repeated by every identifiable and sufficiently large minority since. The only defense an individual had against it was to move. Unfortunately, the modern Tammany’s now want their form of government (see Chicago) to rule all of America, thus canceling out the individuals only counter move. Logically, when individuals become cornered the outcome of fight is all that is left. Should proven interesting.
"Individual liberty vs. coercive social equality "
It's not that. The Founders were for social equality as well. The question is, equality of people in terms of what?
The Founders answer this question by saying, "In terms of opportunities;" and the socialists, "In terms of outcomes."
I don't think the elitist and aristocratic Founding Fathers favored social equality at all. They only wanted political equality.
Too many on the left believe fairness and equality are the same.
They are not.
The standard for Equality was equality before the law. The idea was that Government could only treat citizens equally and not show preference. That all went down the rabbit hole during the Tammany Hall Irish experience. It has been repeated by every identifiable and sufficiently large minority since. The only defense an individual had against it was to move. Unfortunately, the modern Tammany’s now want their form of government (see Chicago) to rule all of America, thus canceling out the individuals only counter move. Logically, when individuals become cornered the outcome of fight is all that is left. Should proven interesting.
I don't know about much the Tammany Hall phenomenon. It seems like a manifestation of union tyranny with resultant mafia crime and then additional gov't tyranny. The historical pivot point for (social) Equality to defeat (personal) Liberty was the French Revolution in around 1791 and especially by 1793.
Here’s a pretty cool Thomas Nast cartoon of the Tammany Hall tiger eating Liberty!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nast-Tammany.jpg
They were aristocratic indeed, but I don't perceive them as being elitist. People throw this word around with incredible ease these days.
"...favored social equality at all. They only wanted political equality"
I meant "social equality" as a term. Political institutions are but one kind of social institutions, and political behavior is but one kind of social behavior.
The main point was that you drown very quickly when speaking in incomplete sentences. Words such as "liberty and "equality" are meaningless in themselves. One should be speaking of equality in terms of a particular parameter.
That is particularly easy to see in the case of physical parameters: you and I may be equal in terms of height and unequal in terms of weight.
Likewise, "social equality" requires further qualification. You apparently meant in terms of "status" or some such thing. It does not really matter: without further qualifications, the statement is ill formed.
C'est la vie!
Words "fair" and "equitable" have deep roots, including those in the old English law. These notions arose well before the term Progressive appeared.
I am glad to see also that "just" is so clear and clean for you. We should abandon the courts, then: they spend an enormous amount of resources on determining what is just. I think it is much more efficient just to ask you instead.
Damn straight! ;-)
Yes, we probably agree on substance, but it is hard to tell because of unclear communications and somewhat cavalier use of the terms.
The point was, and you are welcome to disagree, that a statement
" The key point is (social) "equality" has been a disastrous political and social ideal for 220 years now"
is neither correct nor incorrect: it is ill formed. One cannot assess the truthfulness of premises and validity of implications because the terms are ill defined.
The point was, and you are welcome to disagree, that a statement
" The key point is (social) "equality" has been a disastrous political and social ideal for 220 years now."
is neither correct nor incorrect: it is ill formed. One cannot assess the truthfulness of premises and validity of implications because the terms are ill defined.
Yes, but who uses the terms "equality" and "social equality" so loosely and sloppily? Not me! Almost always it's explicit and implicit communists and socialists, along with many, many poor thinkers and loose, sloppy idealists. That's just my point!
For 220 years now people have been shouting "Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!" without defining their terms or knowing specifically what they're shouting about. Even Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence speaks with disastrous ambiguity about how "all men are created equal."
In my judgment, people are only metaphysically and existentially equal.
(Maybe also "in dignity" and "as moral agents" -- whatever these might mean. I've heard people say these last two a lot -- but have no idea what they mean.)
This is factually incorrect. Writers such as Proudhon, Marx, Lenin and Trotsky devoted a great deal of time and space on elucidating the content with which they endow those words. You and I think that they were wrong, but to say that they did not know "what they're shouting about" is factually incorrect. You and I must've lived in different worlds for the past 220 years.
Yes, but they're not really the problem. My point was the American and French Revolutionaries spent a lot of time enthusiastically advocating "equality" without understanding very much about the concept and ideal. Leading thinkers today do the same. This intellectual failure has devastated the planet for more than two centuries. People today need to shout for individual and personal Liberty -- not social and collective Equality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
