Bull Ring Coyote Vs TNH

[Coyote]

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.

Agree - both are dependent on rights. And yes - being told "no" is liberty at work...but not necessarily equality.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

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.

Society saying no has nothing to do with ones equality. Equality is granted by the state. Equality can only be taken away by the state.
Someone telling you no doesn't effect ones liberty at all.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Agree - both are dependent on rights. And yes - being told "no" is liberty at work...but not necessarily equality.

It is if you go by what equality actually is

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

Society saying no has nothing to do with ones equality. Equality is granted by the state. Equality can only be taken away by the state.
Someone telling you no doesn't effect ones liberty at all.

Equality of rights only is granted by the state. Not equality.

And yes...it can. If no one in society will sell you or rent you a home, that effects your liberty.
If no one will give you medical care, that too can effect your liberty.

 

[TNHarley]

OK, I feel like this debate has officially worn out lol

 

[Coyote]

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.

Agree - both are dependent on rights. And yes - being told "no" is liberty at work...but not necessarily equality.

It is if you go by what equality actually is

Well...I did - I provided definitions of what equality is and can provide more:

equality - definition of equality in English | Oxford Dictionaries
The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

the definition of equality
the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability:

equality Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
the right of different groups of people to receive the same treatment:

 

[Coyote]

OK, I feel like this debate has officially worn out lol

Ok....I'm cool with that. This was great and I also learned a little something!

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Agree - both are dependent on rights. And yes - being told "no" is liberty at work...but not necessarily equality.

It is if you go by what equality actually is

Well...I did - I provided definitions of what equality is and can provide more:

equality - definition of equality in English | Oxford Dictionaries
The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

the definition of equality
the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability:

equality Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
the right of different groups of people to receive the same treatment:

Good definitions. But it doesn't change anything. EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS TO SAY NO. Anything else is social Marxism. Period. There is no way around unless you rape the terms.
"well that person gets to say "no" more than that one" doesn't matter! Everyone is equal!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Yes they are different.
Liberte Egalite Fraternite

Can you have one without the other?

Yes.
1. example of equality without liberty:
If all students in a class are subject to the same
oppressive rules, they are all treated EQUALLY
but they have no liberty to change or challenge the rules.

2. example of liberty without equality:
two people are free to eat as much as they can at a free dinner where they are both welcomed as guests. But one eats three times as much
as the other person. They are both happy and both report being free and did not have any conditions that restricted them from participating and enjoying themselves to the fullest.
But one got three times the value and food by eating more than the other person, so they are not equal in that sense.

As for your point about "what's the point of freedom if you are restricted by the state anyway?"

Well that's true of life in general.
I am not free to turn myself into a butterfly and fly around all I want to.
That's breaking the laws of nature and physics.

There is difference is between
political freedom and
spiritual freedom.

And yes you can have one without the other.
But the ideal is to have both, so there is no doubt you have
the maximum freedom possible.

And TNHarley
the way to avoid abuse or oppression by govt authority:
when people AGREE to laws by consensus, so policies
respect Consent of the Governed
1. it still means we are under restrictions that apply to all people
2. but since we AGREE to those rules, we DON'T consider this
"outside oppression from an interfering authority"
WE make those decisions as a group, as people acting as govt
and AGREEING to give authority to laws and law enforcement
ON THOSE TERMS.

If a man and woman agree to get married and RESTRICT themselves by renouncing all other partners but each other,
is that losing freedom?
it can be seen as guaranteeing peace of mind and freedom
from conflict NOT to have other relations interfering and competing.

So because the couple CHOOSES to restrict themselves
that's still considered exercising their liberty and not IMPOSING
on their free will.

Likewise, laws are supposed to be a civil contract between people
and govt, where we AGREE what represents our interests and
tax investment.

We can respect each other equally and maximize our freedom.
Even if we have to AGREE to certain restrictions to ensure
security. The difference is if we CONSENT to laws that
REPRESENT our free choice, beliefs and interests
as opposed to being IMPOSED against our will or beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

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."

Dear TNHarley whether someone
believes in socialism or free market/capitalism or what,
isn't the issue whether someone else is IMPOSING their
system on the other person or not?

Does it matter if
A. group A wants govt health care
but group B imposes free market and BLOCKS the choice of govt care
B. group B wants free market choices
but group A IMPOSES govt care and BLOCKS the choice of free market

There are two interpretations of what it means to "treat these groups the same"

1. force them all under the Group A plan or all under the Group B plan
2. but what about letting A be under Group A plan
and B under Group B plan, so they choose the plan they believe in.

They are NOT equal in the sense of being under the same policy LITERALLY, but they ARE being treated equally in terms of religious and political freedom to be under the plan that represents their beliefs/interests.

Furthermore, giving both groups the right to pursue/develop the plan of their choice IS NOT GOING TO BE AN EQUAL PROCESS.

The free market people may need to lend to the other group to get their collective programs going until they become sustainable. Their roles and their level of development and independence will likely NOT BE EQUAL.

So where I would agree with you:
treating people with equal respect
DOES NOT MEAN TREATING THEM THE SAME.
it's relative.

And that's why the system of imposing dictated regulations fails
if it doesn't allow relative adjustments for what different people NEED
in order to be 'equally free' to follow their own beliefs and path.

 

[Olde Europe]

Thanks for this important, enjoyable discussion. Since the fighters have called it quits, I guess it's okay to add a cent or two.

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".

Just to note, quite formally, that TNH here admitted that liberty and equality are not the same. That is because there is no "thing" that is also its own basis (for the religious types: except for god). That would be like declaring house and foundation the same because the entire house is based on the latter.

I found this definition, as quoted earlier, most helpful:

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.​

Liberty is freedom within the constraints as imposed by the rights of others. This does not mean these rights be necessarily equal: If the laws stipulate that the husband may beat his spouse, his liberty just no longer ends at the tip of her nose. Conversely, equality before the law, equal rights, would mean that his and her liberty have the same extent. Equality (equal rights) thus is not a consequence of liberty, but an external concept imposed to the effect that our liberty (everyone's liberty) is also equal. Slavery, as the grossest violation of equality, obviously, also guaranteed the biggest differential of liberty, which again means that liberty is entirely consistent with inequality, even gross inequality, before the law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks for this important, enjoyable discussion. Since the fighters have called it quits, I guess it's okay to add a cent or two.

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".

Just to note, quite formally, that TNH here admitted that liberty and equality are not the same. That is because there is no "thing" that is also its own basis (for the religious types: except for god). That would be like declaring house and foundation the same because the entire house is based on the latter.

I found this definition, as quoted earlier, most helpful:

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.​

Liberty is freedom within the constraints as imposed by the rights of others. This does not mean these rights be necessarily equal: If the laws stipulate that the husband may beat his spouse, his liberty just no longer ends at the tip of her nose. Conversely, equality before the law, equal rights, would mean that his and her liberty have the same extent. Equality (equal rights) thus is not a consequence of liberty, but an external concept imposed to the effect that our liberty (everyone's liberty) is also equal. Slavery, as the grossest violation of equality, obviously, also guaranteed the biggest differential of liberty, which again means that liberty is entirely consistent with inequality, even gross inequality, before the law.

Well stated Olde Europe
I guess this spells out the difference between POLITICAL rights such as voting and gun rights
that are not the same level as natural rights and freedoms that are naturally occurring independent of govt and laws.

 

[Olde Europe]

Well stated Olde Europe
I guess this spells out the difference between POLITICAL rights such as voting and gun rights
that are not the same level as natural rights and freedoms that are naturally occurring independent of govt and laws.

Thanks, Emily.

Though, I have no idea how you arrive at the thoughts outlined above. Equality before the law (and equal liberty for all) are concepts that comprise the entirety of the law, with no particular reference to particular laws, "political" or otherwise. Natural laws are not "occurring"; rather they are theoretical concepts based on human traits (thought to be universal and immutable), and meant to underpin deliberations as to the characteristics of a well-ordered society under the law. As such they are somewhat more specific than broader concepts (like equality), but still not laws as, say, enacted by a legislature.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Thanks to whoever bumped this. It's really good! TNH may be mah bro but, I think Coyote won.

Ofc that's just my opinion.