Skip navigation.

Equality vs. Freedom

Here's a good insight:

True Form

For the first time, I think I started to understand some of the presuppositions of political thought in America. Namely, the difference between those who argue for equality and those who argue for freedom. I have never really understood that the two lie on a spectrum; the further you go towards equality, the farther away you are from freedom.

I hadn't thought of it in quite this way before, but the notion of these two ideals lying on opposite ends of a spectrum is dead-on, and is extremely helpful in evaluating public policy issues. Now to clarify, in this case I'm talking about "Equality of outcome vs. Freedom", not equality of rights, which is definitely not on the opposite end of the spectrum.

In my view, the political left has a distorted view of equality. So often they strive to achieve equality of outcome when what we should really be concerned with is equality of rights, and in a sense, of opportunity.

I know that for all of my left-leaning friends this claim requires some backup, but I don't really feel up to the task of explaining myself at the moment.

So ... yeah ... Happy Holidays! =)



Good stuff

In my view, the political left has a distorted view of equality...we should really be concerned with is equality of rights, and in a sense, of opportunity.

I think your left leaning friends are right to want a bit more clarity in the argument, Mason. But that's not a bad thing.

For me, I think it would be fair to say that the Left try to further the cause of equality, more so than the right. Those who espouse equality want us, as a society, to be fair, which is wonderful.

This theme runs all the way back to the Declaration of Independence and Lockean liberalism: all men are created equal. However, the equality described is an abstract ideal, and it means different things to different people.

Thus, without the Constitution enumerating our rights, our revolution could have ended up similar to the French's revolution: moral absolutism; equality a tout pris.

The left are still fighting a battle that is as old as the founding, i.e., the contagion of liberty. Kudos to them. But let's thank God, or the Founders, for the Constitution.

Let's try and develop this further...

Perhaps an example will help you explain this idea further. For no particular reason, let's use Immigration.

I will take the side of the Left and explain how the Liberal position on immigration promotes equality. Then you can take the Conservative side and explain why the Conservative position on immigration promotes freedom. OK?

Then you can explain why you think the Liberal position "distorts" equality, and I will explain why I believe the Conservative position distorts freedom. OK?

Here's why the Liberal position on Immigration promotes equality:
Liberals believe that, wherever possible, people should be given an equal opportunity to improve their lives. Through generous immigration policies, people who (through no fault of their own) were born in less fortunate circumstances, can be granted the same opportunities as the rest of us. To liberals, this seems fair and good.

I'm looking forward to hearing how the Conservative position on Immigration promotes freedom.

Does this help?

Equality vs. Freedom

By looking at the political theory of the Lefts' policy towards immigration, one can easily see how they promote equality over freedom.

"Liberals believe that, wherever possible, people should be given an equal opportunity to improve their lives. Through generous immigration policies, people who (through no fault of their own) were born in less fortunate circumstances, can be granted the same opportunities as the rest of us."

Obviously, the Left is promoting the ideal of equality.

Conservatives would argue that this equality might take away their natural rights. How?

The Left would include the ideal of equality to non-citizens even at the cost of taking away the property rights of natural citizens vis a vis revenues from taxed citizens used for health care and education for non-citizens.

Conservatives would argue that these government taxes infringe upon their natural freedom of property rights.

Basically, the Left seeks equality, and the Right seeks the freedom from government infringing upon their constitutional rights.

Only the gospel brings them t

Only the gospel brings them together; We need both.
If the spectrum idea is true, which it may or may not be.
Many who push for equality are looking for a shortcut,
from the gospel perspective because it can't
be enforced. It has to come from the heart. Many conservative
Christians hold
freedom to be superior to equality, at the complete expense of equality,
which is anti-Christian.
They are coequal.

Re: Equality vs. Freedom

I thought the explanation of how Conservatives find a generous immigration policy to be an infringement upon their freedom was excellent. Whoever wrote it should unanonymize him/herself.

Having said that, I have to say that I find the Conservative concerns in this area to be unconvincing. Most obviously, because taxes in the US do not apply only to citizens - they apply to non-citizen immigrants, naturalized citizens, and native-born citizens alike. Everyone pays taxes, including immigrants. Therefore, there simply does not exist a situation where citizen's taxes are exclusively used to pay for immigrant's public services, which means there is no infringing upon the property rights of citizens. In fact, numerous impartial studies on this subject have shown that immigrants are no more a drain on public services than are citizens of equivalent economic standing.

In any case, your explanation of how Conservatives believe they are on the side of "freedom" in the Immigration issue was good. That I believe they are wrong in that belief is irrelevant to our present discussion.

Bottom Line: Having put the subject of Immigration to the test, I think there is some merit to Mason's original post that Liberals value equality and Conservatives freedom. Although I suspect that they are not always on opposite ends of the spectrum.

conservatives are on the wrong side of freedom

I still fail to see the connection between limiting freedom and the political left.

Basically, the Left seeks equality, and the Right seeks the freedom from government infringing upon their constitutional rights.

Conservatives in general, and more particularly conservatives in Utah, have a distorted view of what conservatives and liberals really stand for. Thus, for you, anything liberal is bad and anything conservative is good. The argument here isn't about liberals and conservatives. Promoting equality may limit our freedom but so does any taxation. What you're talking about is government or no government. Any type of government limits our freedom. Thus, if we wanted to conserve our freedom intact- we wouldn't have a government. Liberals aren't any more anti-freedom then conservatives- the differences between the two come down to a decision about what things are more important than freedom. Conservatives are those who would limit our freedom through acts of legislation which give emphasis to public security (for one example) whereas liberals would sacrifice freedom for other ideals. Your idea that the political left is more anti-freedom than the right is baseless.

Social Contracts and Semantics

You have a semantic problem with your argument. The right to live isn't a freedom, it's a right. I can choose to live or to die. That's freedom. I can choose to lock my door or leave it unlocked. That's freedom.
It's a contract precisely because we give up something up. We give up the freedom to choose what to do with our money. We give up part of our freedom and we expect to recieve services in return.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-Benjamin Franklin

Governments were founded and social contracts are made not to defend our freedom, but to defend our rights. By definition, when you defend one person's right to live when another person wishes to kill them, you are limiting the other person's freedom to injure that person. It is up to us to make the decision about how much freedom is too much to give up and what things are important enough to give up our liberty to accomplish and which things aren't.

As to the muddled perspective of Utah conservatives, and I guess I should really say Mormon conservatives, All I have to use as evidence is the original post. Mason didn't say that politicians were anti-freedom, it was just liberals. His paradigm as a Mormon conservative determines that liberals must be the evil thing behind it and that conservatives must be good, while the truth of the matter is that their position on the political spectrum has little to do with being anti-freedom or not.

Semantics of freedom

You pose an interesting point MrMarbles, but I think it addresses an entirely different concept than what was posed. To use the points that you have brought up:

  1. Conservatives would limit freedom through acts of legislation to give emphasis to public security.
  2. Liberals would limit freedoms to promote other ideals

To take this back to the orignal topic of discussion, using these same points, conservatives would limit the freedoms of those across the board to promote public security. For example, the DCMA, which deals with the rights of copying digital media (ie DVDs, CDs, material published online, etc. etc.) This law applies to everybody equally without discrimination (with the obvious exception to people who don't own digital media.)

Liberals on the otherhand would attempt to limit the freedoms of the majority to promote equality amound the minority. For example, affirmative action. I use the case of the NFL here to highlight this. The Rainbow Coalition, (the Reverand Jackson's outfit) joined by Johnnie Cochran, threatened the NFL with a lawsuit if there weren't more minority head coaches. I think the concept of "the best man should get the job" should prevail. Be it at the top of an NFL organization or the student body of any insitution of higher learning, the best person should get in. Liberals would selectively cut off qualified majority candidates so that minority candidates could be "equal" with the majority.

Trying to force an equality of outcome forces the limitation of freedoms discriminately. To protect the security of the community requires the limitation of freedoms indiscriminately. And in that sense, the premise promoted at the begining of the discussion

Namely, the difference between those who argue for equality and those who argue for freedom. I have never really understood that the two lie on a spectrum; the further you go towards equality, the farther away you are from freedom.

is proven true.

Stop Picking on Liberals

Stop insinuating that liberals support keeping members of the majority out of jobs that they deserve. Let's think: are there more minority liberal politicians than majority ones or visa-versa? Failed policies based on critical race theory are hardly an adequate measure of the real cost of equality. The goal of Affirmative Action was to provide adequate opportunities to minorities who have a historical disadvantage because we(white people) violated their natural rights(as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence), it was just an ill-conceived piece of legislation. If we hadn't have violated their rights, there would be no need for those policies as there would be no cause for whites to be generally better off than blacks.

Further, in a study conducted in 1991 and published in the American Journal of Political Science, conservatives(self-titled) are more likely to be in favor of giving welfare benefits to blacks than they are to whites. Liberals(self-titled) do not show as much of a preference as conservatives. As you can see, affirmative action isn't a good example of why liberals are somehow any more anti-freedom than conservatives.
My point is that the tone of Mason's post(and many others) was anti-liberal when it shouldn't have been. There are valid criticisms of liberal policies just as there are of conservative policies. Maintaining that liberal policies act against freedom any more than conservative policies is not a valid criticism. You yourself said that security policies require the limitation of freedom indiscriminately(although it could be argued that it isn't as indiscriminate as you might think: japanese interment camps, guantanamo bay). Limiting freedom is limiting freedom. I don't know how you can 'posit' that an attempt to redress the wrongs committed by our ancestors by limiting some people's freedom is somehow farther along the 'spectrum' than limiting all citizens' freedom.
Basically my argument is against the culture which teaches you that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. As I have tried to show, those titles aren't very good in real discussion as you fail to employ them correctly. There are liberal and conservative strawmen, and as long as we continue to fight against them, the progress in this country's government is going to continue to stagnate.

Now, it has been proposed by

Now, it has been proposed by some that the Left tend to favor equality; thus, they would be leaning left on the spectrum.

By saying that the left lies on one end you imply that the right is on the other end of this spectrum. Defending our rights, whether they be the right to equality or the right to live, requires that we limit freedom. Both political paradigms, left and right, are for limiting freedom, as this is necessary to make government work. Thus both left and right lie on the same end of the spectrum.

Iron Jawed Angels

I do understand your point. You said that you think that the left has a distorted view of equality. And that there is a difference between equality of rights and equality of outcome. But I don't see the push for equality of outcome as a distortion, I see it as a result of history.

If our government hadn't infringed on minorities' equality of opportunity before, there would be no need for attempts at legislation that addresses equality of outcome. Affirmative Action does seek to develop equality of outcome. I agree that this equality of outcome comes at the expense of freedom, however it is also true that equality of rights comes at the expense of freedom. The groups of people affected are different, but as I said, that is a result of historical considerations. As far as I can tell, this disparity of outcomes is a result of hundreds of years of slavery and racism. Our government, when it was founded, continued to treat blacks as sub-human(3/5 human to be precise). These policies contributed to the economic state of blacks after slavery was abolished and continues to affect their economic state as it is. You said that we are diverse and that we are all equal in that we have rights- but that we aren't equal. I was wondering what physiological reason lowers the average black person's income and causes them to do poorer in school --- unless there is such a reason, then I believe that effective legislation is required.

Long, long reply.

I think you may be misunderstanding me, because your example is about equality of rights / opportunities, and not so much about equality of outcome.

What I was trying to get across above is that liberals are mistaken when they attempt to "correct" unequal outcomes by manipulating the system to arrive at equal results. Affirmative action is the classic example of this because--say, in the case of colleges--it seeks for proportional admittance rates for each race, ignoring the possibility of there being more qualified candidates among particular groups.

Affirmative action is a case of people's rights being abridged in the name of "equality". The problem is that this "equality" is actually equality of outcome.

Because the term "equality" is so deeply attached to our system of values, we can't hardly stand up to it when it's twisted in this fashion. The reason I say it's being twisted is because the equality we should be most concerned with, and which our founding fathers had in mind when they said that "all men are created equal" (this is a good link, btw) was our natural rights. When the term "equality" is thrown in out there we often aren't perceptive enough to recognize the distinction between its various meanings, and so it's often tough to see what's so wrong with a policy that helps to achieve more equality (of outcome). But again, with affirmative action and other equality of outcome programs, the government simply tosses aside the ideal of equal rights in favor of equal outcomes.

I feel like I'm beginning to repeat myself ... =)

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I want the poor to stay poor and the rich to stay rich, etc, but rather that what's most important is that none of our rights are abridged--that we maintain our nation's commitment to the crucial ideal of equal rights.

I think it's important for the government to provide all of our nation's citizens with the resources to help themselves, but I don't think it's right for the government to play favorites.

Let me digress for a moment ... I'm at home in Austin, Texas for Christmas break. Last week I went to the library to check something out. This particular library branch is in a pretty rough part of town where most people are minorities and quite poor. As I was getting out of my car I noted how empty the parking lot was (maybe 4 cars total) and concluded that I pretty much have the place to myself. I walked in and discovered that I was totally wrong. The place was hoppin'. All 10 or so internet-connected computers were full, people were waiting to be helped, sitting and reading, browsing through the stacks, etc.

While waiting in line to be helped, a woman who I used to home teach--and who lives in extremely humble circumstances--came around the corner carrying a huge stack of books. I got the chance to talk with her and catch up a little about what had been going on over the last six years. As it turns out, she reads something like five full books a week. I'm ashamed to say, but I could hardly believe it.

As she walked away I just thought to myself how wonderful of a thing that beautiful new library is for that community. These people--many of whom don't even have cars--were there at the library taking advantage of the opportunity it provides them to take an active role in bettering their situation.

This is the perfect example of the type of thing government can and should do to help its citizens. It's a way of providing more equal opportunities to all citizens. Imagine if there were no public libraries ... if they were privately owned and required paid memberships to gain access to. They'd be a lot more like country clubs, and the poor would be excluded.

Now while having no public libraries would be a terrible thing, at least it wouldn't be taking rights away from a particular group of people. That'd be much, much worse. But public libraries are a wonderful public good because they help to better provide our nation's citizens with equal opportunities, and at the same time do not infringe on people's rights in any way.

So to get to my point, what I'm advocating is first, pursuing equal rights for all people; second, pursuing equal opportunity; and third, pursuing equal outcome--in that order. All three are good things, but we must purse them wisely. It's good for the government to seek equal outcomes, but not at the cost of equal rights or opportunities!

Terrible things result when we mix up the order of importance given to these ideals. The ultimate display of putting equality of outcome ahead of equality of rights is the Soviet Union. It was a case of "Great ... we're all equal--equally poor, equally miserable, and equally deprived of our rights." Our freedom is so important that we just can't give it up in exchange for the seemingly most desirable outcome.

Am I making sense here?


Now about the topic of immigration. I think it's a poor example for two reasons. First it's a very special case because it deals with non-citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights address the role of the US government toward its own citizens, and accordingly, our government's primary responsibility it to look out for our welfare, as US Citizens, not for that of non-citizens. So, in addressing the issue of immigration we have to weigh things accordingly. My second problem with your example is that it's about the wrong kind of equality. It's about equality of rights--which goes hand-in-hand with freedom--and is by no means on the opposite end of the spectrum from freedom.

Do you have another example that both concerns US citizens and primarily involves equality of outcome?

Also, to my understanding, conservatives are divided over the issue of immigration. To my knowledge, Bush is in favor of a fairly open immigration policy. And many conservatives recognize that we need immigrants to keep our economy healthy. Now obviously that's a less-than-christian way of looking at the issue, but remember, our government's job isn't to give selflessly. It's job is to first and foremost look out for the interests of its own citizens, and then to look out for the rest of the world.

Not so.

MrMarbles, I disagree.

In your argument, you have at least two fundamental flaws; first, there is this premise: if we wanted to conserve our freedom intact- we wouldn't have a government The most important right, one could argue, is the right not to be killed by others: the right to life. Thus, some form of government needs to be instituted to keep others from killing you. Who is going to pay for this security?

You guessed it, the citizens who want to live in this safe community, i.e., you and me; thus, to pay for this security, we must have taxes. Hence, it would be impossible to be have the right to life without taxes, which would run counter to your 'no taxation is freedom' argument.

This is the basic social contract theory advocated by our dear friends Hobbes and Locke. To not understand this is to not understand the fundamental constructs of government. Thus, if one wants to accuse others of baseless arguments, perhaps you should start with yourself.

The second flaw in your argument is found in the following premise: Conservatives in general, and more particularly conservatives in Utah, have a distorted view of what conservatives and liberals really stand for

I suppose you are implying that only those who find themselves beyond the geographical boundary of Utah truly understand our nation's two main schools of thought. To me, this is a rather simplistic viewpoint, unless you have interviewed a true sample of the good people of Utah. But I would wager that this is not the case. If so, again, your premise and argument are baseless.

Furthermore, upon which evidence and what definitions do you draw your conclusion? Perhaps we are ignorant to the true forms of our political machine; if this is the case, it behooves you to enlighten us upon the true definitions of our countries two main political ideologies. We await with baited breath.

"on the wrong side of freedom?"

MrMarbles, could you clarify something for me? Are you arguing that Equality vs. Freedom is about "government or no government," or is it "a decision about what things are more important than freedom?"

I really cannot see how you can profess to understand the political thought in America, while dismissing the Left's historically broad effort to promote democratic ideals, and at the same time, simply defining Conservatives as those who would limit our freedom through acts of legislation .

Thus, if you miss the central meaning of each movement, then maybe that is why you fail to see the connection between Equality vs. Freedom.

That's funny.

all I have to use as evidence is the original post

So, you read one post by Mason, and then you conclude thusly that all Mormon Conservatives in Utah do not correctly understand the Liberal and Conservative arguments. Well done. You have just committed the fallacy of composition.

Again, please provide us with the accurate definition of each political camp whereby we can correct ourselves. I'm interested to understand your criterion for evaluating what is the correct definition. Furthermore, the only person who is implying that Liberal is 'bad' and conservative is 'good' would be yourself, which is cartoonishly simplistic.

Your argument that freedom comes from lack of government is tremendously naive, unless you are only referring to freedoms in the abstract. If that is the case, then the reality of your freedom does not exist.

We do need both.

Elder Oaks: “Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.”


You should take a minute to try and understand the points that the previous posters are making.

Perhaps you see it as a discussion between 'bad' and 'good,' but the rest of us are examining the spectrum behind the different political camps; they do not even have to be liberal or conservative. It is simply the difference between freedom and equality.

On one side, you have absolute equality, and because everyone is forced to be equal, you cannot have freedom. Likewise, if you go the extreme of freedom, there is no equality.

Now, it has been proposed by some that the Left tend to favor equality; thus, they would be leaning left on the spectrum. That is, if the situation were to arise between choosing personal freedom and promoting equality, they would promote equality.

Again, the argument is not particular to the Left or Right, or between good and bad, it is an analysis of primary motivations. The next time you listen to or participate in a discussion between a left leaning and right leaning person, I think you will see where they lie on the spectrum, and it helps to better understand what goals each is trying to attain.

Living in the present

If we were living in 1950, 1960 or even 1980, I might agree with you that we need to "redress the wrongs commited by our ancestors." Racial bias has been largely erased from our society, as such I believe that we have reached equality of rights.

I don't believe that liberals are bad. I also don't believe that conservatives are good. That would make me both bad and good. I think that specific policies of both sides are bad and that other policies are good. That I tend to agree with more conservative policies would put me at odds with liberals, but I don't think that liberals are bad.

For the record, the Japanese internment camps were put into place by a Democratic administration. Food for thought.

you just don't get it

Well of course enacting laws limits our freedom! We understand this. You've made yourself clear on that point, and just about anyone would agree with you. In fact, I'm sure most already believed this way before you brought it up.

But the topic we're trying (or at least I'm trying) to address is different. I'm talking about laws which are put in place to make the various segments of our society arrive at equal outcomes, i.e. equal test scores, equal percentage of incarcerated individuals, equal percentage of unemployed, equal income, equal percentage of voter participation, equal percentage of college enrollment, equal percentage of [fill in the blank].

You see, people get so brainwashed that they see any unequal outcome as the result of something being amiss with the system, and so they appeal to the government to "fix" it.

But you know what? Not all people are of equal character or ability or disposition, and neither is every group. We're different. We're diverse. And that's a good thing.

There's a big difference between believing that all people are entitled to the same basic human rights (i.e. that all men are created equal, which is what the founders believed) and believing that all people are equal, which simply is not true.

Despite this fact, a large portion of this country has been sold on the idea that all people are equal, which--as I noted above--leads them to the false conclusion that unequal outcomes imply something amiss with our system of government.

On their quest to "correct" the system, misguided politicians have to pass legislation which either (1), favors one group over another (thereby violating the notion of equal rights) or (2), forces a particular outcome by drastically limiting everyone's freedom in a certain area (i.e. totalitarian rule). These are the only two means (that I can think of) for arriving at equal outcomes across the board. You'll note that #1 tosses equal rights out the window (and thus "freedom" in the common usage of the word) while #2 does away with freedom directly.

Maybe my use of the word "freedom" is a little too broad for your taste, but I'd say that discriminating against a group of people due to their ethnicity classifies as robbing them of their freedom. And thus, I conclude that achieving equality of outcome requires robbing people of their freedom, placing the two on opposite ends of a common spectrum.

Again, am I making sense here? Do you understand what I've just said? Am I wrong on any of this?


Now, a separate matter of discussion is this question: Where along this specific spectrum do "liberals" and "conservatives" lie?

I know that the two terms are used to describe two very broad classes of political thought and that there's a lot of internal disagreement within the two groups. That being said, I believe that as a whole, liberals lie much closer to the equality of outcome end of the spectrum than do conservatives.


And one more thing ... Did you read my big comment above? Do you have any thoughts about what I said?

Just a quick note, MrMarbles

When you're trying to respond to a specific comment click the "reply to this comment" link below the comment, that way your comment is nested below whatever it's responding to.

Both sides are equally on the wrong side of freedom

You misquote me. I said that conservatives ate those who would limit our freedom through acts of legislation which give emphasis to public security. Liberals would limit our freedom to promote equality. They are both limiting our freedom but they do it for different reasons. Mason errantly associated liberals as anti-freedom- he should have associated government in all forms as anti-freedom.

Read John Locke

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them…

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms.

Changes in the Republican Party

The big problem with such labels [liberal and conservative] is that they tend to avoid actual discussions about beliefs or ideas. Further, they have such different meaning in different contexts. I’d say that while there are some generalizations you can make, in terms of actual discussions they are not that helpful.

Liberal and Conservative and the dangers of confusing the two labels

Nevertheless, these emails are passed around to the delight of Dittoheads [Rush Limbaugh fans] everywhere who apparently never bothered to check the facts. Now I'm not a big fan of the Clintons or a blind follower of every "liberal" cause out there, but the zeal with which Republican's(sic) go after those on the left has gotten way out of hand and in some cases is based on flat-out lies.

Faulty Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives

Furthermore, the only person who is implying that Liberal is 'bad' and conservative is 'good' would be yourself, which is cartoonishly simplistic.

In my first comment I quoted a previous comment which, although it didn't use the words good and bad, implied it. My point is that as far as limiting freedom...liberal and conservative are irrelevant labels.

Your argument that freedom comes from lack of government is tremendously naive, unless you are only referring to freedoms in the abstract. If that is the case, then the reality of your freedom does not exist.

So you're calling John Locke naive? I didn't say that freedom comes from a lack of government- I said that we give up freedom when we establish a government- which is the basis of a political society.

And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature.

John Locke

A little ribbing for djake

Wow, that was deep. Embrace the oneness, brother.

P.S. As sentient beings, we are all the embodiment of both good and bad. Can you dig it?


Executive Order 11246, signed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, provided for non-discrimination by employers and ordered employers to take affirmative action to ensure that minority workers recieved employment. EO 11246. So you see, when you start talking about affirmative action, you are talking about a policy from the 1960s and thus you would agree with me about the purposes of such legislation. While race relations have changed since the 1960s, if you believe that racial bias has been 'erased' from our society, you are mistaken. There remains a marked difference between blacks and whites economically (not all blacks and whites, but the majority). Yet there is no cause for this disparity other than the things white people did to black people in the past. While it is true that the Dominative Racism of the White Hoods has been thankfully 'erased', it has merely been replaced by Aversive Racism: We still don't like people who are different than we are, but when other people call us on it, we pretend that we do like minorities just to save face and present the 'politically correct' view. The most we can do is claim that we are trying to not be racist.

My purpose in writing is to call to attention the hypocrisy in using labels. The fact that a 'liberal' administration chose security over freedom(the Japanese internment camps) merely illustrates my point that government is anti-freedom. 'Liberals' aren't on the other side of the spectrum than freedom because they promote equality, they are there because they are part of the government and government is on the other side of the spectrum than freedom. The more power a government has, the less freedom we have.


nice one, Joseph.


I'd like to think that I am not the embodiment of both good and bad, only good. But then again, I do run around town telling people that I am the spawn of Satan. Not that I believe it, but then again, maybe it's true.

Missing the mark

Once again you are taking the main point of this discussion and taking a scenic route to a tangent largely unrelated to the topic at hand. If you get down to the semantics of freedom, then you are right, but the concept doesn't apply. What is at hand is a discussion of discriminately limiting freedoms vs. indiscriminately limiting freedoms.

To move this out of the semantic realm, the discussion is about discriminately reducing the opertunities of the majority to help the minority achieve an equality of oppertunity. In using minorities I am using a broad definition that goes beyond race, and intend to include people of different ethnic backgrounds, economic status, religion, and or orientation. To discriminately advance members of any minority discounts the principal that the best man (or woman) for the position should have it.

Going to college admission, I believe that a person considering an applicatant should look at equal standards or measurements. A person with a 165 on his LSAT should be given priority over somebody who got a 160. Or using employment, the only standards used should be which resume has a better history on it and how that candidate performs in any interviews that he or she participates in. Therein the true equality of outcome is achieved, not through some forced standard which lets a lesser candidate achieve advancement because he or she is from the planet of Pluto.

As to the economic status of various minorities, I do believe that assistance should be given to those who would qualify except for their ability to meet the economic demands, such as tution to a top end university, but that support should only be given if they meet the educational standards that everybody else has to meet. If kids from my high school can get into Stanford, then anybody who has a brain at any school can do it.

Critical Race Theory

According to Dovidio and all, aversive racism is when egalitarian whites act in a racist way when their self image is not threatened and when they can give an non-racist reason for a racist action, to themselves and to society (Dovidio and all, p.73)

SAT scores today correlate closely with the family income of the test takers, according to the ETS' own data. One major reason is the widespread use of expensive test preparation services, such as Kaplan and The Princeton Review. These courses-which range from $700 for a month of group instruction to hundreds of dollars per hour for intensive one-on-one coaching-have been demonstrated to raise SAT scores. ETS statistics show the gaps between races clearly, including the fact that Asian American students score the highest of any race.

SAT Scores

When I read Mason's post and your posts about how 'the left is delusional' and that seeking equality of outcome is wrong, I see aversive racism and I see why critical race theorists would think the way they do.

Why do you think that minorities don't do as well academically? Are you really going to tell me that they're not as intelligent as the majority? That the economic disparity is a natural occurrence that would have happened if we hadn't kept blacks as slaves? I think that we owe it to these people whose right to pursue happiness we have infringed upon in the past. Granted, we need to be intelligent about it, but we aren't talking about specific policies here, we're talking about the principle of legislating equal outcomes. This principle is needed because of what has resulted from our resistance to the idea that there is no more difference between the potential of a black baby and a white baby than the difference between two white babies.

you run around town telling p

you run around town telling people that you're the spawn of satan?