Builds in weekly parts into a complete pile of gibberish, part 3

[avevale_intelligencer]

earth_wizard's third principle of conservatism states that "the preference for liberty over equality is the most difficult part of the definition of conservative for most people to understand, particularly since liberty and equality are almost used as synonyms in our times. Put simply, all societies face a fundamental choice between emphasizing freedom or emphasizing equality."

I commented a little on this in my response in the earlier thread. Basically, I don't see liberty and equality as either synonymous or antonymous (or even hieronymous). Rather, I see them on different axes of what I shall probably conceive as a three-dimensional continuum of politics. I once tried to work out 3D continua for space, time, mass, energy, life and mind as part of the thinking around a song I once wrote. I got as far as time and part of mass and then broke down, partly because I was trying to make the continua mutually interdependent. Such are the things my mind does to me when I'm trying to vegetate peacefully. Woe et cetera.

Anyway...liberty occupies one end of one axis, and on the other I place security. I think this is a reasonable opposition: at one end you have a "society" where anyone can do what they like and therefore nobody is safe: on the other you have the ant-world of T H White where "everything not compulsory is forbidden" and vice versa, but where as long as the laws are adhered to nobody has anything to fear. Absolute chaos versus absolute order. Clearly the ideal is somewhere between the two extremes, and here I think conservatives occupy a sizeable spread, because there are some who incline more towards liberty and others who incline more towards law. (Also there are some things which some people think should be freer and some that some people think should be less free. Nothing is as simple as I am making it sound.)

So, on to equality, and here I am talking about equal status under the law, not any other kind. I will cover the other kind when I come to talk about exceptionalism. What would be the opposite pole of that axis? Well, presumably a society in which nobody was equal to anyone else, a hierarchy in which each level consisted of one person. So, absolute equality versus absolute hierarchy. Here I think I am well towards the equality end, if not actually at it. I certainly don't believe that being part of the government should confer any extra status on anyone, and here I differ from just about every society that to my knowledge there's ever been, including the allegedly "socialist" societies of Russia and China. We like to set our leaders above us, and exalt the person as well as the office, and the leaders themselves aren't going to be modest about it, especially when it means they can vote themselves salary increases.

I think conservatives are more prone to this hierarchical thinking than liberals, though, so yes, they do on the whole value liberty more than equality. But it isn't because they're mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I think that if everyone were equal under the law it might well lead to an increase in liberty.

So, still liberal so far, and halfway through. Go me.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Hmm, absolute hierarchy. As I recall 'Doc' Smith had an example of a world like that, where everyone had a 7 (or so) letter 'name' which described exactly their position in the hierarchy and so no one was exactly equal to any other. I'm sure I've seen something similar in another fictional universe but I don't remember where.

I think that if everyone were equal under the law it might well lead to an increase in liberty

I agree with that, and I like and agree with your two-axis system (I'm very interested to see what other axes you put on it, I suspect that the other points may give indicate least one more).

As far as I can tell you didn't say, though, where you are on the liberty-security (or chaos-order) axis except that you prefer somewhere not at the extremes. I suspect that this may be one place we differ, although agreeing about disliking the extreme points.

I'm interested in your analyses of the other points. Looking at the original comment I found that I disagreed with at least half of his "conservative principles", thus making me a "commie pinko liberal" according to some conservatives (yes, I've actually been called that on at least two political forums)...

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I would say the opposite of equality, as you define it, is a rigid caste system, such as is found in India. When vertical mobility is impossible, people cannot be said to be equal. (Technically, of course, even in a caste system, there's both the possibility of downward mobility, and a very tiny amount of upward mobility for exceptional individuals or their children. But for the most part, the system is rigid and unequal.)

[howeird]

Where everyone is at liberty to do whatever they want, factors like wealth and good looks and charm make some people "more equal than others". Those without wealth and good looks and charm can only gain equality by force of numbers, which has the effect of taking away some of the liberty of the rich and powerful to do whatever they want.

There's a direct relationship between the two, but it's more like the moon's relationship with the Earth - equality has som effect on liberty, like the tides, but liberty is like the earth's gravity, keeping the moon in orbit.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Anyway...liberty occupies one end of one axis, and on the other I place security

I would disagree with you on this. For example, imagine a cliff. It looks interestingly bumpy and hollowy, it's probably climbable. But if you fall off, you die on the jagged rocks below.

Now suppose you have a climbing harness and a rope and a safe belay from the top. You have more security. Do you feel more, or less, free to climb the cliff?

Being safer would make me more free. So I don't see these two as opposites.

If predators were constrained from attacking me, that would make me more free to go where I want, at the hour I want, dressed the way I want and in the company, or lack, that I want. Being safer would make me more free.

In my previous experience, the people who see freedom and security as opposites are the people who don't fear being hurt by other people's freedom. In other words, the predators.

Now, I don't picture you as a predator, so maybe I need to rethink that. But I believe my illustrations that safety can make you more free still stand.

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

Harking back to my earlier rant, a conservative (IMHO, and having met and talked with a libertarian conservative) sees freedom as His/her persoanl freedom to run his/her life as s/he wants, without interference.
And equality just stands for a right to recognise that some people are born A Little Bit Better, and some aren't. And the ones who are, will sort out their internal equalities for themselves, thank you, and everyone else can be equal as Getting On and Doing the Work.

And when I'm rich and can order people round, do you think I'm not going to follow a like regime ?

[gingicat]

I like the idea of a multi-axis system.