|
|
|
|
|
|
by ringbugger
2885 days ago
|
|
|
Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in favor of freedom. > equality of opportunity is freedom Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you. > My freedom to own land excludes your freedom [...] This is an example of freedom colliding with itself, but arguing this case is much easier, since both get exactly the same rights and therefore an equal amount of freedom that cannot be maximized any further. It is a lot harder to to balance freedom and equality. Granted, there are a lot of cases where increased equality increases freedom. This is why I think that liberals are generally smarter. |
|
|
I see the other 'popular' equality, equality of outcome, as, in it's most extreme form, a complete totalitarian nightmare, that doesn't hold freedom back, but completely annihilates it.
"Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you."
Why would this inevitably lead to you having an opportunity taken from you, rather than working to extend this to others. This is much more realistic as to how the world works. I don't have my opportunity to work taken from me because someone is unemployed, instead they are helped to get opportunities to work (help with education or transport etc).
I think the important step is to say, that we can't have unlimited freedom (or opportunities) for everyone in society, but that trying to reach as much as possible is a worthwhile cause. And that, of course, the devil is in the details.