But only one meaning under the law, the only relevant meaning.
Under the law ‘equality’ means a consistent application of public law and policy, regardless race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It means a particular class of persons cannot be singled-out by law to sustain a specific disadvantage unique to that class of persons.
It has nothing to do with ‘earning’ anything or ‘equal shares.’
You then contradict yourself in your last paragraph: if one has an ‘unqualified right’ to do as he wishes, then the state has no authority to place restrictions on a right even “when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.”
Therefore rights are not ‘unqualified,’ they are not absolute, and are indeed subject to restriction.
The question then becomes what restrictions are appropriate and legal. Laws banning smoking in public places are Constitutional, for example, because they’re applied to everyone equally – no particular class of persons is singled out. (No, smokers do not constitute a ‘class of persons.’) Laws banning smoking in public places are also legal as they are predicated on objective, documented evidence concerning the harmful effects of smoking to “society as a whole.”
One does have the right to do as he wishes, until such time as society – per the authority of government – determines such actions to be in conflict with the best interests of “society as a whole.” One can either accept a given restriction or seek relief on court if he believes the restriction violates his civil liberties, either as an individual or as a member of an adversely effected class of persons.
You have the liberal/socialist concept of freedom down pat, but you have left out the one element that freedom applies to, and that is the individual. Classes of people do not have freedom, individual citizens do. Nor does equality apply to classes of people, it applies to individual citizens. An individual, regardless of his class or economic condition is entitled to the same freedoms and equality as any other citizen.
Laws banning smoking in public places may be legal, but that does not make them moral, proper, or equal. We are discussing freedom here, not what the government can do, or cannot do. You have the freedom to avoid public places that you consider hazardous to your safety or health. You do not have the freedom to demand that other citizens curb their otherwise legal activities to your convenience or desire for fresh air.
Equality has many meanings and equality under the law is only one of those meanings. One that has been pretty well universally accepted as a good thing. Consequently, it is not part of any real debate over freedom. Equality of outcomes is the current theme in our political world, and its application to personal freedom is what that equality means to different people.
Before you attempt to lecture me on eighth grade civics, make sure you understand the lesson yourself. The fact that government has the power to limit my freedom does not make it automatically right that the government does limit my freedom.
BTW, equality under the law is not the only relevant meaning to equality, in a discussion about freedom. Under the law, we already redistribute wealth. We have equal pay laws, and we have affirmative action laws. We have numerous tax laws and regualations that discriminate among citizens. All of these laws limit the freedoms of some citizens for the benefit of other citizens.
