Equality vs. Freedom
We call for freedom in this country. It is very important to us. On the same level, and in some cases higher, equality is likewise important. In many ways equality has become more important as many see that we have freedom, but not as much equality as they would like. What is the difference, and is there a balance?
The important thing to note about freedom is that though you may have a freedom to choose one or another, that does not mean necessarily that you can choose whatever you like. You do not have the freedom to steal or kill, and you do not have the freedom to do something and at the same time not to do that same thing. There are logical parameters for freedom. One choice logically takes away multiple other choices so that if you choose one, you can no longer choose one of the others. If you choose to drive to California right now, you cannot also at the same time choose to drive to New York right now. Your choices also affect other people, if you sit in that seat, that means no one else can sit there - if you kill that person, he cannot choose to do anything any more.
People tend to think that since there is freedom, they are free to do whatever they want. That is not true, choices are always followed by consequences. (It’s even a scientific law). Equality, likewise, has parameters of its own. Equality, like freedom, is good to a point. Freedom unfettered ends in anarchy. Equality unfettered ends in oppression and tyranny. Equality is the search for evenness. The difference between the equality that is sought for in capitalistic societies and the equality sought after in socialism is striking. Capitalism looks for a equality of opportunity - everyone has the same opportunity to good education, jobs, pay grades, raises, etc. The difference in socialism is that they want total equality in that they want everyone to have the same pay, the same education, the same amount of goods, etc. The difference may seem small, but the implications are huge.
While capitalism has pay grades for those who earn it, socialism pays everyone the same (which lowers the pay and degrades the economy); while capitalism rewards success with riches, socialism rewards failure by stealing from the rich to give to the poor. (I am not saying we should not help the poor, I am saying 1) the government should not give handouts for it encourages sloths and bums and (2) the best way to help is to supply jobs, not money to support a jobless occupation.) Capitalism gives the job to the most qualified, socialism gives the job to the minority no matter what his/her skill simply because of his/her minority status. Socialism tries so hard to equalize society that to do so it lowers educational standards so that those on the lower end of the spectrum can pass and in the mean time inhibits those who could truly excel by forcing them to go at that slow rate, unchallenged and unmotivated. It is more important for the socialist to have everyone seen as the same than to meet each persons individual needs.
The difference is that equality of opportunity will allow the man to stand upon his own two feet (while the socialist would become incensed that I used the word ‘man’ and not woman or a more politically correct term like human) - and total equality babies and micro-manages to such a great extent that it spoils and destroys the man to the point that not only is he dependent, but he loses his self-identity and self-worth. - socialism tries to force the issue which will inevitably destroy the issue and all those involved.
Equality of opportunity brings more freedom and the two are in perfect harmony. Equality of goods and everything else actually limits freedom and encourages foolishness.
Jared Williams
The important thing to note about freedom is that though you may have a freedom to choose one or another, that does not mean necessarily that you can choose whatever you like. You do not have the freedom to steal or kill, and you do not have the freedom to do something and at the same time not to do that same thing. There are logical parameters for freedom. One choice logically takes away multiple other choices so that if you choose one, you can no longer choose one of the others. If you choose to drive to California right now, you cannot also at the same time choose to drive to New York right now. Your choices also affect other people, if you sit in that seat, that means no one else can sit there - if you kill that person, he cannot choose to do anything any more.
People tend to think that since there is freedom, they are free to do whatever they want. That is not true, choices are always followed by consequences. (It’s even a scientific law). Equality, likewise, has parameters of its own. Equality, like freedom, is good to a point. Freedom unfettered ends in anarchy. Equality unfettered ends in oppression and tyranny. Equality is the search for evenness. The difference between the equality that is sought for in capitalistic societies and the equality sought after in socialism is striking. Capitalism looks for a equality of opportunity - everyone has the same opportunity to good education, jobs, pay grades, raises, etc. The difference in socialism is that they want total equality in that they want everyone to have the same pay, the same education, the same amount of goods, etc. The difference may seem small, but the implications are huge.
While capitalism has pay grades for those who earn it, socialism pays everyone the same (which lowers the pay and degrades the economy); while capitalism rewards success with riches, socialism rewards failure by stealing from the rich to give to the poor. (I am not saying we should not help the poor, I am saying 1) the government should not give handouts for it encourages sloths and bums and (2) the best way to help is to supply jobs, not money to support a jobless occupation.) Capitalism gives the job to the most qualified, socialism gives the job to the minority no matter what his/her skill simply because of his/her minority status. Socialism tries so hard to equalize society that to do so it lowers educational standards so that those on the lower end of the spectrum can pass and in the mean time inhibits those who could truly excel by forcing them to go at that slow rate, unchallenged and unmotivated. It is more important for the socialist to have everyone seen as the same than to meet each persons individual needs.
The difference is that equality of opportunity will allow the man to stand upon his own two feet (while the socialist would become incensed that I used the word ‘man’ and not woman or a more politically correct term like human) - and total equality babies and micro-manages to such a great extent that it spoils and destroys the man to the point that not only is he dependent, but he loses his self-identity and self-worth. - socialism tries to force the issue which will inevitably destroy the issue and all those involved.
Equality of opportunity brings more freedom and the two are in perfect harmony. Equality of goods and everything else actually limits freedom and encourages foolishness.
Jared Williams
