Tocqueville on Liberty and Equality in Democracies

[editec]

Some of us speak of abstract ideas as though they were doable.

Freedom?

Who among us is truly free?

Only the dead are free

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

Some of us speak of abstract ideas as though they were doable.

Freedom?

Who among us is truly free?

Only the dead are free

It's not really productive to say that no person is truly free. It is obvious to most that not only are people not completely free, it would not be desirable for them to be so. The OP was meant to engender discussion about the perils of rampant freedom and the perils of rampant equality. As Tocqueville said, the perils of freedom are obvious to most, but the perils of equality are less obvious. He said, that they can sneak up on a society and that by the time the danger reaches its greatest potential most people won't even notice it.

So what do you see to be the perils of freedom or the perils of equality?

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

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.

I'd like to focus on your last paragraph.

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.

It is necessary for government to limit freedom otherwise anarchy would reign. There does have to be a line in the sand, however, where we say beyond this point I will give up no more freedom. With every law it passes government limits someone's freedom. It is not wrong for the government to limit the murderer's freedom to commit murder. It's not wrong to stop a thief from stealing. When the government starts to play with the scales of equality though there are dangers aplenty. Whether they are tipping the scales in favor of this group or in favor of that group, they are treading a line that leads to disaster.

 

[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.)

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)?

It isn't that I can't see where you are coming from with that thought, but I think freedom is far more real than illusory. Freedom exists in our ability to choose. Even a prisoner or a slave can make some choices and so have some degree of freedom. There are many different forces that can affect our freedom. Some are concrete and some are abstract. I think it is important to know that no matter how limited the circumstances, as long as two options are available a choice can be made and freedom exists. If we don't believe in choice, and don't believe in freedom, we don't have to be accountable for our actions. "I had no choice."

If you accept that freedom is an illusion you can be lead to accept any limitation of that freedom. After all, if there is no freedom there is no slavery.

 

[whitehall]

They sure had a mastery of the English language back then. Most college professors today can't put a sentence together without using the F word.

 

[oldfart]

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.

There are a few things that bother me about this discussion. The first is that "equality" is being set up as a straw man concept. One hand, there are ridiculous references to the obvious fact that individuals vary in talents and abilities. Duh. They also differ in hair color and blood type. None of this anything to do with equality. Maybe this is why no one seems to have bothered to define it in this thread.

So let's start with a Jeffersonian concept of equality (he really did have a hard time in Paris explaining the co-existence of slavery in America and the Declaration of Independence!). Whether one believes in a Creator or not, a central theme of the Enlightenment was that all persons by virtue of their humanity possessed certain rights and they were alike ("equal") in the sense that any reasonable society would respect those rights uniformly. This was opposed to the idea that such basic rights were dependent on accidents of birth and were assigned by social class. In the thirteenth century, the landed class had the right to kill tillers of the soil in most cases. It took a few centuries to establish that all persons were equal in their right to only be killed in accordance to rules society set up. America to this day is still having trouble with this concept.

So are the critics of "equality" proposing that we are not equal in the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If so, what classes of rights and what exclusions are being proposed?

Is the issue one of political equality? If so, who are we proposing to disenfranchise and on what criteria? The payment of federal income taxes? Forgoing certain government benefits? Perhaps an educational test?

And what freedoms are we defending when we call for limits on "equality"? The freedom to kill or maim other citizens? The freedom to intimidate with threats of violence? The freedom to break laws we don't agree with? The freedom to break contracts we have solemnly ratified when we no longer find them useful? The freedom to use coercion and deceit in commerce?

There is a difference, generally ignored today, between freedom and license; an indifference to the role of mutual obligation, and the connection between our actions and the foreseeable consequences of our actions. The greatest threat to our freedoms today is the overreaching in the claims of the extent of our freedoms, for when freedoms grow top heavy beyond our other values that support a decent society, our freedoms will be one of the first things we will lose.

 

[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.

There are a few things that bother me about this discussion. The first is that "equality" is being set up as a straw man concept. One hand, there are ridiculous references to the obvious fact that individuals vary in talents and abilities. Duh. They also differ in hair color and blood type. None of this anything to do with equality. Maybe this is why no one seems to have bothered to define it in this thread.

So let's start with a Jeffersonian concept of equality (he really did have a hard time in Paris explaining the co-existence of slavery in America and the Declaration of Independence!). Whether one believes in a Creator or not, a central theme of the Enlightenment was that all persons by virtue of their humanity possessed certain rights and they were alike ("equal") in the sense that any reasonable society would respect those rights uniformly. This was opposed to the idea that such basic rights were dependent on accidents of birth and were assigned by social class. In the thirteenth century, the landed class had the right to kill tillers of the soil in most cases. It took a few centuries to establish that all persons were equal in their right to only be killed in accordance to rules society set up. America to this day is still having trouble with this concept.

So are the critics of "equality" proposing that we are not equal in the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If so, what classes of rights and what exclusions are being proposed?

Is the issue one of political equality? If so, who are we proposing to disenfranchise and on what criteria? The payment of federal income taxes? Forgoing certain government benefits? Perhaps an educational test?

And what freedoms are we defending when we call for limits on "equality"? The freedom to kill or maim other citizens? The freedom to intimidate with threats of violence? The freedom to break laws we don't agree with? The freedom to break contracts we have solemnly ratified when we no longer find them useful? The freedom to use coercion and deceit in commerce?

There is a difference, generally ignored today, between freedom and license; an indifference to the role of mutual obligation, and the connection between our actions and the foreseeable consequences of our actions. The greatest threat to our freedoms today is the overreaching in the claims of the extent of our freedoms, for when freedoms grow top heavy beyond our other values that support a decent society, our freedoms will be one of the first things we will lose.

If anyone is setting up a straw man I would say it is you. Nobody is saying that we should be completely free to act as we want. In fact it has been repeated a number of times, and was emphasized in the OP that freedom has perils that are obvious to everyone. It is entirely desirable that government limit freedom to some degree in ways that protect us from one person infringing on the freedom of others.

Here is an example of a way in which government tries to promote equality:

Affirmative Action programs are designed to promote equality. In order to promote equality they must by design limit the freedom of some people. In this case, the freedom of employers to hire whomever they choose. The law is designed to promote equality, but it can only do so in a illusory way by forcing people to make decisions they might not otherwise make.

Now, I'm not arguing that Affirmative Action or the promotion of equality are of themselves evil things that must be destroyed. My premise is that programs like this that play with the scales of equality can be used in an incremental way to limit everyone's freedom over time until we find ourselves in virtual slavery.

 

[oldfart]

If anyone is setting up a straw man I would say it is you. Nobody is saying that we should be completely free to act as we want.

You obviously haven't been watching the Tea Party and Second Amendment advocates.

Here is an example of a way in which government tries to promote equality:

Affirmative Action programs are designed to promote equality. In order to promote equality they must by design limit the freedom of some people. In this case, the freedom of employers to hire whomever they choose. The law is designed to promote equality, but it can only do so in a illusory way by forcing people to make decisions they might not otherwise make.

Laws that criminalize certain behaviors are intended to discourage those behaviors. Laws that criminalize bank robbery discourage bank robbery. Laws that criminalize fraud are meant to discourage fraud. Laws that criminalize objectionable labor practices hopefully discourage those also. So what's your point?

Now, I'm not arguing that Affirmative Action or the promotion of equality are of themselves evil things that must be destroyed.

Then why raise the example? Your argument is trivial if you can't find some basis for discerning what laws you like and which you don't like.

My premise is that programs like this that play with the scales of equality can be used in an incremental way to limit everyone's freedom over time until we find ourselves in virtual slavery.

"Virtual slavery"? Really? And you accuse me of making a straw man argument!

It's really tiresome to hear people put on reasonable language for truly disgusting ideas. You accuse me of hyperbole for pointing out arguments frequently made on this board in the furtherance of some truly bad ideas, and then argue that "equality" leads to "virtual slavery".

If you had any real interest in this you would give some thought to the questions I posed, but I think you like spouting fine points of philosophy while insinuating that there is something wrong with the idea of equality.

 

[PaulS1950]

We ARE free to do what we want! It is obvious that we can kill indiscriminately if we so desire. That we can be punished for choosing to do something that harms another is only natural, but we do have the freedom to make that choice. We have laws as a way to prosecute those who choose to injure individuals or society and we have RIGHTS to keep until we as individuals abuse them.
This is the stumbling block that confuses so many. We are free to feel safe but we are also free to feel threatened. What we feel has no bearing on anyone but ourselves. We all have the right to speak our mind, to attend the church of our choosing (or none if that is our conscience), to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves and others, to be free from unwarranted search and seizure and not to incriminate ourselves. These are rights - they can't be decided by the government or anyone else. We can lose them by overstepping our responsibility to allow others the same rights but in no other way.

We are (should be) free to exercise our rights without question. We are free to exercise our freedom to make choices and we are bound by the law in the choices we make. As long as we don't break the law we are free to act as we wish. Neither is absolute nor should they be but they are only limited by the injury to another or the reduction of their rights to facilitate our choice.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.)

Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive terms. If you have one, you cannot have the other. This was known since the earliest philosophers imagined societies of complete equality. Only the Guardians or Philosopher Kings were superior. Every one of those philosophers came to the same conclusion, the more equality there is, the more tyranny is necessary to enforce that equality.

 

[editec]

Some of us speak of abstract ideas as though they were doable.

Freedom?

Who among us is truly free?

Only the dead are free

It's not really productive to say that no person is truly free.

Oh, I think it is and here's why...

People talk about FREEDOM as their individual freedom is an absolute possibility in a social setting.

Obviously it is not, and therefore pointing this (apparently not so obvious fact to some here) seems fitting in some circumstances

What you have written clearly shows that YOU understand this point.

But sadly many here (usually right wingersm but liefties fall for this crap too) fail to acknowledge that fact whenever the issue of freedom comes to the fore.

It is obvious to most that not only are people not completely free, it would not be desirable for them to be so. The OP was meant to engender discussion about the perils of rampant freedom and the perils of rampant equality.

The above is an excellent discussion topic. If I steped on it and killed it I did not mean to do so.

I was merely pointing out what I consider and an apodictic truth.

As Tocqueville said, the perils of freedom are obvious to most, but the perils of equality are less obvious. He said, that they can sneak up on a society and that by the time the danger reaches its greatest potential most people won't even notice it.

So what do you see to be the perils of freedom or the perils of equality?

I see NO peril in equality under the law.

As to the perils of equality, perhaps you'll need to augment that with additional examples where de Tocqueville give us examples.

Certainly THAT would make a fabulous entre into a discussion of individual freedom and equality.

But one of the things I note about when people quote de toucquville is that they too often take a single sentence OUT OF CONTEXT that leads one to think that the man meant something quite DIFFERENT than he really meant.

I'm not saying you did this, but de touqville and Adam Smith have GOT TO BE to the most misunderstood editorialists known to most Americans.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

If anyone is setting up a straw man I would say it is you. Nobody is saying that we should be completely free to act as we want.

You obviously haven't been watching the Tea Party and Second Amendment advocates.

Here is an example of a way in which government tries to promote equality:

Affirmative Action programs are designed to promote equality. In order to promote equality they must by design limit the freedom of some people. In this case, the freedom of employers to hire whomever they choose. The law is designed to promote equality, but it can only do so in a illusory way by forcing people to make decisions they might not otherwise make.

Laws that criminalize certain behaviors are intended to discourage those behaviors. Laws that criminalize bank robbery discourage bank robbery. Laws that criminalize fraud are meant to discourage fraud. Laws that criminalize objectionable labor practices hopefully discourage those also. So what's your point?

Now, I'm not arguing that Affirmative Action or the promotion of equality are of themselves evil things that must be destroyed.

Then why raise the example? Your argument is trivial if you can't find some basis for discerning what laws you like and which you don't like.

My premise is that programs like this that play with the scales of equality can be used in an incremental way to limit everyone's freedom over time until we find ourselves in virtual slavery.

"Virtual slavery"? Really? And you accuse me of making a straw man argument!

It's really tiresome to hear people put on reasonable language for truly disgusting ideas. You accuse me of hyperbole for pointing out arguments frequently made on this board in the furtherance of some truly bad ideas, and then argue that "equality" leads to "virtual slavery".

If you had any real interest in this you would give some thought to the questions I posed, but I think you like spouting fine points of philosophy while insinuating that there is something wrong with the idea of equality.

I guess I should have been more clear and said that no one on THIS THREAD is saying that we should be completely free to act as we want.

What in particular do you find "disgusting" about the discussion in this thread? Please object to something in specific because so far all you have done is complain about things that seem to have taken place at some other time and some other place on this board.

You seem to think that I want to disenfranchise some group of people, but that is completely counter to what I am arguing. Laws to disenfranchise would have the same prerequisite of suppressing the freedom of some in order to play with the scales of equality. Instead of tipping the scales towards equality they would be tipping them away from equality which is obviously objectionable. There could be nothing further from what I am arguing because not only would equality be suppressed, but so would freedom.

What laws would you like to see passed to promote equality? Or do you feel that we have reached the ideal of equality with our current society? Do you agree or disagree with the idea that overt enforcement of equality could be dangerous to society if taken to extremes? Why do you feel that way?

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

Some of us speak of abstract ideas as though they were doable.

Freedom?

Who among us is truly free?

Only the dead are free

Oh, I think it is and here's why...

People talk about FREEDOM as their individual freedom is an absolute possibility in a social setting.

Obviously it is not, and therefore pointing this (apparently not so obvious fact to some here) seems fitting in some circumstances

What you have written clearly shows that YOU understand this point.

But sadly many here (usually right wingersm but liefties fall for this crap too) fail to acknowledge that fact whenever the issue of freedom comes to the fore.



The above is an excellent discussion topic. If I steped on it and killed it I did not mean to do so.

I was merely pointing out what I consider and an apodictic truth.

As Tocqueville said, the perils of freedom are obvious to most, but the perils of equality are less obvious. He said, that they can sneak up on a society and that by the time the danger reaches its greatest potential most people won't even notice it.

So what do you see to be the perils of freedom or the perils of equality?

I see NO peril in equality under the law.

As to the perils of equality, perhaps you'll need to augment that with additional examples where de Tocqueville give us examples.

Certainly THAT would make a fabulous entre into a discussion of individual freedom and equality.

But one of the things I note about when people quote de toucquville is that they too often take a single sentence OUT OF CONTEXT that leads one to think that the man meant something quite DIFFERENT than he really meant.

I'm not saying you did this, but de touqville and Adam Smith have GOT TO BE to the most misunderstood editorialists known to most Americans.

Good points, and I will definitely be reading more of Tocqueville to see if he enumerates the perils he sees in equality more fully.

For now, I think the next useful thing to explore more fully is what actually constitutes equality. First, "[you] see NO peril in equality under the law." I understand this as follows: If something is illegal for one person it should be illegal for all people, and if something is legal for one person it should be legal for all people. There is an exception for children and mentally incompetent people that we as a society have decided are not capable of being held responsible or free to the same extent as the rest of us. This really only addresses one aspect of equality though: Equal accountability. That is not the end all be all of equality though.

Equal opportunity is a more elusive subject. If there is no law making a certain opportunity illegal for any group of people then all people are held equally under the law, but they are not actually equal. There are so many different factors that affect our opportunities that simply holding people accountable in equal proportion cannot make them equal in opportunity. So what would constitute equality in opportunity?

Say I'm born to a wealthy family. My family either owns a business where I can work or knows people who own businesses where I can work. My family can help me pay for school. My friends and neighbors all provide a network of support making it easier for me to get a job and provide for a family.

Now say I'm born to a poor family. My family doesn't own a business and doesn't know anyone who does. I have to get a minimum wage job early on just to help my family out. I have to work my way through school or take student loans to pay for it. When I graduate I have to start looking for a job with no support network backing me up.

The same comparison can be made for any of hundreds of different factors that can make men unequal. So how do you level the playing field? Just making it illegal to deny someone an opportunity does not give them that opportunity. If you pass laws to try to balance that opportunity how will you do it without limiting the opportunity of some to raise the opportunity of others?