Which One Do We Pursue?
Right now in the US, during this tumultuous post-election year, there is a real existential debate that has risen the forefront of identity politics – What are we working towards?
We saw the surge of support for candidate Bernie Sanders for more socialist-leaning policies such as free education and universal healthcare that has experienced relative success in other countries. We witnessed an equal and conflicting momentum of individual rights on the conservative front, frustrated by the negligence of suffering individuals for the preference of suffering groups of people. Identity-politics are at an all-time high and the terms “privilege,” “equality,” and “oppression” are flung around on a daily basis as a new weapon of the left. We've reached the peak of an ideological warfare where each of us have to choose where we fit on the political spectrum and hold on for dear life.
And for me, observing all of this from a point of view that was historically progressive, I'm trying to make sense of it all. Since growing up and attending schools in the most diverse areas of the country, of course I have always been in support of equality. Even when Asian Americans were disproportionately and negatively affected by Affirmative Action policies, I tried to persuade myself that these measures were for the future and greater good. “Of course student bodies should proportionally affect ethnic ratios.” Even when feminist groups touted unequality statistics that didn't really make sense to me, I kept my head (relatively) down and conceded that “maybe I simply don't understand since I didn't experience life in the same shoes.” Since my time in college, when liberalism was at its height during the inauguration of former President Barack Obama, I've seen the democratic party lean deeper into the campaign of “equality” with the rising LGBT and feminism movements. During this time, I was mostly complicit and assumed that I was in this domain as well.
But a lot has changed since then and I've been rethinking my assumptions of politics, identity, and where I stand in opinion concerning the future of the US. I've been closely following what has been happening with this administration, with the liberal-leaning media, with the rise of social groups including SJWs and Antifa, and the overall cultural climate in which we live today. And I do firmly believe that we are at a critical intersection of whether we pursue Liberty or Equality.
Source: Mises Institute
Not a Zero-Sum Game but Almost
To clarify for the this post, liberty is the state of being free from oppressions and able to pursue what you want as long as that does not in turn oppress another. Equality is just that- the state of being equal in regards to certain conditions and qualities. The two terms are not completely distinct and do overlap in a number of ways, but it is the way they have manifested in recent political discussion and actual society that really distinguishes them.
Liberty resonates even in cliches – 'The best man/woman for the job' and 'the early bird gets the worm', clearly narrating any individual is able to success with enough elbow grease and grit. Liberty means eliminating racial and ethnic barriers, diminishing gender roles/stereotypes, and providing equal baseline opportunity to everyone. Put simply, no opportunity is barred as long as you are willing to open and walk through those doors.
“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These are the innate, inalienable rights of all Americans.
Now we have “equality.” Equality, much more so than liberty, can be measured and controlled at many more stages and access points during that pursuit of happineess. Liberty connotes an equality in access to opportunity but nothing else. In today's socail discourse, the concept of equality umbrellas much more than that access – it demands equality in socioeconomic foundation, equality in interpersonal treatment, and equality in outcome amongst many others.
Equality suffers from one crippling inherent contradiction as opposed to liberty's straightforwardness of being “free.” Equality for some means inequality for others. Equality requires enforcement at some level and that entails someone or some group maintaining some kind of balance. Even the most neutral-sounding attempts at 'equality' will at least at some moments prevent an individual's full liberty.
I'll bring up and briefly outline two very common scenarios to illustrate the internal struggles.
First, we have the issue of racial proportionality in academic and professional settings in relation to population distribution. If America has X% of black and X% latino/South American residents, schools should have an equal proportion. This is at the core of Affirmative Action, America's purposefully discriminatory tool (I don't mean that 100% sarcastically) aimed to support diversity. That main metric of equality put forward is that an institutional percentage must reflect the population's percentage.
The debate around affirmative action has existed since its inception decades ago. Supporting racial proportionality may seem like a simple and worthy strategy but it does impede on what others may deem as fair acceptance. For example, it constructs a hierarchy where racial diversity is more important than experiential diversity. Academic performance and potential are minimized in preference for race as well. This ends up harming other subsets of society for over-performing beyond their racial proportion. As you can imagine, everything becomes a tug-o-war of interpretations concerning equality.
Second, we the issue of the median of full-time women's pay being equal to the median of full-time men's pay, particularly in the UK and America. As former president Barack Obama once famously stated, “Women make 77 cents on the dollar.” That statement looks purely at the (lack of) equality in outcome and does not take into account the striking variables of professional choice, work patterns, family-oriented decisions, and so many more that constitute the difference. One of the greatest deciding factors is that men are overwhelmingly more likely to take on dangerous careers – military, construction, public service, transportation, etc. - and sacrifice personal lives for their careers, creating a huge rift between full-time pay gaps.
As a result, any attempted enforcement at creating equality of outcome would undoubtedly curtail the liberty of those not on the receiving end. Candidates would be dismissed based on their sex due to smaller quotas and overall stigmas would be created against the dominant group. Equality is always subjective and requires so much effort to concurrently sustain universal liberty.
Source: TED
There is a Difference
With either domain, we have to ask innumerable questions to make sure liberty is actually liberty and equality is actually equality. In many ways, liberty is somewhat easier to determine as it does not have to weigh the personal and sub-communal factors of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, lifestyle, and culture. It is freedom from a baseline. When we integrate some idea of “equality” and try to engineer a means to reach that artificial balance, we must be much more vigilant in understanding why and for whom this equality actually benefits.
To clarify, I'm not dismissing that actions and dispositions of racism, sexism, bigotry, superiority, ableism, etc. create situational barriers in living a liberated life. This is probably a topic worthy of several if not dozens of other posts. The aim of this post is to start understanding that liberty and equality are not coupled and nor should they be.
So what do you think? Are there moments you've seen where liberty comes at a cost of equality and vice versa? As always, let's get this conversation in the comments below.
Great work fraind....
Alluring work you have here.
good writen.nice post i like this post
wow I'm wondering @shaun007
Great Article.
Although I am British I do take a keen look on all politics across the globe.
I don't think we can have equality whilst we still call Obama "The First Black President" Why make a point of listing a persons race if it of no importance and we are equal?
Why have the Asian Power List? Shouldn't it just be The Power List?
The problem then lies if we don't appreciate and shout out the differences that define us then aspects such as oppression of a certain race or religion because we have no markers on things such as housing for particular groups. How would be know if we are being biased?
As far as Liberty is concerned I think we are free in some regards however far from in others. How can we be liberated beings, yet stopped from entering countries due to boarders? So we are free as-long as stay within the confines of our homes and a few places we are deemed "Acceptable Citizens".
I don't think we can have true liberty or equality until as a Whole World we stop looking at other humans as sub human and that we are equal.
Over here in the UK and across the world, there seems to be a mentality that because we had an empire and built what we have on it, that the peoples who were left destitute by our success are not welcome to share it.
In all the Wars and conquering of other countries we have had over the years, we never expected that technology such as the internet and phones would allow them to see what we created from their loss.
I always feel like we are sat here in our Ivory Towers, with all the peoples whose countries aren't as well developed for various reasons including the British Empire etc and think why can't we have that? Why are those people entitled to a nice house, a warm bed and supermarkets while we struggle.
Simple Answer- One Race- The Human Race.
Haha @pumpkinsandcats (great name btw) there is so much to unpack in this and thank you for the comment. Overall I do agree that racial distinction is part of the problem in discourse. On one hand, it can be a very empowering tool, for example black communities to champion a black president. On the other, it definitely outlines a distinction that disenfranchises others and creates friction. Oddly, few people ever talk about how Obama is actually 'half black'.
@hansikhouse Thank You = D I couldn't agree more. It's a great article with some real thought provoking aspects. Thoroughly enjoyed reading and replying!
Very good post.
and very useful.
I have Resteem and Upvote your article for progress and forward together.
Steemit
.,
.
The only equality that must exist in a free society is that of opportunities, without discrimination of any kind other than capacity.
The current problem is that many people, like you say, seek equality in the results, that is socialism, and as such slavery.
I fully agree with everything you said so I leave my upvote, resteemed, and I follow you, greetings.
I wouldn't agree that socialistic elements (social-security, medicare, free public resources) necessarily mean 'slavery' but I fully agree on equality of opportunities. Many demographics, races, regions, etc. suffer from poorer conditions and may have to work harder to achieve those opportunities but they should be there.
Yes, but free health, public education and all that welfare state is not really free, or do doctors work there for free? no, someone must pay for it, and those are the people who ride the full weight of the welfare state, they are practically the slaves of the 21st century.
Equality of Outcome can only be achieved through force. Human nature would need to be altered.
Liberty does come at a cost of equality of outcome. But that is liberty. Self responsibility and no power to force others to do as you wish.
I wish many more would advocate self-responsibility and not just blind-embrace. Thank you for the powerful comment @chieppa1!
Excellent article, revealing a mind that can change as new information is made available. A sadly lacking quality in our times...
Troublesome times indeed. Thank you for reading!
It would have been good if you spoke to equity. And while you claim that the underlying factors might require more than this post is able to deliver, it is hard to address such issues without looking, in depth at the underlying factors.
I will give you two scenarios:
How would one fit a child from Flint, Michigan, who was poisoned by the government into this? This child would have developed cognitive problems and would not be able to compete on the same level as someone in a more affluent neighborhood. Please don't see this as cherry picking because many inner city schools and schools in poor areas are underfunded and unhygenic. You hear about kids having to study in moldy, musty classrooms. Some of them also have asbestos. Again, we hear about Flint, but Flint is one among many.
One of my friend's child was placed with remedial children because his parents were immigrants and the teachers thought the child was slower even though he passed all the tests with flying colors. Had the mother not investigated, her child would have been at a disadvantage because his peers would have been in more advanced classes.
The mother investigated and found that her child was not the exception. What is your opinion on this in the context of what you wrote?
Thanks for the comment and discussion topics @nicholas83. Are you referring to equity of individuals in access of a resource?
I don't think your examples are cherry-picking at all and speak to some real systemic issues in our nation. Flint is a perfect example that I believe the nation/media has not given enough attention to precisely because of our zeitgeist focus on "equality." Poor white neighborhoods have trouble fitting into these easily-identifiable tropes.
The immigrant scenario, irregardless of what nationality of immigrant, is another aspect that is not easily categorical to identity politics and disrupts exactly who should have dismantled equality (asian-americans for example) or have their "equality" boosted (i.e. african or middle-eastern americans).
In both cases the baseline of liberty should be raised as those conditions greatly hamper a pursuit of happiness, especially in the case of non-consenting children.
As famously said, those who prefer equality over liverty, get none.
Nicely written. I like how you showed that your awareness of the difference between equality and liberty grew as you gained more life experience. It shows you are paying attention to what's going on and not blindly following any one philosophy.
Wow.. A lot of thought provoking perspectives! I've never thought of the what the extremes of political spectrum may emphasize in terms of fundamental principles. In an ideal world, we should have both.. but in the real world, I can see how it can seem like we have to choose.
There was an article I read once that compared politics to American football. The game is played on a 120 yard long field, and is divided out equally from the center towards the ends. The article postulated that, though everyday citizens can hold extreme beliefs, those in office should play between the 40 yard lines.. meaning, they should stay within the bounds of moderation. Our leaders represent everyone irrespective of their own party. So in holding an office, esp the presidency, even if you fall to the right or left of center, shouldn't go too far extreme in order to be respectful to, and fairly represent, the entire constituency. The previous administration stepped out of these bounds and shifted national policy towards the extreme left. In response we saw the rise of the Tea Party on the far right. So current highly partisan politics may be the result of ripple effects from these exteme recent movements. Like natural laws tends to, our political climate is trying to regain equilibrium.
But I think there is a deeper problem, one that comes from knowing what to do with what we have. All government can do is ensure freedom. Once we have it, we as individuals have to know how to balance it with grace, respect, dignity, duty, honor, etc. In addition to having the courage to fight for what we believe in, we also have to have the wisdom to know when to let things be. Just because I have the freedom to say what I want, it doesn't mean I should. If I believe strongly about something, I have the freedom to address it, but how I address it is up to me. I know this sounds simplistic, but it really feels like a lot of people in the media have forgotten this. There is probably a better way to approach this, but since my response is already long, perhaps I will discuss it at another time. Thank you for this post, it was really fun to think about! :)
Wow, you have really evolved if you in fact come from a progressive perspective. You present a good side for both equality and Liberty, I think it obvious which way I may lean when you see my name.
I am not sure you can ensure equality in any manner of cause as it is up to the individual recipient of any gifting of outcome to use said gift in reasonable and responsible manner. In the end you cannot have a Constitution that professes to assure Liberty without sacrificing equality.
In the end it is up the individual as to what their outcome is going to be.
No one can buy for you or point you in a direction of happiness if you are not willing to perform the certain task that go with getting to desired outcome.
Great read though. Wish I had found it when it was a fresh steemit post.
No upvote can help pad your wallet now but that being said I am certainly giving this post an upvote.
Just my two STEEMS Worth.
Vote LibertyRanger as your Witness or Set Proxy.
Go to https://steemit.com/~witnesses URL address then scroll down to Vote.
Thank you,
@LibertyRanger