Tocqueville on Liberty and Equality in Democracies

[HereAmIAmMe]

"That political freedom may compromise in its excesses the tranquility, the property, the lives of individuals, is obvious to the narrowest and most unthinking minds.* But, on the contrary, none but attentive and clear-sighted men perceive the perils with which equality threatens us, and they commonly avoid pointing them out.* They know that the calamities they apprehend*are remote, and flatter themselves that they will only fall upon future generations, for which the present generation takes but little thought.* The evils which freedom sometimes brings with it are immediate; they are apparent to all, and all are more or less affected by them.* The evils which extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are only seen at intervals, and at the moment at which they become most violent habit already causes them to be no longer felt."

Tocqueville on Liberty and Equality

What are your thoughts on the perils of freedom vs. the perils of equality?

 

[Decus]

Freedom is fleeting and equality does not exist. Opportunity/options are more realistic than freedom and striving for respect rather than equality is more attainable.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

Freedom is fleeting and equality does not exist. Opportunity/options are more realistic than freedom and striving for respect rather than equality is more attainable.

I think some would argue that opportunity and options are freedom in a sense. Or at least you must be free to some degree in order to have multiple opportunities or options. Your freedom can be as limited as choosing between compliance and death, or it can be virtually unlimited by outside forces. I think the dangers of freedom which are, as Tocqueville said, fairly obvious to all, lie in the ability to impede the freedom of others. It does not take much thinking to see that as a danger.

Equality on the other hand is more pernicious. It seems nice to say that everyone should have an even playing field. It feels good to say that life should be fair. The only way to make everyone equal is through artifice however. You must limit the options or opportunities (freedom) of the many to make them match the freedom of the few. Any amount of limitation could be justified with the call for equality. Should we not all be surgically paralyzed so as not to have an advantage over someone naturally born so? These chains can slip in quietly a little at a time. "they creep gradually into the social frame... and at the moment at which they become most violent habit already causes them to be no longer felt."

Obviously freedom cannot be exercised without restraint in a society. Nobody but the most insane would argue that it is OK for one person to kill another as a simple exercise of freedom. It takes a little more thought, however, to see the pitfalls that equality run rampant will inflict on our society.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Interesting view.

mine;

Freedom, warts and all.

Forced equality means equal misery. In other words, we can't be equal until we all suck and have no desire to move up since we will just be crushed back down

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

Interesting view.

mine;

Freedom, warts and all.

Forced equality means equal misery. In other words, we can't be equal until we all suck and have no desire to move up since we will just be crushed back down

I'm definitely not arguing against freedom. On the contrary I see freedom as the ideal. I would rather take the dangers that are obvious over the less obvious danger. Equality is on the road to bondage.

 

[Yurt]

both concepts are illusory. they exist only so long as we allow them to exist and in reality, as stated, both are illusory.

freedom is subjective. equality, on the other hand, might be argued to be objective, in that, equality can be measured. you have X and i have X. however, if we accept that freedom is subjective, then equality must also be subjective. for example, look at the muslim world vs. the western world. many islamic women view the freedoms western women have as not freedom at all, rather slavery to male lust. in contrast, the western world views islam as treating women without equality, yet, the islamic woman would likely feel equal due to her subjective cultural norms.

i know this about democracies, but i don't think the idea is that simple as to confine it to just democracies. in a democracy both ideas are plainly illusory. what is equality? that you have X and i have X? or is it just that we both have equal 'opportunity'? what is freedom? that i can confine you, but you can't confine me because you are not the government?

imo, america has tried its best to exemplify both freedom and equality. however, given that both are illusory, all we can do is give the illusion that we have both or one or the other. i would rather have the illusion than live under stalin.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

both concepts are illusory. they exist only so long as we allow them to exist and in reality, as stated, both are illusory.

freedom is subjective. equality, on the other hand, might be argued to be objective, in that, equality can be measured. you have X and i have X. however, if we accept that freedom is subjective, then equality must also be subjective. for example, look at the muslim world vs. the western world. many islamic women view the freedoms western women have as not freedom at all, rather slavery to male lust. in contrast, the western world views islam as treating women without equality, yet, the islamic woman would likely feel equal due to her subjective cultural norms.

i know this about democracies, but i don't think the idea is that simple as to confine it to just democracies. in a democracy both ideas are plainly illusory. what is equality? that you have X and i have X? or is it just that we both have equal 'opportunity'? what is freedom? that i can confine you, but you can't confine me because you are not the government?

imo, america has tried its best to exemplify both freedom and equality. however, given that both are illusory, all we can do is give the illusion that we have both or one or the other. i would rather have the illusion than live under stalin.

I would agree that freedom and equality can be perceived as subjective and even abstract, but illusory is a bit of a stretch. Illusory would suggest that they do not exist at all. Your own example suggests that freedom does exist because if it did not there would be no problem living under Stalin. If a limitation of freedom can be seen as undesirable then freedom must exist. Agreed, it is a subjective concept though. To a slave, anyone who is not a slave has greater freedom. To a poor person, a rich person has more freedom because they are not limited by money.

As for equality; I would say that it does exist in degrees. My capacity for physical strength may be greater than some, less than others, and relatively equal to still others. Anything that can be measured can be compared and found to be equal or unequal.

Now, all this only means that freedom and equality as concepts do exist. A person can be relatively free or "unfree" with regards to a certain action or behavior. Two people can be relatively equal or unequal with regards to some measurable aspect.

The illusion comes in when you try to artificially change equality. It may be possible, through some possibly elaborate means, to make equal two people who were previously unequal in some regard. You cannot make all people equal, however. In any measurable aspect of life there will always be someone who is at a disadvantage. If we truly sought to make all men equal, we would all have to be artificially blinded, deafened, and paralyzed. Yet even then we would not be equal because some would still have a greater capacity to think, or breathe, or smell, or taste. In fact the only way to make all men equal is to kill them.

Despite this, I would still say that it might be possible to increase the relative level of equality of a given group of people with regards to a given opportunity. The question then becomes to what level or degree would it be desirable to artificially generate equality? At some point the scales of equality become the chains of slavery.

 

[Yurt]

both concepts are illusory. they exist only so long as we allow them to exist and in reality, as stated, both are illusory.

freedom is subjective. equality, on the other hand, might be argued to be objective, in that, equality can be measured. you have X and i have X. however, if we accept that freedom is subjective, then equality must also be subjective. for example, look at the muslim world vs. the western world. many islamic women view the freedoms western women have as not freedom at all, rather slavery to male lust. in contrast, the western world views islam as treating women without equality, yet, the islamic woman would likely feel equal due to her subjective cultural norms.

i know this about democracies, but i don't think the idea is that simple as to confine it to just democracies. in a democracy both ideas are plainly illusory. what is equality? that you have X and i have X? or is it just that we both have equal 'opportunity'? what is freedom? that i can confine you, but you can't confine me because you are not the government?

imo, america has tried its best to exemplify both freedom and equality. however, given that both are illusory, all we can do is give the illusion that we have both or one or the other. i would rather have the illusion than live under stalin.

I would agree that freedom and equality can be perceived as subjective and even abstract, but illusory is a bit of a stretch. Illusory would suggest that they do not exist at all. Your own example suggests that freedom does exist because if it did not there would be no problem living under Stalin. If a limitation of freedom can be seen as undesirable then freedom must exist. Agreed, it is a subjective concept though. To a slave, anyone who is not a slave has greater freedom. To a poor person, a rich person has more freedom because they are not limited by money.

As for equality; I would say that it does exist in degrees. My capacity for physical strength may be greater than some, less than others, and relatively equal to still others. Anything that can be measured can be compared and found to be equal or unequal.

Now, all this only means that freedom and equality as concepts do exist. A person can be relatively free or "unfree" with regards to a certain action or behavior. Two people can be relatively equal or unequal with regards to some measurable aspect.

The illusion comes in when you try to artificially change equality. It may be possible, through some possibly elaborate means, to make equal two people who were previously unequal in some regard. You cannot make all people equal, however. In any measurable aspect of life there will always be someone who is at a disadvantage. If we truly sought to make all men equal, we would all have to be artificially blinded, deafened, and paralyzed. Yet even then we would not be equal because some would still have a greater capacity to think, or breathe, or smell, or taste. In fact the only way to make all men equal is to kill them.

Despite this, I would still say that it is possible to increase the relative level of equality of a given group of people with regards to a given opportunity. The question then becomes to what level or degree would it be desirable to artificially generate equality? At some point the scales of equality become the chains of slavery.

.

 

[Intense]

"That political freedom may compromise in its excesses the tranquility, the property, the lives of individuals, is obvious to the narrowest and most unthinking minds.* But, on the contrary, none but attentive and clear-sighted men perceive the perils with which equality threatens us, and they commonly avoid pointing them out.* They know that the calamities they apprehend*are remote, and flatter themselves that they will only fall upon future generations, for which the present generation takes but little thought.* The evils which freedom sometimes brings with it are immediate; they are apparent to all, and all are more or less affected by them.* The evils which extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are only seen at intervals, and at the moment at which they become most violent habit already causes them to be no longer felt."

Tocqueville on Liberty and Equality

What are your thoughts on the perils of freedom vs. the perils of equality?

Providence is from God, not Man. I prefer to see both Others and Myself as Unique, not Equal. We are not interchangeable, in a way that guarantee's outcome.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

"That political freedom may compromise in its excesses the tranquility, the property, the lives of individuals, is obvious to the narrowest and most unthinking minds.* But, on the contrary, none but attentive and clear-sighted men perceive the perils with which equality threatens us, and they commonly avoid pointing them out.* They know that the calamities they apprehend*are remote, and flatter themselves that they will only fall upon future generations, for which the present generation takes but little thought.* The evils which freedom sometimes brings with it are immediate; they are apparent to all, and all are more or less affected by them.* The evils which extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are only seen at intervals, and at the moment at which they become most violent habit already causes them to be no longer felt."

Tocqueville on Liberty and Equality

What are your thoughts on the perils of freedom vs. the perils of equality?

Providence is from God, not Man. I prefer to see both Others and Myself as Unique, not Equal. We are not interchangeable, in a way that guarantee's outcome.

Agreed. Whether you believe in God or not, no two people are the same. Even "identical" twins can be as different as night and day.

 

[Yurt]

you make good points. i would submit they are illusory because freedom only exists in your subject mind. equality only exists in your subjective mind. cold is not subjective. one may be less cold, however, cold is cold and is not illusory. true freedom is what i mean by our understanding of freedom is illusory. we have no concept of true freedom. what is freedom to you, may not be freedom to me. freedom is an overused word in western society.

are we truly free? how many own their land outright? and if they do, do they have a superior claim over the government? over an invading army?

what is actual freedom on this planet? i'm open to ideas, but to me, the idea on this planet is illusory.

As for equality; I would say that it does exist in degrees. My capacity for physical strength may be greater than some, less than others, and relatively equal to still others. Anything that can be measured can be compared and found to be equal or unequal.

Now, all this only means that freedom and equality as concepts do exist. A person can be relatively free or "unfree" with regards to a certain action or behavior. Two people can be relatively equal or unequal with regards to some measurable aspect.

The illusion comes in when you try to artificially change equality. It may be possible, through some possibly elaborate means, to make equal two people who were previously unequal in some regard. You cannot make all people equal, however. In any measurable aspect of life there will always be someone who is at a disadvantage. If we truly sought to make all men equal, we would all have to be artificially blinded, deafened, and paralyzed. Yet even then we would not be equal because some would still have a greater capacity to think, or breathe, or smell, or taste. In fact the only way to make all men equal is to kill them.

Despite this, I would still say that it might be possible to increase the relative level of equality of a given group of people with regards to a given opportunity. The question then becomes to what level or degree would it be desirable to artificially generate equality? At some point the scales of equality become the chains of slavery.

i agree with you to some extent about artificial change. therein lies the illusion though. i had a handicap brother who was of course never equal to me or many of his peers. however, we did everything we could to make sure he felt equal and was treated equal. again, illusory, but, if it made him happy, i am all for illusion.

you're right about increasing the relative level of equality of a given group of people. this country has done that very thing. prior the 20th century, such a concept was foreign. then came socialistic type programs that endeavored to make people more equal and america entered her golden age. of course, as you know, not everyone was equal, but the idea was there to enable as many people to have equal opportunity as possible to be equal to the proverbial neighbor.

i don't know if the scales of equality will ever equal the chains of slavery. with slavery there is a clear master and servant relationship. a clear form of ownership. true equality would not recognize that form of relationship.

 

[Yurt]

i can't figure out how to work the quote function on this site

so easy on the other forum

intense...can you fix my post...thanks

and hold a workshop for us dummies

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

i agree with you to some extent about artificial change. therein lies the illusion though. i had a handicap brother who was of course never equal to me or many of his peers. however, we did everything we could to make sure he felt equal and was treated equal. again, illusory, but, if it made him happy, i am all for illusion.

you're right about increasing the relative level of equality of a given group of people. this country has done that very thing. prior the 20th century, such a concept was foreign. then came socialistic type programs that endeavored to make people more equal and america entered her golden age. of course, as you know, not everyone was equal, but the idea was there to enable as many people to have equal opportunity as possible to be equal to the proverbial neighbor.

i don't know if the scales of equality will ever equal the chains of slavery. with slavery there is a clear master and servant relationship. a clear form of ownership. true equality would not recognize that form of relationship.

That equality could lead to slavery stems from the fact that the only way to make people equal is to artificially limit some people's freedom. The more equal you wish to make people the more you must limit people's freedom to do so. The only real way to limit freedom is to have some person or group of people (the masters) control the system. If there were no masters the equality would vanish as the illusion we have already shown it to be. Therefore the only "equal" societies will be ones strictly controlled by an Elite Group who exist outside the rules or some perfect society in which all people magically share all things in common (not possible in an imperfect world.)

 

[Yurt]

i agree with you to some extent about artificial change. therein lies the illusion though. i had a handicap brother who was of course never equal to me or many of his peers. however, we did everything we could to make sure he felt equal and was treated equal. again, illusory, but, if it made him happy, i am all for illusion.

you're right about increasing the relative level of equality of a given group of people. this country has done that very thing. prior the 20th century, such a concept was foreign. then came socialistic type programs that endeavored to make people more equal and america entered her golden age. of course, as you know, not everyone was equal, but the idea was there to enable as many people to have equal opportunity as possible to be equal to the proverbial neighbor.

i don't know if the scales of equality will ever equal the chains of slavery. with slavery there is a clear master and servant relationship. a clear form of ownership. true equality would not recognize that form of relationship.

That equality could lead to slavery stems from the fact that the only way to make people equal is to artificially limit some people's freedom. The more equal you wish to make people the more you must limit people's freedom to do so. The only real way to limit freedom is to have some person or group of people (the masters) control the system. If there were no masters the equality would vanish as the illusion we have already shown it to be. Therefore the only "equal" societies will be ones strictly controlled by an Elite Group who exist outside the rules or some perfect society in which all people magically share all things in common (not possible in an imperfect world.)

it seems we are in agreement about the illusory component of equality. why do you not believe that component exists in freedom (in our imperfect world)?

 

[midcan5]

"Freedom depends on how men actually do behave, not upon how they are allowed to behave. It is a matter of character, not of foolproof constitutional devices. For fools are paramount in politics, and there is nothing which they are unable to destroy." p156 'The Liberal Mind' Kenneth Minogue

Two things: I have been on this site too long, it seems a new group of freshmen frequently appear with the same questions. Questions debated and often answered or at least put to rest in the archives. I'll link several. The second thing is a bit harder to clarify especially in a clean room debate. This question isn't serious for me, is the questioner serious? I guess we must assume so. What I mean in a nutshell is one side thinks freedom is the answer and accuses the other side of thinking equality is the answer. Is there an agreed upon answer suitable for framing, surely not. Life is not so simple. The question instead takes on other dimensions, biases and assumptions that are too easy to find. Equality becomes a stick and its use entails a background of thought I personally consider un-American. But.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html

"What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/265505-freedom.html
The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England

And see sig. "The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer

 

[Yurt]

midcan:

do you ever debate?

all i ever see from you is whining about debates and quotes from other people. i know you on two boards, maybe three if were on DP, and you never debate.

all you've done in this thread is whine and quote other people, and offered nothing of substance from yourself. if it bothers you that the topic has been debated before, then shut up. not everyone reads every topic, not everyone has seen every debate.

why don't you actually share YOUR thoughts for a change.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

The reason the thread is posed in terms of freedom and equality is I (and many other people) see a natural tension between the two. I don't see equality as naturally existing especially in complex societies. In order to artificially create a relative level of equality freedom is limited. You say that one side thinks freedom is the answer and accuses the other of thinking equality is the answer. Equality seems to be the battle cry of a large group of people especially on this forum. They seem willing to give up (or more often require others to give up) any amount of freedom to see equality reign supreme. I argue that though a certain level of equality is certainly a desirable thing, beyond some point the amount of freedom sacrificed on the alter of equality becomes too much.

 

[PaulS1950]

No two people can be equal but they can be equal in importance in the overall scheme of time.
No person can have absolute freedom because the freedom of others would be subject to the one with absolute freedom.
All people can have the same rights and the freedom to exercise those rights. That makes them equal in the law and free within the bounds of their thoughts and actions within their rights.
WE can only have the rights we exercise. Those who do not require their rights be upheld forfeit them. They lose their freedom and their rights. This is where Americans are right now - choosing to forfeit some rights for a feeling of security. They will end up with neither.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No two people can be equal but they can be equal in importance in the overall scheme of time.
No person can have absolute freedom because the freedom of others would be subject to the one with absolute freedom.
All people can have the same rights and the freedom to exercise those rights. That makes them equal in the law and free within the bounds of their thoughts and actions within their rights.
WE can only have the rights we exercise. Those who do not require their rights be upheld forfeit them. They lose their freedom and their rights. This is where Americans are right now - choosing to forfeit some rights for a feeling of security. They will end up with neither.

Concur for the most part.

But let’s instead consider that the nature of government is to always seek greater power and control, this is not to say government’s motive is nefarious, rather it’s the consequence of a modern, industrialized society’s need to countervail market forces and government’s perceived security needs potentially detrimental to the individual.

Our rights are inalienable but not absolute, as government seeks to limit our civil liberties the people may challenge such efforts in court and compel government to justify its actions; when government fails to do so it must abandon its efforts to restrict the right in question.

Over the decades and centuries of this adversarial process there is developed a body of Constitutional case law that provides a framework upon which our freedom is constructed, and equality of the individual realized and protected.

It is when the individual fails to challenge the government’s encroachment upon freedom, that freedom is in jeopardy; when the people refuse to challenge the government’s effort to disadvantage a particular class of people, equality is lost.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It has taken me aback, as I peruse the annals of our history... To see the various views of freedom and equality our peoples had, none of which can truly define nor epitomize these things. Freedom and equality nowadays is subject to interpretation, not the finality for which they are expected to instill.

How can one man be equal to another, when his very actions set him apart from his peers? Would that alone not render him superior or inferior to them? Men deserve to be equal in the sight of the law. There can be no such thing as equality, when we are all the time separated by mere ideological premises. By delusions of arrogant pride.

Freedom? What freedom? How can we be free when we are willingly held hostage by our own emotional attachment to these ideological premises? Republican? Democrat? Independent? Nothing but the stuff of slavery. There will never be equality nor freedom; when one person fights for one version, and another for another. There can be neither. They cannot exist within a nation whom itself is willing to delegate its wills and notions to an incompetent authority.

Real freedom comes on the day when we meet in the middle. Challenging the wrongs our government has perpetrated, its wonton advancements on our collective rights. Equality is maintained when no man sees himself as superior to another. There will always be leaders and followers, but a real leader brings himself to the level of those for whom he leads. True leaders lead not with arrogance and selfishness, but with humility and selfless devotion to their subordinates. When we fail to come together for a common cause, we are not equal; when we cannot fight for a common cause--we are not free.