Can Liberty and Equality Co-Exist?

The easy answer is, of course!  After all, the Declaration of Independence’s second paragraph recognizes the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” and that they have certain “inalienable” rights including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Yet, consider that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution recites that one of its purposes is to “secure the blessings of liberty”.  Equality is not mentioned.  Was the omission merely inadvertent?  Perhaps.  The Constitution and, later, the Bill of Rights was focused on the limitation of government power.  Liberty, in the classic sense, means an absence of restraint.  Equality, in the same regard, certainly meant the absence of mandated class privileges.  Formal aristocracy was barred by the Constitution:  “no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States”.

From the perspective of the Founders, co-existence of liberty and equality, as then defined, was plainly a given.  

But equality is subject to a different interpretation.  Not the Constitutional sense of opportunity but, rather, in the sense of results.  And that is certainly the prevailing definition on the left. 

 

If equality is viewed as an end, the existence of inequality suggests something’s wrong that society must fix (and by so doing, restrain liberty).  The tension between the two values becomes obvious.

  

Consider these instances of inequality.  Some racial group scores better on IQ and achievement tests than others, while better educated people usually have higher incomes.

Liberals are inclined to think these disparities are the result of factors for which the less successful groups should not be accountable.  (Denying or ignoring that genes and culture, for instance, might be relevant.)

So there must be illicit discrimination (think affirmative action) present in education.  Educational shortfalls are caused by the absence of opportunities so everyone should have the right to receive, at taxpayers expense, a college education.

Not surprising to those skeptical of such social engineering efforts, programs to provide equal results have not been successful despite the expenditures of billions of dollars (War on Poverty, etc.).

Still, realism aside, activities to lift up those down the income and educational ladder are commendable from a social perspective.

  

Yet, logically, if equality becomes theYet, logically, if equality becomes the primary social objective, the level at which it is achieved is not important.  Equality can be reached if everyone is poor and uneducated.  In political terms, if a group cannot be “raised up”, consider forcing down the group above.  

So much for liberty.