Does equality = freedom?

I've been thinking a LOT about this lately. In fact, I can't seem to get it out of my head. It seems that I can explain to myself, quite suddenly actually, all the disconnects I've noticed in U.S. politics in the last several years (my voting lifetime). In fact, by simply beginning with the thought, does equality equal freedom, I ended up at a very interesting place.

After all, does the U.S. constitution ever guarantee a right to equality or even mention the word equality? Not in the way we think about it. However, Amendment 14 guarantees equal protection under the law, so a sense that the laws of the country should not discriminate. That's great, but it isn't what we really think of when we think of equality. After all, current discussion of equality is that we should all have the same opportunities as everyone else.  Isn't it?  Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal". Do these two philosophies match?  We have redefined what Jefferson was saying by claiming that since, we are all created equal that we are all equal and so, we, as a nation, should strive to achieve that equality in our social structure. But, I have to ask, is that really what Thomas Jefferson meant? In addition, is it really the reality of the evidence we see around us? Then it hit me.

We, in this country, have confused equality with freedom. We act as if they are one in the same. They are not. Freedom, or liberty, is the ability to make choices. It is being "free" to choose how things happen in your life, to make the best or worst of the opportunities presented to you, if you will. Equality is ensuring that all of us have the same opportunities. Now, one can argue that we are all created equal in the sense that we are all born equal (although I believe people with congenital disabilities might disagree with portions or that argument). However, after our birth, the circumstances of our birth require immediate choices by many people and eventually choices by us that affect everything else that happens in our lives. So, I come back to my question of whether or not equality is what is observed. Of course it isn't. Liberty actually precludes equality. What do you mean you ask?

Well, assume I was born on the same day, in the same hospital to similar parents and in a similar socioeconomic level as Bill Gates. One could argue we were created equal. One could even argue we should have had similar or the same "opportunities" growing up.  We aren't equal though. He is a multi-billionaire. I am a very happy father of two currently trying to figure out how to survive in this economy. He had a superior idea that separated us at some point from any possibility of being equal. Again, suppose I was born to similar parents, in the same hospital and on the same day as olympic champion Michael Phelps. All things being equal, he simply has an athletic gift that I lack. So, in both of these cases, do I have a "right" to insist that I be given billions of dollars or even that I be allowed to compete in the olympics? No, of course not, they have something superior to me. That doesn't make them better human beings or even mean their opinion holds more weight than mine and it doesn't mean that the law should somehow treat them better, because it shouldn't, but the reality is that I am not equal to them in a way that sets us apart.

So, how does the argument work when things are not equal. Is inequality in our society about race, sex, class, money, what? Or is it simply an attempt to give people something they don't deserve, under the mistaken impression that due to some uncontrollable circumstance, they weren't given the same opportunities as someone else. If you have two poor persons experiencing similar problems and all things are equal in regards to race, sex, etc., and they both have similar choices, what happens. Well, if one makes better choices than the other, that one does better than the other. Therefore, they are no longer "equal". So, does the other one have the right to insist that they be given what the other one got? Of course not. They made bad use of their opportunities and the other one made better use of theirs. If we, as a society, chose to say that the one who is worst off in the end somehow "deserves" something because he made bad choices, then we are actually punishing the successful one who made good choices. However, when you apply this argument to someone who is poor and someone who is rich, there is no chance that the opportunities would possibly be anywhere near equal. But, the argument remains. Does a lack of opportunity somehow justify punishing the rich man and lifting up the poor man? This is actually what our tax system does, but I digress.

Forget money for a minute and come back to people who have a congenital disability of some sort. We can conclude that they have a legitimate reason to request accommodation since they are clearly not "created" equal. This is pretty much the only exception I can conceive of. However, does this mean giving them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have? No, I think not. What it means is that society should make every effort to allow them to maximize their opportunities. After all, someone in a wheelchair isn't going to be moving boxes around a warehouse unless they're doing so in a lift, but if that warehouse has been constructed to provide access to the disabled, then that wheelchair bound person can work there, perhaps even manage the operation. This is what the Americans with Disabilities Act was intended to do. So, the law can make sure it is non discriminatory and it can make obvious accommodation in order to maximize opportunity. Don't get me wrong on this though, maximizing opportunity is not the same thing as providing opportunities a person might otherwise not have.

This is the essence of what Democrats claim to be for. They think it is wrong that someone might not have the same opportunities as someone else. Supposedly, Republicans generally think that people should be responsible for themselves and do the best they can with whatever hand they're dealt. Therefore, Democrats can accuse Republicans of being racist, even though the vast majority of them aren't while all the while many of them are racist themselves. This is the dirty little secret that gave me an aha moment. By saying you want to improve someones lot in life by giving them opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have, you get them to vote for you. If you say that you think that same person should do the best they can with the opportunities they were given, you are racist or sexist or whatever term is most appropriate. This means you can be accused of something you probably aren't while your opponent goes unchecked and perhaps is even, in reality, what they are accusing you of being. This has become a very common political tactic. After all, it works. Whatever party is in power during a crisis gets all the blame and whoever is in power during a great time gets all the credit, whether they deserve blame or credit or not. Again I digress. The fact is that equality of individuals is a myth. It simply isn't attainable.

Don't believe me? Ask your favorite sports star or your favorite actor/actress if you could be them. The answer is no, you can't. You can aspire to be whatever you want to be, but the choices you make plus your own physical and mental gifts dictate who you actually are. I wanted to be a baseball player when I was a kid and I did whatever I could to learn the game. I'm not a baseball player however. That's not because I don't love the game, I do. It is simply because I can't play it very well. Therefore, I can aspire to be the best baseball player I can be, but I'll never be a professional ball player. My point is that we have somehow decided that "equality" is so important that we are willing to give up our liberties to achieve it when in fact, we should rely on our liberties to ensure that we can achieve at our best, whatever that may be. Because, if you allow the government to create opportunities for you that you wouldn't have otherwise, then they had to take that opportunity away from someone else. That's how it works. You can't really get around it.

So, ask yourself this question. Are you confusing equality with liberty? They aren't the same thing at all as I hope I've demonstrated above. In fact, liberty actually tends to support an unequal society based on the individuals ability to achieve whereas equality supports an equal society based on ensuring equal opportunity for all, but results in government tyranny. After all, the Soviets didn't call each other comrade for the fun of it. It was an intentionally designed method of creating "equality" of the people. Think about it.