Freedom and Equality

I'm trying to chew through this Tocqueville reading assignment and I wish I could read it with others, I know this course has a discussion section but an official class for discussion always seems to screw up the point of discussion, there's some clearly hammered out objective with standardized assignments and the 'discussion' must always be tailored to fit the confines. Not only that you put a guy in the front of the room and thus becomes a presumption that this person is more knowledgeable in the matter, not saying I think I am, I'm saying it makes any discussion off kilter. Discussions are by their design supposed to be among "equals" or at least among people with a common interest in hearing each other's opinions.

Tocqueville in his Democracy in America brings up a number of contentious issues, the first one that's really stuck in my craw is democracy itself. From what I've read he clearly understands its literal and more liberal definitions. Literally democracy is all the people of a state voting on laws. He makes a point that this did occur in America in New England in the 1600s. More broadly his use of democracy is the liberal social (and neither of these words mean what I normally mean them to mean) concept; democracy as a generic concept of rejecting autocratic or aristocratic rule while still maintaining order through law with a great emphasis on individualism. What bothers me about it is really tied in with what I want to rant about here, the concepts of "equality" and "freedom".

Through my life it has come to my understanding that equality and freedom have two different definitions in common usage. At the heart of each of these definitions are two opposing social-political ideologies. The version of equality and freedom that Tocqueville refers to, when he says America is more free and equal than any European state, is the version that props up the individual as the most important factor in state issues. The alternate version is a more communist version (literally communist) that refers to the freedom and equality via the state's control of the people. This is a problem of modern American politics. Communists and those who believe in authoritarianism to a lesser extent use their version of these words to subvert the dialog. Changing the definitions of words, rather than dealing honestly with their intended goals.

Another reason this issue is sparking up with me is that in Tocqueville's intro he argues that this democratization is inevitable, that no action either for it or against it is stopping the inevitable, though he doesn't necessarily judge the goodness of this inevitability. Karl Marx had a similar attitude about Communism, which I was told stems from an older German philosopher Hegel who argued that humans (and pretty much everything else) would reach an ultimate state of existence. And Marx's idea doesn't necessarily conflict with Tocqueville, as Marx saw capitalism and democracy as a step along the way.

What brings this all together are these words freedom and equality. Equality is used much more by Tocqueville, but I've personally seen both used in dual roles and I'm sticking them together, there are other words too but I'm not thinking of them off the top of my head. Tocqueville began his intro writing "Of all the things that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck me more forcibly than the equality of social conditions." the first thing I thought of (being so well bred and raised by public education in our quasi-socialist America) is 'What about slavery? What about Native Americans? What about women? Not to mention America clearly had super wealthy and powerful elites, as well as dirt poor subsistence farmers and indentured servants.' Well through context and his moving on to specifically condemn slavery and other subjects I realized partially much of my initial contention with his assessment is an unfair look back. He's judging America more equal and free than Europe in the early 1800s at the height of European monarchies. However lopsided American equality was at the time, his fond look back from the 1600s-1800s was revolutionary for individual liberty and equality, despite the numerous continuing issues.

For Tocqueville (and me) freedom and equality are tied in with individual liberty. When he gave examples of equality, he didn't mean that everyone was in a similar social status, he meant that people had a chance to better themselves. His (and my) idea of equality is equality under the law, to treat people equally, to not subjugate people or demand them to be in a social status. His example for Europe illustrates this, "The clergy opened its ranks to all, rich and poor alike, commoner and lord alike; by means of the Church, equality began to permeate the government and the man who might have vegetated in eternal enlsavement as a serf was elevated to the heart of the nobility". Later came social equality through education opportunities, and financial equality through industrial opportunities, but at no time does "equality" = "mandated social status".

This is the realm of the Communist. Equality to a Communist stems from Marx and Engels' argument that people won't be "free" until all people are "equal". Only by "free" he means entirely controlled by law, and by "equal" they meant literally murdering the wealthy class and under threat of death forced the bottom feeders to start working. Thus creating an "equal" society where everyone works and no one takes the profits, which are "equally" distributed. The freedom in this way is actually "freedom from" which is why, as much as an Atheist as I am, it hurts to hear people claim the 1st Amendment is also "Freedom from religion". "Freedom from" to me is a gateway to misinterpretation and ultimate usurpation of the original idea. "Freedom from" is not the same thing as "Freedom of" in fact they can be quite opposing. And this is the opposition of the liberty seeker and the communist. The liberty seeker wants the "of" and the Communist wants the "from".

Simple direct examples of what I'm aruging: Liberty seeker wants "Freedom of social status" the Communist wants "Freedom from social status". How does a liberty seeker get his freedom? It occurs on its own. How does the Communist get his freedom? Kill anyone who doesn't fit. But to be fair, following the Hegel idea of a natural development to a highest point, Marx believed even if you didn't kill your way to Communism, it would natually occur eventually.

And this is what brought me into this discussion. Because both Tocqueville and Marx talk about this natural and unavoidable progression. I don't know if either of them is wrong. Although I am certain that there is no necessary "ultimate" level Hegel believed in, I think evolution disproves this theory completely. I actually wrote my final in a Philosophy course arguing against this eventual final form (which I don't remember if it was Hegel or my teacher who harked back to Plato on this very ancient idea of perfection.) I think that circumstance trumps the notion of perfection every time. A perfect example of what I mean is the frog. Frogs are sometimes (if this were Wikipedia, a little "by whom?" would appear here) said to be "perfectly adapted" to their environment. I could go into great detail with examples of this "perfection" because I love frogs and I've been obsessed with them for a long time. But that's another story. It is because of this "perfection" that frogs are called an "indicator species". That is, when something happens to their environment, because they are so specifically adapted to it, they are greatly effected by very minor changes. All over America frogs species are dying off. In places of pollution, they are making freak babies with too many/too few limbs etc. This is the best argument against an "ultimate form", the very nature of nature is change. I argued then and still believe the opposite is the route nature must take, humans are on this opposite side, our great advantage, our great "adaptation" is that we do not adapt. We are terribly physically under equipped to survive anywhere on Earth. Even if we originally evolved to live in temperate climate with abundance of fruit and stupid slow moving animals, we still suck at adapting. Our greatness is not in adaptation, it is in adapting nature to meet our demands. We don't adapt to the cold, we make clothing. We don't adapt to droughts, we make irrigation. We don't adapt to fast predators, we kill them. We don't adapt to fast prey, we farm. (in the grand scheme of course, the meantime is always "make do").


The Communist idea of humanity is from Hegel's theory, that we are destined for a static and finite existence. This was the crux of Marx's argument. That we need only "so much" technology and wealth, and all the proletariat have to do is wait, and when we've got enough wealth, kill the bourgeoisie and take it all and live happily ever after. However the liberty minded idea is that the wealthy are those who best adapted the world to fit their wants and needs. To kill of the best of us to slightly boost the rest of us is both evil and self defeating. That's what bugs me the most. If we really are unavoidably heading for absolute Communism, then we are unavoidably heading towards a system that promotes its own stagnation, we are heading towards our own self-fulfilling extinction.

If this were to occur, society would be a progression from government mandated status (under autocrats and aristocrats where birth defines status) with a spectrum of "classes". Next is individual mandated status and general equality in opportunity (under the "democratic" government run by the people). The final stage is similar to the first and second, a return to government mandated status, however with a new idea of equality where instead of government mandated social separation, it is a government mandated singular class(Communism). Mathematically and poetically it fits. It's a song that is easily played. 1.2.3. It hits from both directions first rule by a small group, with no freedom, then freedom of the people however they are free to enslave themselves, and third the people have effectively eliminated the separation of government and people, created the ultimate authoritarianism, while simultaneously creating the ultimate democracy.

I just have one problem with it. I reject the entire process. Authoritarianism the common thread among all these things. Only in passing and "yin to yang" does my dream government and society have any sway in these stages. I hope for a government that elevates every individual to that of a king. Instead of an authoritarian progression to make all people government, I want an individualist progression to eliminate authoritarianism completely. Not anarchy, because I am not speaking of an absence of government, but truly self defined governance. Something more honest and more just than a static "social contract" or "best interest of" government.

In the old governments of autocrats and aristocrats (dictators and kings) the average person was afforded many civil liberties that have been wiped out by this so-called "democracy". While a commoner couldn't hold office, he could tell his son to be a better man. He could find a piece of land and work it and make his own way (many people chose to work as serfs, but there had always been the option to just make your own way). A commoner wasn't told how much he could drink, or what drugs he could or couldn't use, or who he talked to, or how he traveled. He was free to build his own home to his own standards and work for whatever rate he demanded. None of these micro-managing laws "democracy" has brought us like permits to operate a taxi, limits on alcohol content in booze, or infinitely long bureaucratic dragons to get permission from the state to build a shed on your own property existed back then because no autocrat or aristocrat has the time or patience to so thoroughly micro-manage every person's life. It was only when we gave "everyone" the reigns to law that "everyone" began leaping at the opportunity to tell everyone else how to live.

However it is in stage 2 that we see the emergence of the concept of individual rights. Presumably these rights are held to be higher than common will of the people. So while a man was generally free most of his life to do what he wanted under the auto and aristocrats, if a nobleman wanted to put your son in his personal army, or have his way with your wife, or use your house as his stables, he could do it. And you had no recourse save violence. In the "democratic" world you have "rights" that prevent the polity from voting away your son's freedom, your wife's body, or your personal property. Although I must applaud these "rights" for going on paper and showing up in official documents. I must also chastise all of humanity and this notion of democracy as a whole because no one ever respects these "rights" and they effectively become place-holder privileges to be removed at the convenience of the state. Our "rights" I could list for you have been removed repeatedly and those violations have throughout America's existence have been thoroughly upheld. Every right in the Constitution has been usurped, some more than others, but at no time has any judge stopped and simply declared "no further may government intercede" despite their original wording demanding such response immediately. Though again to be fair sex has never been forced upon people by the American government, in strong part due to the opposite culturally bound draconian laws to the contrary that cause anyone with a sexuality to suffer at some point, from laws against anything but heterosexuality, to laws forbidding heterosexuality in every way but between a man and a woman who are married and alone and in a secluded place and in the missionary position (and I'm not even far enough, let alone exaggerating, I don't have room to bring up drugs, alcohol, insurance, age, intelligence, mental competency etc.)

Stage 3 again offers a mutually excluding liberty that is merely a backdrop of absolute authoritarianism. That is the liberty of social interaction, the kind of interaction that was forbidden in aristocracy between classes, no social exchange was allowed, no education amongst equals. It is strictly forbidden to a T in many instances within the democracies, disallowing people from interacting based on race, religion, sex, gender, sexuality, age, intelligence, pretty much everything that can divide people has been divided by law in America and other democratic states. Communist influences more than appeals to liberty have changed much of that in America as we drift into Communism. Again there is an underlying hypocrisy in Communism when they extol how the black man and the white woman and the poor ignorant farmer and the homosexual are all equally able to interact as adults, and that's because in these Communist states, as freely as they may interact across what would be social divides elsewhere Communism introduces a monumental set of restrictions that are certainly "colorblind" but happily screw everyone "equally". Great, the poor man and the rich woman "can" interact. The homosexual and the polygamist can have their sexual freedom. However the system destroys notions of individuality, there is no rich woman, there is no homosexual, there is only the state, the 'us', the 'we'and sure you are "free" to try, but you better not, because you should be thinking about 'us' and not yourself.


I see the subversion of the words "freedom" and "equality" all the time in America. From both major political parties who tend to seek authoritarianism in different ways. The Republicans with their efforts of aristocratic and theological authoritarianism, and the Democratics with their efforts at Communist authoritarianism. Both use democracy as their tool and neither necessarily want to go "all the way" in the directions, that is, a Republican may be accused of wanting social ordered laws of old or religious doctrine in the courts, but I doubt many Republicans are absolutist, the same goes for Democratics who attempt to pass Communistic laws while crying that people are crying wolf about Communism, to this point that simply using the term Communism or Socialism seems archaic and out of style. But you can't really define it any other way when you hear a Republican talk about "family values" and putting them into "effect" (i.e. turning social goals into laws, like mandating stores close on Sundays for Christianity's sake) or when a Democratic representative has spent her entire career introducing legislation to regulate or eliminate guns or people being able to possess or carry them, while saying she "supports" the Second Amendment and "responsible gun ownership".

My argument is that for most of our history, and especially today. Government in all its forms relies particularly on wool, and the ability to pull it over as many people's eyes as possible.

I know there are authoritarians. I know many people love and desire authority, in any and all forms. However I believe that if people spoke plainly in their desires, if the subversiveness were eliminated, I think liberty seekers would have a stronger foothold. It is an unfortunate reality that humans are great liars, and authoritarian states rely on lies, while it is the hallmark of liberty and individualism to be as honest and forthcoming as possible. This puts liberty at an inherent disadvantage. However the main advantage this does give to individualists is that humans learn eventually that lying sucks, and it's hard to trust, and perhaps if it could be done, it might be better to have a form of government that punishes liars and demands honesty in the most honest way possible.

If you were presented with the two definitions in their most bold and realistic ways, which would you choose?

Definition A:

Freedom - Each person chooses his or her own life, to act on his or he own accord and make the best decision he or she desires.

Equality - Every person has equal treatment under the law. No person is afforded privilege or prejudice based on any quality they possess other than the exact matter at hand, no amount of wealth, fame, or influence is weighed, only the intrinsic value of human life.

Definition B:

Freedom - The people can pass any law they desire. No old custom or archaic beliefs can block the will of the majority. The state may do what is necessary to secure its continued existence and maintain order among the people.

Equality - No one may be different.