Liberty vs. Equality

Both are important, both deal with the legal framework and laws, and both have their place in our society - but not in equal parts.

Before getting into the role each plays, we have to take a look at the function each plays in the structure of the legal framework. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence make it clear that the government role in the average person's life should be limited because, as has been the case for all of history, a government that has more control is a government that will be more abusive.

Abuse itself can and does come in many forms. In China, we can see it see it as the totalitarian hand of The Party. In Cuba, it is the hand of Castro. In the old Soviet Union it was in the hands of the oligarchy, the Supreme Soviet. In the United States is has been kept to a minimum and because of it many other western societies have adopted similar forms of government based on their own cultures and environment. Some have been successful; others have been less so.

Abuse in western systems tend to be in the form of irresponsible social programs in pursuit of the enigma called Social Justice rather than the whimsical fist of a tyrant.

Social Justice recommends equality over freedom because it is simply not fair that some people have more skills, a better family life, and yes because some people actually have the money to help open doors otherwise closed. Social Justice determines that freedom is fine as long as it has nothing to do with the economy or the distribution of wealth. These factors need much monitoring and social equality can only be realized when the government has the ability to take wealth from one source and spread it across society.

Social Justice is a major contributor to the rotting of our Justice System because it says that if blacks go to jail too much then it is a social issue – not a criminal issue. It says that if poor people commit crimes it is not because they want to, but it is because society gives them no choice. Since this is the case and is unavoidable in the current system, we need to change the rules for poor people and not punish them so severely as one might others. Social justice says that if police patrol the inner city too much it is because they want to lock up poor black people, and if they do not patrol the inner city enough it is because they do not care if crime is rampant in the black community. Either way racism is the charge and only social justice can help since real justice is just too harsh and not everyone should be expected to have to obey the same rules.

Since a disproportionate number of blacks are in prison the government must make efforts to help them on their way. It has nothing to do with single parent homes, a failing education system, and a lack or role models… it has to do with the government ignoring them and racism. They go so far as to say that black on black crime is due to racism as well.

When given a chance for something different - like school vouchers – they are against it because conservatives are fighting for it so it must be bad. Social justice is not something conservatives like, so the logical fallacy says that people in the inner city must not like conservatives.

Equality is a must for the same of law enforcement and the justice system in general, and this is always true. Black, white, rich or poor, people need to know the rules and have those rules equally applied in law for society to function. There should not be a government recognized caste system.

Equal application of the law is really the only aspect of equality that the government can enforce. At first this may not be as obvious as it is, but think about it: Laws can be equally enforced, and punishments equally handed out.

Equal rights is a bit more tricky because if these rights are social rather than legal there is no real way to enforce them without stepping on freedom. The government must be blind on issues of race, sex, age, politics, and such, but when dealing with who someone can hire it blurs and becomes not legal justice but social justice because it is a private decision that is now a public law.

There are other examples of this in life: If someone wanted to marry you, but you did not want to marry them are you denying them the right to marry? The correct answer is yes. Think about it, if marriage is a social right, then who are you to deny someone this right?

The fact of the matter is that marriage is not a right, because the government has no way to enforce this right legally. Voting is a right because if the laws say you are eligible to vote, there are penalties to those who deny you this that the government can bring down upon them.

It is not a right for you to drive a car on a public road because if you do not pass the tests and act responsibly your license will be revoked. Many people – especially teens feel that it is a right, and quite incorrectly.

People throw the phrase, "It’s my right!" around without actually thinking about what they are saying. I recall hearing on the radio that college tuitions were on the rise and they had some girl on, a college student I suppose, who said that by raising tuition they were taking away her right to go to school. Since when is this a right?

If you can pay for something that is legal to purchase, then if the current owner agrees to sell it, you may buy it. If you do not have the funds to afford it you have no right to it. This is a fundamental difference between the current Rule of Law and idea of Social Justice.

Rights are something that depend on both equality and freedom, but are not interchangeable with either. They have their own place and function and to confuse these ideas is another way to blur the meaning of any of them.

Equality to liberals means that if one person has it, anyone should be able to have it and the government needs the authority to redistribute items, wealth, etc. in order to make this happen. Equality has little to do with application of law and much more to do with social issues and the interaction between people.

Freedom to liberals only means freedom from conservatives and conservative ideals. Freedom is a secondary concern because freedom promotes inequality based on personal habits and decisions. It permits people to collect wealth and give it to their children and those they personally decide to give it to rather than having the government hand it equally to strangers who may or may not care about you at all.

Equality to conservatives consists of enforcing laws equally across the board regardless of who is guilty. Laws are the foundation for success, and government’s role is to enforce the laws not correct every problem society might run into over the course of time. Equality is important, but for conservatives is secondary to freedom.

Freedom enables everyone to be successful so long as the Rule of Law is applied and all of society has the ability to be free. To conservatives freedom is a must because conservatives understand that freedom equates to motivation to do better since what you have is yours and what you do is up to you.

There are reasons that the President of the United States has been considered the leader of the FREE WORLD and not leader of the EQUAL WORLD. Equality as a governmentally enforced social measure is an invitation to disaster and history has shown this to be the case over and over again.