Democrats have left moderate voters behind
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
I think you can fit positive liberties within def. 2.
I consider the debate here one of semantics (in the petty definition). You can rewrite these concepts as "the ability to do X" or "the ability to not be constrained from doing X by an authority." Each is battling for ownership of the word "liberty" or "freedom" because it has cultural cache and is really easy to use in some cool, pithy sayings, like the one you quoted. But it's the ideas that matter and the justifications and reasons behind them, I think that are more interesting to think about.
You mention Taylor. Have you read him? Are you interested in philosophy? It looks like Isaiah Berlin did an in-depth analysis of this in Two Concepts of Liberty:
I've never read him, although I've always been meaning to. Looks interesting.
I think we also need to get over our obsession with economic aggregates and means.
If GDP increases, but the majority of people are worse off, is that a good thing? I don't think so.
I’ve only read excerpts.
Taylor is the one who really fleshed out this stupid notion that liberty is dependent upon having a welfare state….which ends up in the absurd logical dead-end that one man having liberty requires another man to be deprived of his property.
But, yes, I agree with you that everybody wants to lay claim to the term. Because…who in their right mind would oppose liberty?
The truth is that liberty and equality hang on opposite sides of the scale. You can’t have one without reducing the other.
That’s just it…the majority of people won’t be worse off.
Inequality is a relative measure. Our Gini is roughly equivalent to Ghana’s. Our Gini is significantly higher than Tajikistan’s.
Where would you rather be middle class: high inequality US or low inequality Tajikistan?
You’re making the common mistake: that a handful of people getting fabulously wealthy and thus driving up the relative measure of inequality of income or wealth necessarily means that most people are worse off in absolute terms.
Nnnnnope.
I always loved these two quotes about the inherent tension between liberty and equality:
"There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that spurs all men to wish to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the lesser to the rank of the greater. But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
"Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies." ~ Will Durant
Araby was tremendously well written leaving me with only an urge (probably misguided) to read more.
Anyone that hasn’t seen The Godfather shouldn’t be allowed to post about movies.
TE4756, putting aside the current popularity of the Socialist Party, what do polls show today about how Americans feel about the terms "socialism" and "capitalism"?
This Pew poll found ....
Consistent with the wide partisan differences in opinions of socialism and capitalism, Republicans and Democrats characterize the terms in very different ways. For example, Republicans widely think socialism “restricts people’s individual freedoms” – 62% say this describes socialism extremely or very well, compared with 19% of Democrats. Democrats, by contrast, are far more likely than Republicans to say socialism meets people’s basic needs (56% extremely or very well vs. 19% of Republicans).
Contrary to what the Pew poll discovered about how the American people describe socialism and capitalism, my definition of the labels is entirely different. I think in terms of ownership with socialism calling for government ownership of the means of production and services along with a government planned economy. In contrast capitalism is about private ownership and free enterprise.
In my view the debate between Democrats and Republicans isn't about ownership. It is more about the extent of government social welfare programs in the economy and our private lives such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Also how far the government should go in protecting the interests of consumers and workers. Finally, there is our federalism and whether governments at the state or federal level should prevail in setting laws which would include such hot topics as abortion, education, and crime.
Last edited:
With all due respect, @larsIU, you have a lot of misguided urges.
Been debating that question for 30 years now. I've landed on GF 1 and 2 are tied. Makes no sense trying to rank them.
Liberty and Equity are the opposite ends. Isn’t equality before a judge a key tenet of liberty.
As with the word liberty, equality can mean a lot of things. You have to drill down on how a person is using it.
For example, the phrase "all men are created equal" is either aspirational, religious doctrine, or certainly false, depending on how literally and in what context you want to interpret the phrase.
Well, I don't agree with you that liberty can mean a lot of things. But I do agree with you that lots of people want to lay claim to it -- and as such have tried to create new meanings for it. I'll dance that far with you on that.
And I fully agree that equality can mean different things in different contexts. I'm talking about substantive equality -- that is, equality of outcome (as opposed to formal equality, or equality of opportunity) -- most especially in the context of equality of economic outcomes (but also social).
The more equality (and, thus, less inequality) of outcome a society wants, the more its citizens must surrender their individual liberty. Another good quote, this one recognizing the distinction between the desirable formal equality and the undesirable substantive equality that comes at the cost of liberty:
“Equality of the general rules of law and conduct is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty.” -- Friedrich Hayek
As much as I'd like to take the credit, the concept of liberty and equality hanging in a balance isn't something I came up with.You're talking about formal equality: equal rights, equal treatment under the law, etc. Not only is this not deleterious to liberty, it's predicated on it.
The equality that requires the deprivation of liberty is substantive equality. I have some links in the above post describing these two terms.
I disagree with this formulation of liberty. Formal quality also requires some deprivation of liberty. Namely, if we agree that we all have equal rights, and equal access to legal recourse to protect those rights, then we also all implicitly agree that we will restrict our liberty to carry out actions which would deprive others of those same rights.
While I think that trade is a desirable one, and in fact is the very foundation of the social contract, I think it is wordplay - dishonest wordplay, at that - to claim that this somehow doesn't qualify as an infringement upon liberty.
I guess I don't see my right to swing my fists ending at the bridge of your nose as a deprivation of my liberty. I suppose one could characterize it that way. But it doesn't really have much bearing on what Durant, Tocqueville, and Hayek were saying in the quotes I've cited -- especially the Hayek quote that recognizes the distinction between substantive and formal equality.
Hayek only says that this sort of equality -- that of general rules of law and conduct -- is "conducive to liberty"....as opposed to the substantive equality that isn't. I suppose that's different than saying that the former kind of equality involves no deprivation of liberty at all. Merely that it's conducive.
Anyway, the point is that a social paradigm aimed at increasing substantive equality (equality of outcome) must necessarily come at the expense of individual liberty. If formal equality requires this too, it isn't of any real consequence. It doesn't cost me anything for you to have access to the same rights, privileges, and protections that I do.
I agree it's a difference in characterization, but I don't think it's meaningless. I think it's meaningful simply because it reminds that we all are balancing liberty and equality, and really disagreeing on where exactly to find that balance.
