The Freedom-Equality Balance
Freedom and equality are two foundational values of a liberal democracy, forming the basis of universal human rights and rule of law. Freedom is the power to think, act and speak as one wishes without restraint or oppression. Equality is the state of being equal, whether social, political, economic, or legal, equity being a form of equality with focus on equal opportunity despite natural disadvantages not just equal treatment. Whilst the two political values are both pinnacles of a democratic and stable society, they often collide, provoking the question of whether they can simultaneously exist in society and if not, which we should prioritize.
It could be argued that freedom is more important, as many of our basic human rights begin with our freedom to do something, such as freedom of speech. However, complete individual liberty would include no restriction of the strong and no protection of the weak. Therefore, it could be also argued that equality is more significant to our human rights, as it prevents the tyranny of the physically and politically powerful that excessive freedom risks. However, complete equality causes its own problems, including equality of outcome as well as opportunity. This would mean everyone ends up with the same result regardless of effort and talent, limiting society’s competitive desire to achieve, suggesting freedom to progress is more important.
This makes equity appear as a better alternative, meaning people are not automatically given the same outcomes but are given the same chances to achieve these outcomes, despite gender, race, and age. Taken to the extreme, the concept of equity was dramatised in the satirical dystopia fiction ‘Harrison Bergeron’ by Kurt Vonnegut. The novel features a world where the US government achieves perfect equality among the people, with systems where the naturally strong wear rocks to weigh them down and the intelligent listen to distracting broadcasts to disrupt thoughts, demonstrating the restriction of freedom and therefore human rights that perfect equity could cause. However, in modern society, equity promotes helping those societally disadvantaged rather than oppressing achievers, encouraging the reduction of the gender pay gap, disability benefits, and equal education opportunities for the young: a value embedded in fairness rather than oppression. Although, some right-wing groups have criticized modern examples of equity, for example wealth redistribution, arguing that is an impeachment of freedom to limit someone’s economic progress to fund another’s.
This demonstrates their equal importance as they are both dependent on each other to create our human rights. Whilst the extreme forms of both equality and freedom often conflict, a balance between the two can be created. Philosopher and politician, John Stuart Mill created his ‘harm principle’ in his book ‘On Liberty 1859’ which formed the idea that man should have freedom until it harms someone else, saying ‘the right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins’. When applied to modern human rights, it means we have freedom of speech but are discouraged from causing offense with our language, forming a balance between individual liberty and protection of others. This increases equality as the principle can be applied universally encouraging societies to be built upon consideration and respect.
Equality can also be moderated in order to not massively limit economic freedom. Substantive equality focuses on helping disadvantaged groups by accounting for systematic barriers. A common criticism of application of equity to politics is that it doesn’t begin earlier. If the system prioritized equity in early education, creating equal learning opportunities before a person enters the world of work, applicants have been helped to a more level playing field before effort and talent can be measured and rewarded. This would mean that success would be greatly based on merit rather than external factors but freedom to thrive and achieve would not be as limited to create equality of outcome. Whilst extreme economic disparities would have to decrease for these opportunities to be funded, it would only affect those with excessive and unimaginable wealth who are able to account for these systems. Educational opportunities could include multiple modes of lessons and grading so it is accessible for those with learning difficulties or those who favor alternate teaching methods. It could include accessible extracurriculars such as book clubs, sports teams and art groups to encourage children to discover their passion without being limited by financial barriers.
This system arguably achieves a fair balance between liberty and equality, avoiding both excessive restriction and dangerous levels of personal freedom, helping to protect our society and ensure safety to express ourselves and discover new opportunities. Whilst freedom and equality often conflict, the two values are pinnacles of our liberal democracy and should be protected and mediated to create a societal built on respect, justice and compassion.
Kersten Davies
