Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day – Freedom and Equality
Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free. – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Which matters more to you? Freedom or equality? For me it is freedom. I believe everyone should be allowed to rise to the level of their abilities. That makes sense (for me) since in a free society I am like a cork. I bob to the surface pretty quickly.
I can see why others might think this unfair, preferring equality. To do so creates a society of the lowest common denominator. To see where the differences in the two approaches lead compare 1970s West Germany to 1970s East Germany, the 1980s US to the 1980s Soviet Union or present-day South Korea to present-day North Korea.
DEI believes in equality of outcome – at least in theory it does. The reality is it permits a small fraction of gatekeepers who decide issues of equity to live in luxury while the rest of society is granted the equality of misery at the lowest common denominator. Even if it worked in theory, it would condemn the vast majority of those alive to live lives far below their potential.
Freedom or equality. Pick one. Equality before the law and freedom? Absolutely. Equality of results and freedom? Not possible. And equality of result is the heart of DEI. That is why DEI must die.
Published in Group Writing
I am not sure I am either.
Most of the people who say they are for Equality are in reality for no such thing. Link.
A brief turn once again to American Individualism (Herbert Hoover):
I’ll stop there (I can cut and paste those all morning)…but the answer is clearly American Freedom (or Liberty). It ensures both.
That was that small fraction of gatekeepers who decide issues of equity comment is about. The nomenklatura in the USSR and the Woke Folk here today.
Hoover preferred equality to freedom, according to what I speculate are Seawriter’s particular definitions of those two dangerously ambiguous terms, which he does not specify.
There is a common misconception that the New Deal, whose true purpose was to increase “equality” at the expense of “freedom”, was started by FDR.
History reveals the fact it was started by the Hoover administration. One of incoming staffers (historians, please help me with the name and the exact quote) of the new Roosevelt administration confessed to being amazed to discover, upon studying the documents of the outgoing regime, that the majority of the FDR agenda had already been implemented by Hoover.
Coolidge and Harding, not Hoover and not Reagan, were the last non-RINO republican Republican Presidents of the US.
I’ll stick with Hoover in Hoover’s own words and the guidance that provides toward the last 11 words of my prior comment.
“The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.” — Thomas Sowell
One way to look at what happened is that the society gave authority over hiring, firing, and advancement to the HR department. HR proceeded to advance itself and fire everyone who objected.
Victims aren’t free. The gatekeepers own them.
I believe that this could be a very productive debate…
(a)…about Hoover, were you to persuade me to join your side at the end of the dialog.
That’s quite possible. You have studied Hoover himself. I only peripherally and superficially, through the political and economic history of the Depression. And that, admittedly from a liberal, minority, iconoclastic point of view. Those writers are naturally more impressed by the legacy of his actual radical political accomplishments—the creation of the main organs of the New Deal— and not very impressed by his admittedly very liberal-, Americanist-sounding language.)
(b)…or (in the unlikely event that it finished with you coming over to my side), then about the history and method of Progressivism. About what I have firmly and sincerely come to believe is its manipulation of the language itself, to twist Americans’ native benevolent emotions, sincerity, and Judeo-Christian morality into a self-sustaining campaign of self-enslavement under amoral, atheist socialist totalitarianism.
Carl Benjamin makes a fair point about liberalism’s promise of freedom and equality in this video, starting at the 40-minute mark:
Lately, there seems to be a growing tendency to equate “equality” with “equity.” Some think that equality of opportunity should result in “equity” of results. In Obama’s formulation, “You didn’t build that!”
I don’t think that Solzhenitsyn’s framing is correct here, at least not in the way it reads in English. The American concept of equality is well laid out in the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
In this view, we (Americans) are both free and equal. Not equal in outcomes, but equal in value, worth, human dignity, and the inherent rights we share as creations of the same Creator. In this formulation of the concept, everyone is equal regardless of whether everyone is free because the inherent qualities endowed by our Creator are not dependent on the political circumstances in which we find ourselves on Earth.
I probably shouldn’t quibble with an intellect such as his, but I would reframe Solzhenitsyn’s statement “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they
are not equalwill not have equal outcomes. And if they have equal outcomesare equal, they are not free.” This is probably what he meant anyway. He was anti-DEI before anti-DEI was cool.Well, shoot, I responded to the Solzhenitsyn quote before reading the rest of your post, @seawriter. I should have read the whole thing first and saved my breath. ;-)
I believe the economist in the Roosevelt administration who acknowledged that many of the programs of the New Deal came from the Hoover administration was Rexford Tugwell.
There is a difference between wanting equality and wanting greater equality. (Not to mention the various flavors of equality.)
Not exactly. Coolidge was a Progressive. He signed the 1924 immigration law that was based on Eugenics ideas, and Eugenics was the foremost Progressive project of the Progressive era and beyond, influencing our society still and gaining steam in our new era of Progressive madness.
The Hoover administration followed the pronouncements of the experts that Something Must Be Done. They Did Something. The FDR administration came along and turned all the dials to eleven.
…and blamed Hoover for doing nothing.
Since achieving equality for everyone is impossible, it is a silly goal to pursue. As long as they don’t turn us into robots, we are unequal in many ways. Sometimes I am greater than equal because I have certain skills; sometimes a person surpasses me with their opportunities. Achieving equality has no meaning for me.
On the other hand, freedom is supreme. Every time we lose some of our freedom, even when we think we are giving up some freedom for a greater cause, it is a negative. Give me freedom!
Well, he couldn’t blame Hoover for doing what he himself was doing, particularly when it didn’t work.
My memories of this are not very specific, but in the 60s the Democrat national conventions would still conduct a 2-minute hate (or its equivalent) of Hoover at least once during the convention. They still honored Jefferson and Jackson in those days, too.
I do that all the time.
Of course, robots are not all equal either.
Constitutional equality was always limited to two things:
1) All endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, and
2) Equality before the law.
That is it. And we can have those two things alongside appropriate freedom.
Our freedom was ostensibly intended to be free to live rightly – provide for self and loved ones freely and worship God according to one’s conscience.
Libertinism was clearly not within the purview of “freedom” given the myriad laws existent in early America.
Brava, Brava, Brava!
Maybe. But the writers of the Constitution were also concerned about a rough equality being necessary for the survival of the new Republic. None of them had any illusions that absolute material equality was achievable or desirable, though.
No doubt they were, as individuals.
But I don’t see anyplace in the Constitution where they made that a concern of the Federal Government. Do you?
Well, there is the general welfare clause which is a loophole you could drive an F-15 through.
Madison wrote it; he said it wasn’t intended as a loophole, but as an introductory phrase to the text that followed immediately, amplifying rather than contradicting the limited role of the Federal Government he specified.
Either
(a) he was lying or
(b) he truly never intended it that way, and it was made into a loophole by politicians with nefarious motives soon after ratification.
I am much more inclined to believe (b) than (a).
Partly that’s because of his character. He was the most scholarly intellectual on the liberal side with Jefferson, and against the statist side with Hamilton. And partly because of what I know of his character and that of Hamilton, based on reading a biography of each.