Bull Ring Coyote Vs TNH

[TNHarley]

Liberty & Equality
Same or different?
Coyote



Let me start this off with the most basic breakdown I can think of.
Liberty is basically the exercise of human rights in any manner a person wants, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else.
Equality is basically the status of being equal.
So, in essence, how could liberty even exist without equality? Its not true liberty if one man can do something another cant, correct? Of course! There is absolutely NO value in liberty if equality is absent. Doesn't even exist.
I think the two words are raped to the point of non existence anyways. Like racist. Equality isn't one race of people getting special rights other groups don't. Quit the opposite. You could attach some emotional spin to it, but it wont change the reality.. If one group gets special rights(inequality), liberty doesn't exist. Why? Because one man is able to do what he wants, while another man is constrained by the State.

 

[Coyote]

For observers - a quick review of the rules. The debate is only between TN and myself (as per the rules of the Bullring) until the debate is finished in 3 days or sooner if we choose to close our argument.
-----------------

Liberty is defined as freedom: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Equality is defined as: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

The two can exist in the same society.
Liberty can lead to greater equality.
But they are not the same.

For example, you can have a state where there is liberty - the law is equal but the society itself is not.

Let's say there is a state called Blondonia. Liberty is prized and the laws are constructed to have the least amount of impact on personal liberty. Blondonian citizens are free to hire or fire whom they choose, to serve whom they choose in their establishments, accept in their schools and sell or rent housing too. No Blondonian will ever be forced to go against his religious conscience and bake a cake for a same sex wedding! Now, while individual liberty is equal under law, Blondonian culture is not so equal. Red haired Blondonians are widely regarded as inferior, culturally backwards, and of low intelligence. Establishments frequently will not serve them, or serve them in seperate facilities. Institutions of higher learning rarely admit red heads, and even when they do - it's a dye job. Certain jobs are closed to redheads (they aren't considered capable). Realters won't sell to red heads in prime areas. Disneyland sports a sign saying "No shirts, No shoes, No redheads". You have liberty - each person is free to make choices, in their lives, in their business' - the law guarantees that for everyone in Blondonia. But is there equality?

Likewise you can have equality without liberty. Some of the most repressive communist societies have an enforced "equality" but very little liberty.

 

[TNHarley]

Liberty is not freedom. Freedom would mean I could do what I want. If it destroys your life, your loss. While talking about liberty, if it destroys your life, in return, the law could destroy me. Because I did not have the right to do that.

Society being able to choose what it wants to do is liberty in itself. Obviously, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else. Unless you are talking about institutional discrimination, which is an ENTIRELY different matter.
Your example is a great one. For MY argument
A person not being able to choose who they sell their private property to is not equality.. You may see it as equality, but if you consider the actual definition, it is the opposite. (that's where my "emotional spin" came into play in the OP). You would basically be choosing the redheads rights over everyone elses rights.
"your liberty ends at my nose"
A person getting told "no" to a product or service does not infringe on their liberty. I have never understood that "logic". Especially since the redhead has the EQUAL option of telling people "no."
Social equality is a completely different matter. That is Marxist terminology used to attack liberty and capitalism. Social equality and equality are not the same thing. Trying to hijack a decent concept like they did "liberal"

 

[Coyote]

Liberty is not freedom. Freedom would mean I could do what I want. If it destroys your life, your loss. While talking about liberty, if it destroys your life, in return, the law could destroy me. Because I did not have the right to do that.

Society being able to choose what it wants to do is liberty in itself. Obviously, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else. Unless you are talking about institutional discrimination, which is an ENTIRELY different matter.

That's a good distinction, and I agree - it also fits with the definition I used: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Your example is a great one. For MY argument
A person not being able to choose who they sell their private property to is not equality.. You may see it as equality, but if you consider the actual definition, it is the opposite. (that's where my "emotional spin" came into play in the OP). You would basically be choosing the redheads rights over everyone elses rights.
"your liberty ends at my nose"
A person getting told "no" to a product or service does not infringe on their liberty. I have never understood that "logic". Especially since the redhead has the EQUAL option of telling people "no."
Social equality is a completely different matter. That is Marxist terminology used to attack liberty and capitalism. Social equality and equality are not the same thing. Trying to hijack a decent concept like they did "liberal"

We may be running into problems with the definition then. My definition of equality is social equality. Because liberty is also defined within a social construct - so is equality.

If a person is not being able to choose who they sell their private property to it is not liberty.

It can be equality if the law or rule is applied equally - in other words, they can't discriminate based on hair color - thus all hair colors are treated equally. (now bald people...that might be an issue.. .). Now if they were told they MUST sell to red heads, that is not equality.

 

[TNHarley]

Liberty is not freedom. Freedom would mean I could do what I want. If it destroys your life, your loss. While talking about liberty, if it destroys your life, in return, the law could destroy me. Because I did not have the right to do that.

Society being able to choose what it wants to do is liberty in itself. Obviously, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else. Unless you are talking about institutional discrimination, which is an ENTIRELY different matter.

That's a good distinction, and I agree - it also fits with the definition I used: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Your example is a great one. For MY argument
A person not being able to choose who they sell their private property to is not equality.. You may see it as equality, but if you consider the actual definition, it is the opposite. (that's where my "emotional spin" came into play in the OP). You would basically be choosing the redheads rights over everyone elses rights.
"your liberty ends at my nose"
A person getting told "no" to a product or service does not infringe on their liberty. I have never understood that "logic". Especially since the redhead has the EQUAL option of telling people "no."
Social equality is a completely different matter. That is Marxist terminology used to attack liberty and capitalism. Social equality and equality are not the same thing. Trying to hijack a decent concept like they did "liberal"

We may be running into problems with the definition then. My definition of equality is social equality. Because liberty is also defined within a social construct - so is equality.


If a person is not being able to choose who they sell their private property to it is not liberty.

It can be equality if the law or rule is applied equally - in other words, they can't discriminate based on hair color - thus all hair colors are treated equally. (now bald people...that might be an issue.. .). Now if they were told they MUST sell to red heads, that is not equality.

Social equality is a Marxist term like todays version of liberal. Social equality can only be done by institutional discrimination. There is no way around it. SOMEONE is getting oppressed. Im sorry, but that's not equality. That's an emotional stigma.

It can be equality if the law or rule is applied equally - in other words, they can't discriminate based on hair color - thus all hair colors are treated equally.
You might have a point if we were discussing the fallacy of social equality. But we aren't.
All hair colors are treated equally. They all have the option to tell people no. Someone saying no to someone has absolutely nothing to do with liberty/equality.
Social equality is nothing more than forced conformity, institutional discrimination and/or involuntary servitude. Its not about equality. If it was, you wouldn't want to be FORCING people to go against their will to appease someone else. Its a circle of stupidity. Or greed. However you want to look at it.
Equality has absolutely nothing to do with ones feelings.

Now if they were told they MUST sell to red heads, that is not equality.
Kinda throwing me for a loop on that one. Doesn't seem consistent.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

 

[Coyote]

I don't regard social equality as a "fallacy" and, it is the definition of equality that I use.

How is equality meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't. How is liberty meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't. You're defining it solely on the equal ability to say "no".

Liberty is when people can act and speak freely - equality is being equal in rights and opportunities. If a person is granted certain liberties, that does not mean the person is given equality.

What is the difference between liberty and equality?

In America, as long as what a person says does doesn't offend, take away rights from or harm another person, the person is given liberty. This is one of the core values of the country. Equality is another core value that is meant to give every person in the country the same opportunities as every one else. Everyone should have the right to participate in the political process, enjoy economic success and generally live fulfilling lives.

An example of liberty is journalism. For good or bad, as long as a journalist doesn't make libelous or slanderous comments designed to hurt a person or group of people, the journalist can utilize freedom of the press and talk about whatever he or she wants.

An example of equality is the ability to attend school. Everyone, regardless of their financial or ethnic background, has the ability to obtain an education. A school cannot discriminate against anyone who can perform the steps necessary to gain admittance and better themselves through education.​

Gotta run, but I'll be back on later

 

[TNHarley]

I don't regard social equality as a "fallacy" and, it is the definition of equality that I use.

How is equality meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't. How is liberty meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't. You're defining it solely on the equal ability to say "no".

Liberty is when people can act and speak freely - equality is being equal in rights and opportunities. If a person is granted certain liberties, that does not mean the person is given equality.

What is the difference between liberty and equality?

In America, as long as what a person says does doesn't offend, take away rights from or harm another person, the person is given liberty. This is one of the core values of the country. Equality is another core value that is meant to give every person in the country the same opportunities as every one else. Everyone should have the right to participate in the political process, enjoy economic success and generally live fulfilling lives.

An example of liberty is journalism. For good or bad, as long as a journalist doesn't make libelous or slanderous comments designed to hurt a person or group of people, the journalist can utilize freedom of the press and talk about whatever he or she wants.

An example of equality is the ability to attend school. Everyone, regardless of their financial or ethnic background, has the ability to obtain an education. A school cannot discriminate against anyone who can perform the steps necessary to gain admittance and better themselves through education.​

Gotta run, but I'll be back on later

How is equality meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't. How is liberty meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't.
Well yeah, if there was one person, liberty or equality wouldn't be an issue lol..

If a person is granted certain liberties, that does not mean the person is given equality.
I know. Liberty and equality cant be measured on a scale of one person. It doesn't even apply. Read your first paragraph lol..

Everyone should have the right to participate in the political process, enjoy economic success and generally live fulfilling lives.
Yep, that's liberty/equality
An example of equality is the ability to attend school. Everyone, regardless of their financial or ethnic background, has the ability to obtain an education. A school cannot discriminate against anyone who can perform the steps necessary to gain admittance and better themselves through education.
Ok and how is that not liberty?
If this person got to go to school, but I didn't and I want to, that would be infringing on my liberty with something that is supposed to be granted to everyone..
I also notice you seem stuck on "social equality" but keep equating institutional discrimination with it.
Social equality derives from society. Not from the government. Unless you are ok with the government shoving institutional discrimination down our throats.. That's the ONLY WAY the government can implement "social equality". AKA totalitarianism.
Society doesn't give you equality or liberty. The State does. If there is no state, the concepts we are discussing wouldn't even matter. Except for social equality when society battles society.
Again, its all a big circle of stupidity.
Liberty IS equality. Doesn't even exist without it.

 

[TNHarley]

BTW, subjectiveness shouldn't qualify in this.
My definition of equality is social equality
Doesn't matter what your definition is. We are going by fact.
Social equality is a relatively new concept created by people that wanted the govt to dictate an individuals liberty. Trying to ruin the "your liberty ends at my nose".. basically making it mean "your liberty ends at my nose but my liberty ends wherever the hek I say it does."

 

[Coyote]

BTW, subjectiveness shouldn't qualify in this.
My definition of equality is social equality
Doesn't matter what your definition is. We are going by fact.
Social equality is a relatively new concept created by people that wanted the govt to dictate an individuals liberty. Trying to ruin the "your liberty ends at my nose".. basically making it mean "your liberty ends at my nose but my liberty ends wherever the hek I say it does."

I'm not being subjective here.

I went to the dictionary for the definitions of equality and liberty - it makes it difficult to debate if we aren't on the same page there.

The dictionary definitions were in my first post:
Liberty is defined as freedom: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Equality is defined as: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

So that is what I'm aguing from.

 

[Coyote]

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.

 

[Coyote]

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.

 

[Coyote]

I don't regard social equality as a "fallacy" and, it is the definition of equality that I use.

How is equality meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't. How is liberty meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't. You're defining it solely on the equal ability to say "no".

Liberty is when people can act and speak freely - equality is being equal in rights and opportunities. If a person is granted certain liberties, that does not mean the person is given equality.

What is the difference between liberty and equality?

In America, as long as what a person says does doesn't offend, take away rights from or harm another person, the person is given liberty. This is one of the core values of the country. Equality is another core value that is meant to give every person in the country the same opportunities as every one else. Everyone should have the right to participate in the political process, enjoy economic success and generally live fulfilling lives.

An example of liberty is journalism. For good or bad, as long as a journalist doesn't make libelous or slanderous comments designed to hurt a person or group of people, the journalist can utilize freedom of the press and talk about whatever he or she wants.

An example of equality is the ability to attend school. Everyone, regardless of their financial or ethnic background, has the ability to obtain an education. A school cannot discriminate against anyone who can perform the steps necessary to gain admittance and better themselves through education.​

Gotta run, but I'll be back on later

How is equality meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't. How is liberty meaningful outside of a social sense? It isn't.
Well yeah, if there was one person, liberty or equality wouldn't be an issue lol..

If a person is granted certain liberties, that does not mean the person is given equality.
I know. Liberty and equality cant be measured on a scale of one person. It doesn't even apply. Read your first paragraph lol..

Everyone should have the right to participate in the political process, enjoy economic success and generally live fulfilling lives.
Yep, that's liberty/equality
An example of equality is the ability to attend school. Everyone, regardless of their financial or ethnic background, has the ability to obtain an education. A school cannot discriminate against anyone who can perform the steps necessary to gain admittance and better themselves through education.
Ok and how is that not liberty?

In that particular case, it can function as the same - it is both equality and liberty. But that doesn't mean the two mean the same thing - it only means they both are represented in the same example.

If this person got to go to school, but I didn't and I want to, that would be infringing on my liberty with something that is supposed to be granted to everyone..

Not necessarily. You could have a situation where redheads and blonds could both go to school but redheads get subsidized - they don't have to pay. They both have liberty to go to school, the school can not turn them away - but they don't have equality in how they are treated.

I also notice you seem stuck on "social equality" but keep equating institutional discrimination with it.
Social equality derives from society. Not from the government. Unless you are ok with the government shoving institutional discrimination down our throats.. That's the ONLY WAY the government can implement "social equality". AKA totalitarianism.
Society doesn't give you equality or liberty. The State does. If there is no state, the concepts we are discussing wouldn't even matter. Except for social equality when society battles society.
Again, its all a big circle of stupidity.
Liberty IS equality. Doesn't even exist without it.

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.

 

[TNHarley]

Excellent. I have a lot to say. However its almost 75 degrees outside and I want to play with my kids and clean out my garage. Lol
I will get back on here tonight. I am on with extending this another day because I feel like it won't be over. You game?

 

[Coyote]

Excellent. I have a lot to say. However its almost 75 degrees outside and I want to play with my kids and clean out my garage. Lol
I will get back on here tonight. I am on with extending this another day because I feel like it won't be over. You game?

I'm game

It was gorgeous here too...who wants to be on the computer? Hope you enjoyed it to the fullest

 

[TNHarley]

Excellent. I have a lot to say. However its almost 75 degrees outside and I want to play with my kids and clean out my garage. Lol
I will get back on here tonight. I am on with extending this another day because I feel like it won't be over. You game?

I'm game

It was gorgeous here too...who wants to be on the computer? Hope you enjoyed it to the fullest

I did. Even the puppy was pooped! lol

 

[TNHarley]

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.

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.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

 

[Coyote]

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.