Liberty and Equality

Rawls
Under the veil of ignorance, rational men would decide upon two principles


Equal and maximal Liberty
Arrangement of inequalities to benefit the worst off


Therefore, the social contract and rationality clearly shows that equality should be about outcomes at least in part. However, the extent to which we can consider this the outcome of rational men (greed?) and the amount we can trust a hypothetical contract is doubtful.


Dworkin
'If I have two children with the same disease, but one is dying while the other is merely uncomfortable. I do not flip a coin to decide who gets the last dose of medicine.’ -


Circumstance must play a key consideration within equality. Are these children really in an equal position anyway? Surely this is relevant and justified grounds for discrimination that does not really infringe on equality of treatment.


[edit]Are liberty and equality incompatible?
It is often assumed that these two concepts are in direct competition with one another, a view espoused by people such as Lord Acton – the passion for equality made vain the hope of freedom


Different definition of the concepts
Negative Liberty and Equal Treatment (freedom from external constraints, equality of treatment allows individuals to follow their own course and have the possibility of achieving scare social positions)
Positive Liberty (welfare) and Equality of Outcome (freedom from poverty and such can only be achieved by seeking some measure of equality of outcome etc.)
Problems of compatibility
Negative liberty and Equal Outcomes
Equal outcomes are associated with the ability to dine at the Ritz, while negative liberty only cares about the right to do so.
Taxes, in purely libertarian terms (cf. Nozik) are an infringement on liberty yet are required to achieve equality of outcome. Also positive discrimination.
Positive Liberty and Equal Treatment
Equal treatment means we ensure the procedures within society mean people are not discriminated against.
Positive liberty actually seeks action in order to help people be free – redistributive taxation etc
Personal Opinion
Negative liberty
Positive liberty confuses itself with notions of equality and fairness – even if we accept these to be desirable concepts they are not liberty and thus the viewpoint of positive liberty is ultimately confused and not about liberty at all
Equal Treatment
Positive Discrimination, large taxes are not desirable are warranted – especially the former as it is a direct contradiction of equality
Equality is not about making people equal, but allowing them the chance to be
There are some limited grounds (such as economic poverty traps) that mean simply cannot have the possible chance to be equal – then there may be a case for redistribution in taxation. These grounds remain limited.


In conclusion, it is possible to make liberty and equality compatible if you take certain definitions of it. However, as discussed the idea of positive liberty is simply confused, the only small incompatibly rests on very limited grounds mentioned above between negative liberty and equality of outcome - but for the vast majority the two concepts do cohere together – equal treatment and negative liberty work in tandem to ensure a society free from discrimination allowing maximal possibilities for individuals to succeed.


Read more...