Liberty & Equality

Students: Get a full week of this at an IHS Summer Seminar - http://lrnlbty.co/AC0k2g

Two central values in American political life are liberty and equality. But are these two values in tension with one another? As philosophy Prof. James Otteson explains, it depends on how you define them. There is more than one way to think about liberty, and more than one way to think about equality. For example, when talking about equality, there are two different central conceptions. The first is formal equality, equality that comes from the form of institutions. An example of formal equality is equality before the law: all laws apply equally to everyone. Formal equality is a central tenet of the classical liberal tradition, and compatible with individual liberty. But a second conception of equality is material, or substantive, equality. Material equality holds that people ought to be equal in material respects, such as wealth or resources. Material equality poses real challenges to classical liberalism, and according to Otteson, also faces challenges of its own. Otteson outlines three major challenges to material equality: first, it may be impossible, both to measure, and to achieve. Second, material equality interferes with human diversity. Humans have different talents, different interests, and different values, which in a free society get reflected in a range of goods & activities that individuals acquire and pursue. To try to enforce some kind of material equality would mean interfering with this diversity. That leads to the third problem, which is that material equality interferes with human dignity. Part of what it means to have human dignity is to have the capacity and the freedom to make choices. These choices are reflected in the way we live our lives; to respect the free choices that people make is to respect their dignity. Enforcing material equality would necessarily interfere with the free choices that people make.

Watch more videos: http://lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY

Category:

Education

Tags:

• classical liberalism
• philosophy
• political theory
• inequality
• formal equality
• legal equality
• substantive equality
• material equality
• wealth
• resources
• human
• diversity
• choice
• choices
• dignity
• liberty
• equality
• learn
• learn liberty
• freedom
• video

[MandragGanon]

@FiverBeyond Private enterprise and the free market does a far better job of providing for the people than socialism and the 'legal plunder' it advises under the auspices of humanitarianism.

[koblinsc]

@trojanpride69 bwahaha! study history. Capitalism was a rebuttal to feudalism, being a result of Enlightenment.

[Darkside007]

@warriorprince1010 The last two are (when gov't provided) welfare, so how can part of welfare be cheaper than welfare?

[HomelessOnline]

Behold, a real liberal in the historic sense of the word! Not some leftist that holds abortion as their flagship.

[warriorprince1010]

Equal oppurtunity is equality, great schools, great healthcare and child care for all. It costs less than spending on prisons and welfare.

[jones82176]

is it just me or does this guy look like Dennis Leary?

[possumpistol]

“…political liberty must return, whatever the economic implications, because the alternative will destroy itself — at a literally incalculable cost. The return of liberty will not usher in the new dark age of suffering and superstition that liberals fear most. Rather, it will oblige individuals to be better neighbors, better citizens and better human beings — not through the dictates of law, but the realities of everyday life.” James Poulos

[Solverwiz]

Shouldn't outcomes be equal for everyone regardless of how much they produce? The answer should be obvious. Too many people in failing countries still don't understand.

[LordShandor]

@FiverBeyond You just contradicted yourself. First you said socialism does not have to use force, then you say that it uses less force. Which is it? Then you say all social systems require force (which was my original point about socialism).

Stateless social systems do not *require* force. Most systems operate just fine as voluntary systems. The difference between libertarianism and all other systems is the voluntary nature of it.

[LordShandor]

@FiverBeyond Yes, but liberty does not include the freedom to diminish the liberty of another, if it did, the whole thing would be come meaningless. You are free to do as you wish *so long as* you do not infringe on the liberty of another. This is why socialism is anti-libertarian.

A state as you propose could never exist. The state is monopoly on force by definition. Once there is no competition (the foundation of a free market) the road to tyranny begins.

You have some odd definitions.

[FiverBeyond]

@LordShandor

"I would suggest you read up on Kinsella..."

I'll take a look at it, thanks for the suggestion.

"Socialism requires force."

Not necessarily: stateless socialism would require much less force than our current state-centered capitalism.

But even so, ALL social systems require force. All protection of liberty requires force as well. The question is: who gets the force? Under libertarianism, the force is divided as equally as possible.

[FiverBeyond]

@LordShandor

"You do not have the liberty to kill or steal. That is a misunderstanding of what rights are and what liberty is."

Liberty simply means freedom from control or authority.

A 'right' is a just claim to an action or resource.

These two are separate ideas, but the point is still the same: in order for one man to have liberty, another man's liberty must be limited. The role of the state is to strive for equal liberty (not simply liberty for one group, or one man).