Is Liberty Sometimes At Odds With Equality?

In American popular culture, the French anthem of revolution, La Marseillaise, is a stirring tune bringing to mind the quest of all mankind for “Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite”.

It is little appreciated, however, that there is an historical conflict contained in that catchy expression.

Liberty speaks for itself – freedom from control or, in a positive sense, the right to do what one wants in expression or deed and to keep what one owns (inherent in the term, politically, of course, is that liberty does not include the right to interfere with the rights of others).

Equality, on the other hand, in practice, can have different meanings.

 

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson penned the expression “all men are created equal” when plainly children entered the world under vastly different circumstances.  But what he and his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence meant, most probably, is that each person had the right to be considered of equal value as a fellow human being.  So what does that mean in practice?

Karl Marx and Frederich Engels expressed the view in The Communist Manifesto of "from each according to his abililty, to each according to his need."

That sentiment is appealing.  (Leave aside the fact that communism in practice in the 20^th century led only to equality of misery.)

If each of us is of equal worth to one another, why should some of us who have more in material goods not give our excess “over the mean” to those below it?

 

Implicit in it is the belief that inequality results from exploitation, happenstance and good luck, none of which is morally justifiable.

 

It is as if each person enters life and is assigned a lottery ticket.  Some entitle the holder to become rich, while others are consigned to life-long occupancy of welfare rolls.

Given such assumptions as to the variable outcomes in life, leveling the  results for individuals simply makes sense; equality of outcome is an appropriate and desirable goal.

This analysis of inequality may be appealing to those on the left - but it’s simply false.

Luck, happenstance and birth location are facts affecting the variables of human circumstance, to be sure.  But so are other aspects.  Of course, the person born with a higher IQ is more likely to succeed in life than a person of lesser intelligence.  Is that fair?  No.  But maybe the difference in success is mainly attributable to motivation and character, not luck.  Is a mandatory equalization of outcome fair then?

Simply put, to focus on equality of results (as opposed to opportunity as conservatives insist) is to misjudge or ignore human nature.

 

To take from the rich to give to the poor robs each of initiative.  Neither has the incentive to use their abilities.  For the former, self-interest compels inaction.  Why expend effort without the prospect of reward?  For the latter, what sense does effort make when one can obtain the same result by doing nothing?

For the socialist, human nature poses an intractable problem.  It puts liberty in potential conflict with equality.  Without the suppression of liberty, the acquisition of the socialist idea of equality is unobtainable.  With the suppression of liberty, the equality acquired is of the sort that was found under Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot.