It's all about spheres of authority and reciprocal respect. Friction happens between people. Disputes arise. But it is double standards which escalate conflict.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's all about spheres of authority and reciprocal respect. Friction happens between people. Disputes arise. But it is double standards which escalate conflict.
1/ Liberty in raw form(unrestrained liberty) is chaotic.
Equality in raw form is also chaotic.
2/ That is why Liberty should be qualified by Equality and Equality is further qualified by fraternity to achive a just order and just society where freedom one harmonizes with the freedom of all.
Let me explain it......
Equality how? Equal individual responsibility based on life, liberty, and property? Sure. But people are fundamentally unique and unequal in skill, virtue, etc.
They may have different skillset but they must be entitled to equal liberty, that is why i said liberty should be qualified by equality.
3/ Human's state of nature is inherently chaotic(Hobbessian state of nature), so absolute liberty of one could become a sentence of slavery for another
So in order to make liberty an universal principle it should be qualified by equality.
What if Hobbes, or your interpretation of Hobbes, is wrong? You still haven't demonstrated how equality and liberty interact.
1/ If liberty is interepreted as absence of restraint then it will assume unbriddled liberty, okay let me ask u one question if u say it is ur libery to do wahtever u want, to d extent u want to make me slave will that be called liberty? NO
But that is not, and has never been, my definition of liberty. Meanwhile, you asserted this all somehow leads to needing the State, a territorial monopoly in violence.
U belive it or not...but state is a necessary evil.
The State is indeed evil, but evil is never necessary. Society functions in spite of, rather than because of, the State and the violence people commit in its name. Politics as we know it is the antithesis of consent.
2/ That means one's liberty should not interfere someone else's equal liberty....which means for liberty to become universal principle it must be qualified...and qualified by equal liberty to ensure a just order in the society.
Liberty constrained by spheres of authority. The right to exclude. Reciprocal recognition of the right of others to the same. None of this contradicts me or necessarily supports you.
4/ Similalry if equality of interepreted as absense of discrimination, economically it could result in concentration of welath which could become instrument of power, so that is corrected by invoking welfate state-qualified with fraternity.
"Discrimination" fundamentally means "choice." It may be fueled by virtuous or vicious motives. Regardless, it is not the root cause of concentrated wealth or systemic inequality. You conflate wealth and power to justify a coercive monopoly in a massive non sequitur. None of your posts really support any prior claims you made.
This is just an assertion, and your subsequent statements do not support it.