Bull Ring Coyote Vs TNH

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Some of the most repressive communist societies have an enforced "equality" but very little liberty.
I think that everyone equally being suppressed isn't very fair lol. Especially since it wasn't ACTUALLY equality. Much like those totalitarians claimed communism when all they were were socialist dictators.
But it's true - and we're really speaking theoretically. If we start looking at actual societies, we'll few if any, with real liberty or equality, just varying degrees. Political ideologies often sound great on paper but fail the test of human implimentation. People don't act like they're supposed to.

If everyone is equally repressed - there is equality. It's not a good thing, but it's still equality.
Not everyone has been repressed. Certain qualities in people have always gotten them special treatment. Whether it was good or bad.
In reality - yes, that was how it ended up, just like in societies with great degrees of freedom you still don't have total equality - but I think we're talking more on the theoretical then how it ended up really working in the human societies. The thing is - if everyone is repressed the same, then within that group they are equal.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
There are fundamental differences in the meaning of equality and liberty:
Liberty, boiled down - is the freedom individuals have - freedom from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority
Equality is treating all individuals in the same manner.

Do we agree at least on the meanings?

You can't entirely strip the "social" aspect from either term because they EXIST within a social framework. Remove it and the terms have no meaning.

If you look at the definition of liberty closer, it's inexorably wound into our founding documents AND the concept of the individual and individual rights. Liberty denotes the freedom an individual has to speak, to think, to act as he or she wants to. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, to speak, think and act as he or she wants to - short, people should have the freedom to enjoy their lives and live them to the fullest. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". None of that necessarily means equality. In fact, "All men are created equal" - was a transformative idea independent of Liberty.

Equality also isn't just "social equality" - as in economic status. But it can also be equality in rights.

For example, a nation can have liberty for all it's citizens, but not all citizens have equal rights. Early on in our nation it was proposed that only landowners would have the right to vote. Blacks and women did not have the right to vote. That was inequality of rights yet we had liberty.

In some countries, journalists can not report the news freely due to political restrictions - that's a restriction of liberty, but in those countries equality still exists. Similarly in dictatorial regimes, a person might be killed or jailed for expressing certain political opinions - that's a restriction of liberty but it's not a restriction of equality, because all citizens are similarly repressed.

Likewise, you can flip it around. You can have a nation where one political party has the liberty to engage in activities, but another is denied the same right. That results in inequality where one has rights the other does not.

Liberty and equality are interrelated, and greater liberty often leads to greater equality - but they are not the same.

But you miss one important part of liberty; it ends when it involves someone else.

Without society, those terms wouldn't exist. They would be redundant.. But adding "social" to it and expanding the definition isn't something worth discussing. Hek, I can make up terms too, lol.
For the first sentence, aren't you conflating rights with liberty? Your rights end, for instance, where mine begin. Rights and liberty are two different things.

I'm not making up terms - I went to the dictionary find the definitions ;)

I agree - without society those terms wouldn't exist. Therefore they exist within a social framework.

Equality can have no meaning without looking at both individuals and the society they exist in.

If you look at the definition of liberty closer, it's inexorably wound into our founding documents AND the concept of the individual and individual rights. Liberty denotes the freedom an individual has to speak, to think, to act as he or she wants to. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, to speak, think and act as he or she wants to - short, people should have the freedom to enjoy their lives and live them to the fullest. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". None of that necessarily means equality.
How does it not? If the govt is oppressing you from civil rights and liberties that others have, how is that not inequality? Or, how does that not impede on individual liberty?
Answer : It is both. We didn't have liberty here when women couldn't vote. We didn't have liberty when black folks couldn't vote. It was also un-equal. People were treated differently.
Yes, they are the same. One cannot exist without the other.
True Liberty IS equality.
You're talking about rights - not liberty.

A person can have liberty without the right to vote.
No, im not. My liberty ends at your nose.
Its not liberty when I can go around and burn peoples houses down and not have to worry about the state locking me up.
No they cant. Voting is a civil liberty.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
Some of the most repressive communist societies have an enforced "equality" but very little liberty.
I think that everyone equally being suppressed isn't very fair lol. Especially since it wasn't ACTUALLY equality. Much like those totalitarians claimed communism when all they were were socialist dictators.
But it's true - and we're really speaking theoretically. If we start looking at actual societies, we'll few if any, with real liberty or equality, just varying degrees. Political ideologies often sound great on paper but fail the test of human implimentation. People don't act like they're supposed to.

If everyone is equally repressed - there is equality. It's not a good thing, but it's still equality.
Not everyone has been repressed. Certain qualities in people have always gotten them special treatment. Whether it was good or bad.
In reality - yes, that was how it ended up, just like in societies with great degrees of freedom you still don't have total equality - but I think we're talking more on the theoretical then how it ended up really working in the human societies. The thing is - if everyone is repressed the same, then within that group they are equal.
When, in history, has an entire Nation been repressed equally?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
I'm trying to look at it in broad concepts - not what the government does or doesn't do - that's not the argument. Are equality and liberty the same?

If we're going to add in society vs state, that broadens it some. Both society and state effect equality.

Liberty absolutely can exist without equality. Survival of the fittest is liberty taken to it's most extreme. Those with the best abilities can take the most resources. That leaves those with lesser abilities with less power, less resources etc. That is inequality.
Then, whats the point? Those are things given by the State. Ignoring the state makes it useless. Individuals cant give liberty or equality. That's where the fallacy of "social equality" comes in.
Your equality has nothing to do with the way I treat you.
Its like you are using it the terms to justify conformity. Because that's all "social equality" is.
The state can grant or repress liberty. The state can also effect equality. But equality is a function of both the state and the society. I'm not justifying conformity - but inforced equality can force conformity (Soviet State for example). Another example of equality without liberty.

My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.

Here's another example of how liberty and equality are two different things: Civil Rights and Affirmative Action

The Civil war ended slavery and emancipated African Americans: Liberty.
But was there real equality? No.

Because they brought in a series of laws - Jim Crowe - based on the concept of "seperate but equal".

The Civil Rights Movement struck down a series of old laws that segregated educational institutions, social institutions, and obstructed voting rights.

But was there equality? No. People could be denied employment and education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

In reaction to the inequality that persisted we created Affirmative Action which stipulated quotas for special groups. People could be hired or admitted to higher education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

But did we achieve equality? No. We just changed around the groups.

But in the all of the above we different degrees of liberty and equality culminating in Affirmative Action, where we had the same liberty we all share but still not equality.

And also questions - theortetically - is "seperate but equal" equality? If the laws are the same to both groups...do they have either liberty or equality

Liberty and equality intersect - liberty can lead to greater equality - but the two terms are distinct..
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
I'm trying to look at it in broad concepts - not what the government does or doesn't do - that's not the argument. Are equality and liberty the same?

If we're going to add in society vs state, that broadens it some. Both society and state effect equality.

Liberty absolutely can exist without equality. Survival of the fittest is liberty taken to it's most extreme. Those with the best abilities can take the most resources. That leaves those with lesser abilities with less power, less resources etc. That is inequality.
Then, whats the point? Those are things given by the State. Ignoring the state makes it useless. Individuals cant give liberty or equality. That's where the fallacy of "social equality" comes in.
Your equality has nothing to do with the way I treat you.
Its like you are using it the terms to justify conformity. Because that's all "social equality" is.
The state can grant or repress liberty. The state can also effect equality. But equality is a function of both the state and the society. I'm not justifying conformity - but inforced equality can force conformity (Soviet State for example). Another example of equality without liberty.

My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.

Here's another example of how liberty and equality are two different things: Civil Rights and Affirmative Action

The Civil war ended slavery and emancipated African Americans: Liberty.
But was there real equality? No.

Because they brought in a series of laws - Jim Crowe - based on the concept of "seperate but equal".

The Civil Rights Movement struck down a series of old laws that segregated educational institutions, social institutions, and obstructed voting rights.

But was there equality? No. People could be denied employment and education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

In reaction to the inequality that persisted we created Affirmative Action which stipulated quotas for special groups. People could be hired or admitted to higher education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

But did we achieve equality? No. We just changed around the groups.

But in the all of the above we different degrees of liberty and equality culminating in Affirmative Action, where we had the same liberty we all share but still not equality.

And also questions - theortetically - is "seperate but equal" equality? If the laws are the same to both groups...do they have either liberty or equality

Liberty and equality intersect - liberty can lead to greater equality - but the two terms are distinct..
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
There are fundamental differences in the meaning of equality and liberty:
Liberty, boiled down - is the freedom individuals have - freedom from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority
Equality is treating all individuals in the same manner.

Do we agree at least on the meanings?

You can't entirely strip the "social" aspect from either term because they EXIST within a social framework. Remove it and the terms have no meaning.

If you look at the definition of liberty closer, it's inexorably wound into our founding documents AND the concept of the individual and individual rights. Liberty denotes the freedom an individual has to speak, to think, to act as he or she wants to. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, to speak, think and act as he or she wants to - short, people should have the freedom to enjoy their lives and live them to the fullest. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". None of that necessarily means equality. In fact, "All men are created equal" - was a transformative idea independent of Liberty.

Equality also isn't just "social equality" - as in economic status. But it can also be equality in rights.

For example, a nation can have liberty for all it's citizens, but not all citizens have equal rights. Early on in our nation it was proposed that only landowners would have the right to vote. Blacks and women did not have the right to vote. That was inequality of rights yet we had liberty.

In some countries, journalists can not report the news freely due to political restrictions - that's a restriction of liberty, but in those countries equality still exists. Similarly in dictatorial regimes, a person might be killed or jailed for expressing certain political opinions - that's a restriction of liberty but it's not a restriction of equality, because all citizens are similarly repressed.

Likewise, you can flip it around. You can have a nation where one political party has the liberty to engage in activities, but another is denied the same right. That results in inequality where one has rights the other does not.

Liberty and equality are interrelated, and greater liberty often leads to greater equality - but they are not the same.

But you miss one important part of liberty; it ends when it involves someone else.

Without society, those terms wouldn't exist. They would be redundant.. But adding "social" to it and expanding the definition isn't something worth discussing. Hek, I can make up terms too, lol.
For the first sentence, aren't you conflating rights with liberty? Your rights end, for instance, where mine begin. Rights and liberty are two different things.

I'm not making up terms - I went to the dictionary find the definitions ;)

I agree - without society those terms wouldn't exist. Therefore they exist within a social framework.

Equality can have no meaning without looking at both individuals and the society they exist in.

If you look at the definition of liberty closer, it's inexorably wound into our founding documents AND the concept of the individual and individual rights. Liberty denotes the freedom an individual has to speak, to think, to act as he or she wants to. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, to speak, think and act as he or she wants to - short, people should have the freedom to enjoy their lives and live them to the fullest. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". None of that necessarily means equality.
How does it not? If the govt is oppressing you from civil rights and liberties that others have, how is that not inequality? Or, how does that not impede on individual liberty?
Answer : It is both. We didn't have liberty here when women couldn't vote. We didn't have liberty when black folks couldn't vote. It was also un-equal. People were treated differently.
Yes, they are the same. One cannot exist without the other.
True Liberty IS equality.
You're talking about rights - not liberty.

A person can have liberty without the right to vote.
No, im not. My liberty ends at your nose.
Its not liberty when I can go around and burn peoples houses down and not have to worry about the state locking me up.
No they cant. Voting is a civil liberty.
Liberty can can exist independent of rights - a completely lawless society with no state structure for example.

Definitions - again (dictionary, not made up) - Rights and Civil Liberties overlap, but I see voting as more of a Rght then a Civil Liberty.

Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities
Rights: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way
Civil Liberties: the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech. Individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
There are fundamental differences in the meaning of equality and liberty:
Liberty, boiled down - is the freedom individuals have - freedom from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority
Equality is treating all individuals in the same manner.

Do we agree at least on the meanings?

You can't entirely strip the "social" aspect from either term because they EXIST within a social framework. Remove it and the terms have no meaning.

If you look at the definition of liberty closer, it's inexorably wound into our founding documents AND the concept of the individual and individual rights. Liberty denotes the freedom an individual has to speak, to think, to act as he or she wants to. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, to speak, think and act as he or she wants to - short, people should have the freedom to enjoy their lives and live them to the fullest. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". None of that necessarily means equality. In fact, "All men are created equal" - was a transformative idea independent of Liberty.

Equality also isn't just "social equality" - as in economic status. But it can also be equality in rights.

For example, a nation can have liberty for all it's citizens, but not all citizens have equal rights. Early on in our nation it was proposed that only landowners would have the right to vote. Blacks and women did not have the right to vote. That was inequality of rights yet we had liberty.

In some countries, journalists can not report the news freely due to political restrictions - that's a restriction of liberty, but in those countries equality still exists. Similarly in dictatorial regimes, a person might be killed or jailed for expressing certain political opinions - that's a restriction of liberty but it's not a restriction of equality, because all citizens are similarly repressed.

Likewise, you can flip it around. You can have a nation where one political party has the liberty to engage in activities, but another is denied the same right. That results in inequality where one has rights the other does not.

Liberty and equality are interrelated, and greater liberty often leads to greater equality - but they are not the same.

But you miss one important part of liberty; it ends when it involves someone else.

Without society, those terms wouldn't exist. They would be redundant.. But adding "social" to it and expanding the definition isn't something worth discussing. Hek, I can make up terms too, lol.
For the first sentence, aren't you conflating rights with liberty? Your rights end, for instance, where mine begin. Rights and liberty are two different things.

I'm not making up terms - I went to the dictionary find the definitions ;)

I agree - without society those terms wouldn't exist. Therefore they exist within a social framework.

Equality can have no meaning without looking at both individuals and the society they exist in.

If you look at the definition of liberty closer, it's inexorably wound into our founding documents AND the concept of the individual and individual rights. Liberty denotes the freedom an individual has to speak, to think, to act as he or she wants to. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, to speak, think and act as he or she wants to - short, people should have the freedom to enjoy their lives and live them to the fullest. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". None of that necessarily means equality.
How does it not? If the govt is oppressing you from civil rights and liberties that others have, how is that not inequality? Or, how does that not impede on individual liberty?
Answer : It is both. We didn't have liberty here when women couldn't vote. We didn't have liberty when black folks couldn't vote. It was also un-equal. People were treated differently.
Yes, they are the same. One cannot exist without the other.
True Liberty IS equality.
You're talking about rights - not liberty.

A person can have liberty without the right to vote.
No, im not. My liberty ends at your nose.
Its not liberty when I can go around and burn peoples houses down and not have to worry about the state locking me up.
No they cant. Voting is a civil liberty.
Liberty can can exist independent of rights - a completely lawless society with no state structure for example.

Definitions - again (dictionary, not made up) - Rights and Civil Liberties overlap, but I see voting as more of a Rght then a Civil Liberty.

Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities
Rights: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way
Civil Liberties: the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech. Individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.
A completely lawless society is Anarchy. There is a huge difference.
Liberty involves the rights of everyone equally. Meaning if I come and pu8nch you in the face, I am not showing liberty. Its more like freedom to punch you in the face. "Everybody" is the KEY to liberty. Not "I".
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
I'm trying to look at it in broad concepts - not what the government does or doesn't do - that's not the argument. Are equality and liberty the same?

If we're going to add in society vs state, that broadens it some. Both society and state effect equality.

Liberty absolutely can exist without equality. Survival of the fittest is liberty taken to it's most extreme. Those with the best abilities can take the most resources. That leaves those with lesser abilities with less power, less resources etc. That is inequality.
Then, whats the point? Those are things given by the State. Ignoring the state makes it useless. Individuals cant give liberty or equality. That's where the fallacy of "social equality" comes in.
Your equality has nothing to do with the way I treat you.
Its like you are using it the terms to justify conformity. Because that's all "social equality" is.
The state can grant or repress liberty. The state can also effect equality. But equality is a function of both the state and the society. I'm not justifying conformity - but inforced equality can force conformity (Soviet State for example). Another example of equality without liberty.

My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.

Here's another example of how liberty and equality are two different things: Civil Rights and Affirmative Action

The Civil war ended slavery and emancipated African Americans: Liberty.
But was there real equality? No.

Because they brought in a series of laws - Jim Crowe - based on the concept of "seperate but equal".

The Civil Rights Movement struck down a series of old laws that segregated educational institutions, social institutions, and obstructed voting rights.

But was there equality? No. People could be denied employment and education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

In reaction to the inequality that persisted we created Affirmative Action which stipulated quotas for special groups. People could be hired or admitted to higher education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

But did we achieve equality? No. We just changed around the groups.

But in the all of the above we different degrees of liberty and equality culminating in Affirmative Action, where we had the same liberty we all share but still not equality.

And also questions - theortetically - is "seperate but equal" equality? If the laws are the same to both groups...do they have either liberty or equality

Liberty and equality intersect - liberty can lead to greater equality - but the two terms are distinct..
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.

It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
I'm trying to look at it in broad concepts - not what the government does or doesn't do - that's not the argument. Are equality and liberty the same?

If we're going to add in society vs state, that broadens it some. Both society and state effect equality.

Liberty absolutely can exist without equality. Survival of the fittest is liberty taken to it's most extreme. Those with the best abilities can take the most resources. That leaves those with lesser abilities with less power, less resources etc. That is inequality.
Then, whats the point? Those are things given by the State. Ignoring the state makes it useless. Individuals cant give liberty or equality. That's where the fallacy of "social equality" comes in.
Your equality has nothing to do with the way I treat you.
Its like you are using it the terms to justify conformity. Because that's all "social equality" is.
The state can grant or repress liberty. The state can also effect equality. But equality is a function of both the state and the society. I'm not justifying conformity - but inforced equality can force conformity (Soviet State for example). Another example of equality without liberty.

My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.

Here's another example of how liberty and equality are two different things: Civil Rights and Affirmative Action

The Civil war ended slavery and emancipated African Americans: Liberty.
But was there real equality? No.

Because they brought in a series of laws - Jim Crowe - based on the concept of "seperate but equal".

The Civil Rights Movement struck down a series of old laws that segregated educational institutions, social institutions, and obstructed voting rights.

But was there equality? No. People could be denied employment and education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

In reaction to the inequality that persisted we created Affirmative Action which stipulated quotas for special groups. People could be hired or admitted to higher education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

But did we achieve equality? No. We just changed around the groups.

But in the all of the above we different degrees of liberty and equality culminating in Affirmative Action, where we had the same liberty we all share but still not equality.

And also questions - theortetically - is "seperate but equal" equality? If the laws are the same to both groups...do they have either liberty or equality

Liberty and equality intersect - liberty can lead to greater equality - but the two terms are distinct..
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.

It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
There are fundamental differences in the meaning of equality and liberty:
Liberty, boiled down - is the freedom individuals have - freedom from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority
Equality is treating all individuals in the same manner.

Do we agree at least on the meanings?

You can't entirely strip the "social" aspect from either term because they EXIST within a social framework. Remove it and the terms have no meaning.

If you look at the definition of liberty closer, it's inexorably wound into our founding documents AND the concept of the individual and individual rights. Liberty denotes the freedom an individual has to speak, to think, to act as he or she wants to. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, to speak, think and act as he or she wants to - short, people should have the freedom to enjoy their lives and live them to the fullest. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". None of that necessarily means equality. In fact, "All men are created equal" - was a transformative idea independent of Liberty.

Equality also isn't just "social equality" - as in economic status. But it can also be equality in rights.

For example, a nation can have liberty for all it's citizens, but not all citizens have equal rights. Early on in our nation it was proposed that only landowners would have the right to vote. Blacks and women did not have the right to vote. That was inequality of rights yet we had liberty.

In some countries, journalists can not report the news freely due to political restrictions - that's a restriction of liberty, but in those countries equality still exists. Similarly in dictatorial regimes, a person might be killed or jailed for expressing certain political opinions - that's a restriction of liberty but it's not a restriction of equality, because all citizens are similarly repressed.

Likewise, you can flip it around. You can have a nation where one political party has the liberty to engage in activities, but another is denied the same right. That results in inequality where one has rights the other does not.

Liberty and equality are interrelated, and greater liberty often leads to greater equality - but they are not the same.

But you miss one important part of liberty; it ends when it involves someone else.

Without society, those terms wouldn't exist. They would be redundant.. But adding "social" to it and expanding the definition isn't something worth discussing. Hek, I can make up terms too, lol.
For the first sentence, aren't you conflating rights with liberty? Your rights end, for instance, where mine begin. Rights and liberty are two different things.

I'm not making up terms - I went to the dictionary find the definitions ;)

I agree - without society those terms wouldn't exist. Therefore they exist within a social framework.

Equality can have no meaning without looking at both individuals and the society they exist in.

If you look at the definition of liberty closer, it's inexorably wound into our founding documents AND the concept of the individual and individual rights. Liberty denotes the freedom an individual has to speak, to think, to act as he or she wants to. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, to speak, think and act as he or she wants to - short, people should have the freedom to enjoy their lives and live them to the fullest. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". None of that necessarily means equality.
How does it not? If the govt is oppressing you from civil rights and liberties that others have, how is that not inequality? Or, how does that not impede on individual liberty?
Answer : It is both. We didn't have liberty here when women couldn't vote. We didn't have liberty when black folks couldn't vote. It was also un-equal. People were treated differently.
Yes, they are the same. One cannot exist without the other.
True Liberty IS equality.
You're talking about rights - not liberty.

A person can have liberty without the right to vote.
No, im not. My liberty ends at your nose.
Its not liberty when I can go around and burn peoples houses down and not have to worry about the state locking me up.
No they cant. Voting is a civil liberty.
Liberty can can exist independent of rights - a completely lawless society with no state structure for example.

Definitions - again (dictionary, not made up) - Rights and Civil Liberties overlap, but I see voting as more of a Rght then a Civil Liberty.

Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities
Rights: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way
Civil Liberties: the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech. Individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.
A completely lawless society is Anarchy. There is a huge difference.
Liberty involves the rights of everyone equally. Meaning if I come and pu8nch you in the face, I am not showing liberty. Its more like freedom to punch you in the face. "Everybody" is the KEY to liberty. Not "I".
Are you saying liberty involves a mutual respect of everyone's rights?

Wikipedia defines liberty - in a philosophical sense - in this way:
Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties."[3]

Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others

Is this how you are defining liberty?

You still aren't going to necessarily have equality though. What you'll have is that your actions are constrained by the rights of others which might or might not lead to equality.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
But you miss one important part of liberty; it ends when it involves someone else.

Without society, those terms wouldn't exist. They would be redundant.. But adding "social" to it and expanding the definition isn't something worth discussing. Hek, I can make up terms too, lol.
For the first sentence, aren't you conflating rights with liberty? Your rights end, for instance, where mine begin. Rights and liberty are two different things.

I'm not making up terms - I went to the dictionary find the definitions ;)

I agree - without society those terms wouldn't exist. Therefore they exist within a social framework.

Equality can have no meaning without looking at both individuals and the society they exist in.

How does it not? If the govt is oppressing you from civil rights and liberties that others have, how is that not inequality? Or, how does that not impede on individual liberty?
Answer : It is both. We didn't have liberty here when women couldn't vote. We didn't have liberty when black folks couldn't vote. It was also un-equal. People were treated differently.
Yes, they are the same. One cannot exist without the other.
True Liberty IS equality.
You're talking about rights - not liberty.

A person can have liberty without the right to vote.
No, im not. My liberty ends at your nose.
Its not liberty when I can go around and burn peoples houses down and not have to worry about the state locking me up.
No they cant. Voting is a civil liberty.
Liberty can can exist independent of rights - a completely lawless society with no state structure for example.

Definitions - again (dictionary, not made up) - Rights and Civil Liberties overlap, but I see voting as more of a Rght then a Civil Liberty.

Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities
Rights: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way
Civil Liberties: the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech. Individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.
A completely lawless society is Anarchy. There is a huge difference.
Liberty involves the rights of everyone equally. Meaning if I come and pu8nch you in the face, I am not showing liberty. Its more like freedom to punch you in the face. "Everybody" is the KEY to liberty. Not "I".
Are you saying liberty involves a mutual respect of everyone's rights?

Wikipedia defines liberty - in a philosophical sense - in this way:
Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties."[3]

Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others

Is this how you are defining liberty?

You still aren't going to necessarily have equality though. What you'll have is that your actions are constrained by the rights of others which might or might not lead to equality.
Pretty much.
You WILL have equality because EVERYONE has the same rights. If someone doesn't, liberty doesnt exist.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
I'm trying to look at it in broad concepts - not what the government does or doesn't do - that's not the argument. Are equality and liberty the same?

If we're going to add in society vs state, that broadens it some. Both society and state effect equality.

Liberty absolutely can exist without equality. Survival of the fittest is liberty taken to it's most extreme. Those with the best abilities can take the most resources. That leaves those with lesser abilities with less power, less resources etc. That is inequality.
Then, whats the point? Those are things given by the State. Ignoring the state makes it useless. Individuals cant give liberty or equality. That's where the fallacy of "social equality" comes in.
Your equality has nothing to do with the way I treat you.
Its like you are using it the terms to justify conformity. Because that's all "social equality" is.
The state can grant or repress liberty. The state can also effect equality. But equality is a function of both the state and the society. I'm not justifying conformity - but inforced equality can force conformity (Soviet State for example). Another example of equality without liberty.

My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.

Here's another example of how liberty and equality are two different things: Civil Rights and Affirmative Action

The Civil war ended slavery and emancipated African Americans: Liberty.
But was there real equality? No.

Because they brought in a series of laws - Jim Crowe - based on the concept of "seperate but equal".

The Civil Rights Movement struck down a series of old laws that segregated educational institutions, social institutions, and obstructed voting rights.

But was there equality? No. People could be denied employment and education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

In reaction to the inequality that persisted we created Affirmative Action which stipulated quotas for special groups. People could be hired or admitted to higher education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

But did we achieve equality? No. We just changed around the groups.

But in the all of the above we different degrees of liberty and equality culminating in Affirmative Action, where we had the same liberty we all share but still not equality.

And also questions - theortetically - is "seperate but equal" equality? If the laws are the same to both groups...do they have either liberty or equality

Liberty and equality intersect - liberty can lead to greater equality - but the two terms are distinct..
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.

It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
I agree - society doesn't GRANT equality - the state does - driven by society in a democratic system.

But while the state can GRANT it, society creates the reality of it.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
For the first sentence, aren't you conflating rights with liberty? Your rights end, for instance, where mine begin. Rights and liberty are two different things.

I'm not making up terms - I went to the dictionary find the definitions ;)

I agree - without society those terms wouldn't exist. Therefore they exist within a social framework.

Equality can have no meaning without looking at both individuals and the society they exist in.

You're talking about rights - not liberty.

A person can have liberty without the right to vote.
No, im not. My liberty ends at your nose.
Its not liberty when I can go around and burn peoples houses down and not have to worry about the state locking me up.
No they cant. Voting is a civil liberty.
Liberty can can exist independent of rights - a completely lawless society with no state structure for example.

Definitions - again (dictionary, not made up) - Rights and Civil Liberties overlap, but I see voting as more of a Rght then a Civil Liberty.

Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities
Rights: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way
Civil Liberties: the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech. Individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.
A completely lawless society is Anarchy. There is a huge difference.
Liberty involves the rights of everyone equally. Meaning if I come and pu8nch you in the face, I am not showing liberty. Its more like freedom to punch you in the face. "Everybody" is the KEY to liberty. Not "I".
Are you saying liberty involves a mutual respect of everyone's rights?

Wikipedia defines liberty - in a philosophical sense - in this way:
Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties."[3]

Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others

Is this how you are defining liberty?

You still aren't going to necessarily have equality though. What you'll have is that your actions are constrained by the rights of others which might or might not lead to equality.
Pretty much.
You WILL have equality because EVERYONE has the same rights. If someone doesn't, liberty doesnt exist.
So you are saying Liberty means equality of RIGHTS. Ok, on that I can agree.

But Liberty doesn't necessarily mean equality, and equality can exist without Liberty so they aren't the same thing.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
Then, whats the point? Those are things given by the State. Ignoring the state makes it useless. Individuals cant give liberty or equality. That's where the fallacy of "social equality" comes in.
Your equality has nothing to do with the way I treat you.
Its like you are using it the terms to justify conformity. Because that's all "social equality" is.
The state can grant or repress liberty. The state can also effect equality. But equality is a function of both the state and the society. I'm not justifying conformity - but inforced equality can force conformity (Soviet State for example). Another example of equality without liberty.

My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.

Here's another example of how liberty and equality are two different things: Civil Rights and Affirmative Action

The Civil war ended slavery and emancipated African Americans: Liberty.
But was there real equality? No.

Because they brought in a series of laws - Jim Crowe - based on the concept of "seperate but equal".

The Civil Rights Movement struck down a series of old laws that segregated educational institutions, social institutions, and obstructed voting rights.

But was there equality? No. People could be denied employment and education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

In reaction to the inequality that persisted we created Affirmative Action which stipulated quotas for special groups. People could be hired or admitted to higher education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

But did we achieve equality? No. We just changed around the groups.

But in the all of the above we different degrees of liberty and equality culminating in Affirmative Action, where we had the same liberty we all share but still not equality.

And also questions - theortetically - is "seperate but equal" equality? If the laws are the same to both groups...do they have either liberty or equality

Liberty and equality intersect - liberty can lead to greater equality - but the two terms are distinct..
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.

It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
I agree - society doesn't GRANT equality - the state does - driven by society in a democratic system.

But while the state can GRANT it, society creates the reality of it.
Society doesn't create the reality because society cant take it away.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
No, im not. My liberty ends at your nose.
Its not liberty when I can go around and burn peoples houses down and not have to worry about the state locking me up.
No they cant. Voting is a civil liberty.
Liberty can can exist independent of rights - a completely lawless society with no state structure for example.

Definitions - again (dictionary, not made up) - Rights and Civil Liberties overlap, but I see voting as more of a Rght then a Civil Liberty.

Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities
Rights: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way
Civil Liberties: the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech. Individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.
A completely lawless society is Anarchy. There is a huge difference.
Liberty involves the rights of everyone equally. Meaning if I come and pu8nch you in the face, I am not showing liberty. Its more like freedom to punch you in the face. "Everybody" is the KEY to liberty. Not "I".
Are you saying liberty involves a mutual respect of everyone's rights?

Wikipedia defines liberty - in a philosophical sense - in this way:
Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties."[3]

Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others

Is this how you are defining liberty?

You still aren't going to necessarily have equality though. What you'll have is that your actions are constrained by the rights of others which might or might not lead to equality.
Pretty much.
You WILL have equality because EVERYONE has the same rights. If someone doesn't, liberty doesnt exist.
So you are saying Liberty means equality of RIGHTS. Ok, on that I can agree.

But Liberty doesn't necessarily mean equality, and equality can exist without Liberty so they aren't the same thing.
Liberty cant exist without equality. It just cant. If equality doesn't exist, it isn't liberty. The ENTIRE concept of liberty is based on "equality".
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
The state can grant or repress liberty. The state can also effect equality. But equality is a function of both the state and the society. I'm not justifying conformity - but inforced equality can force conformity (Soviet State for example). Another example of equality without liberty.

My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.

Here's another example of how liberty and equality are two different things: Civil Rights and Affirmative Action

The Civil war ended slavery and emancipated African Americans: Liberty.
But was there real equality? No.

Because they brought in a series of laws - Jim Crowe - based on the concept of "seperate but equal".

The Civil Rights Movement struck down a series of old laws that segregated educational institutions, social institutions, and obstructed voting rights.

But was there equality? No. People could be denied employment and education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

In reaction to the inequality that persisted we created Affirmative Action which stipulated quotas for special groups. People could be hired or admitted to higher education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

But did we achieve equality? No. We just changed around the groups.

But in the all of the above we different degrees of liberty and equality culminating in Affirmative Action, where we had the same liberty we all share but still not equality.

And also questions - theortetically - is "seperate but equal" equality? If the laws are the same to both groups...do they have either liberty or equality

Liberty and equality intersect - liberty can lead to greater equality - but the two terms are distinct..
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.

It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
I agree - society doesn't GRANT equality - the state does - driven by society in a democratic system.

But while the state can GRANT it, society creates the reality of it.
Society doesn't create the reality because society cant take it away.
Yes it can.

Let's go back to individual rights - in particular the right to refuse service for any reason, which has come up a lot recently.

Let's say you have a small minority, among a large majority, that is percieved as immoral or abhorant due to religious beliefs of the majority. As a result, they can deny medical treatment, emergency services, hotel accommodations, employment, entry to facilities and housing. The majority is engaging in their individual right to say "no". The minority has the same right. They are equal in granted rights.

But where is the equality in circumstances? Equality of rights alone is meaningless if those rights can't be adequately exercised due to society.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
The state can grant or repress liberty. The state can also effect equality. But equality is a function of both the state and the society. I'm not justifying conformity - but inforced equality can force conformity (Soviet State for example). Another example of equality without liberty.

My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.

Here's another example of how liberty and equality are two different things: Civil Rights and Affirmative Action

The Civil war ended slavery and emancipated African Americans: Liberty.
But was there real equality? No.

Because they brought in a series of laws - Jim Crowe - based on the concept of "seperate but equal".

The Civil Rights Movement struck down a series of old laws that segregated educational institutions, social institutions, and obstructed voting rights.

But was there equality? No. People could be denied employment and education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

In reaction to the inequality that persisted we created Affirmative Action which stipulated quotas for special groups. People could be hired or admitted to higher education on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity - not merit.

But did we achieve equality? No. We just changed around the groups.

But in the all of the above we different degrees of liberty and equality culminating in Affirmative Action, where we had the same liberty we all share but still not equality.

And also questions - theortetically - is "seperate but equal" equality? If the laws are the same to both groups...do they have either liberty or equality

Liberty and equality intersect - liberty can lead to greater equality - but the two terms are distinct..
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.

It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
I agree - society doesn't GRANT equality - the state does - driven by society in a democratic system.

But while the state can GRANT it, society creates the reality of it.
Society doesn't create the reality because society cant take it away.

Yes, it can - society can curtail the expression of one's rights, which effects equality.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.

It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
I agree - society doesn't GRANT equality - the state does - driven by society in a democratic system.

But while the state can GRANT it, society creates the reality of it.
Society doesn't create the reality because society cant take it away.
Yes it can.

Let's go back to individual rights - in particular the right to refuse service for any reason, which has come up a lot recently.

Let's say you have a small minority, among a large majority, that is percieved as immoral or abhorant due to religious beliefs of the majority. As a result, they can deny medical treatment, emergency services, hotel accommodations, employment, entry to facilities and housing. The majority is engaging in their individual right to say "no". The minority has the same right. They are equal in granted rights.

But where is the equality in circumstances? Equality of rights alone is meaningless if those rights can't be adequately exercised due to society.
It doesn't matter. If someone got forced to do something they wanted, equality wouldn't exist for them.
This goes along with that fallacious "social equality" bullshit the Marxists came up with to attack liberty and capitalism. People get told no. It has nothing to do with liberty. You might have a point if one group COULDNT tell someone no, but then equality and liberty wouldn't exist anyways.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,694
Reaction score
11,346
Points
2,030
No, equality isn't given by society. Marxist spin.
My equality does have something to do with how you treat me if you are in a position to effect my rights.
What right could I possibly take from you?
If you think simply ending slavery gave blacks liberty, you are wholly mistaken.

It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
I agree - society doesn't GRANT equality - the state does - driven by society in a democratic system.

But while the state can GRANT it, society creates the reality of it.
Society doesn't create the reality because society cant take it away.

Yes, it can - society can curtail the expression of one's rights, which effects equality.
See, this is what I was getting at earlier. You cant battle liberty and equality when the rights you are fighting for doesn't even EXIST.
Being told NO is the PERFECT example of liberty in the works.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
81,602
Reaction score
16,565
Points
2,180
Location
in between
It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
I agree - society doesn't GRANT equality - the state does - driven by society in a democratic system.

But while the state can GRANT it, society creates the reality of it.
Society doesn't create the reality because society cant take it away.

Yes, it can - society can curtail the expression of one's rights, which effects equality.
See, this is what I was getting at earlier. You cant battle liberty and equality when the rights you are fighting for doesn't even EXIST.
Being told NO is the PERFECT example of liberty in the works.
It absolutely is and it's nothing to do with Marxism.
Equality is as much a product of society as state.
And my example with ending slavery illustrates that. Because who enforced inequality? Society. Who pushed for the seperate but equal laws? Society. Who continued the practices when laws were upended? Society.
No it isn't! Society has NOTHING to do with the granting of equality.
the oppression against blacks was done by the federal govt. They institutionalized discrimination. Not giving a black person a job because they are black has nothing to do with equality. Nothing. You can SPIN it to where it does, but it still doesn't.
Equality doesn't stem from society. If we didn't have a state, equality(the term) wouldn't exist because we would have anarchy.
I have absolutely NO POWER in taking away your equality. NONE
I agree - society doesn't GRANT equality - the state does - driven by society in a democratic system.

But while the state can GRANT it, society creates the reality of it.
Society doesn't create the reality because society cant take it away.
Yes it can.

Let's go back to individual rights - in particular the right to refuse service for any reason, which has come up a lot recently.

Let's say you have a small minority, among a large majority, that is percieved as immoral or abhorant due to religious beliefs of the majority. As a result, they can deny medical treatment, emergency services, hotel accommodations, employment, entry to facilities and housing. The majority is engaging in their individual right to say "no". The minority has the same right. They are equal in granted rights.

But where is the equality in circumstances? Equality of rights alone is meaningless if those rights can't be adequately exercised due to society.
It doesn't matter. If someone got forced to do something they wanted, equality wouldn't exist for them.
This goes along with that fallacious "social equality" bullshit the Marxists came up with to attack liberty and capitalism. People get told no. It has nothing to do with liberty. You might have a point if one group COULDNT tell someone no, but then equality and liberty wouldn't exist anyways.
But likewise, if someone is prevented from doing something - exercising their rights - by society - then equality doesn't exist for that person. They have equal RIGHTS but they don't have EQUALITY.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top