Freedom
The very nature of a democracy, one could argue, suggests equality. Not equality in the sense that we all have the same talent, abilities or economic standing, but that we all are able to partake in political discussion and decision making. In other words no opinion is more important than another. To complicate things, individuals of a state must have the freedom to express their opinions and do what they please to allow the democracy to grow and prosper. As a result there is a tug of war between equality and liberty and over the years the original meaning behind the argument has been lost. Dahls five criteria for the democratic process include effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion of adults. Today there are very strong arguments that some of these criteria have been lost especially enlightened understanding and control of the agenda. These criteria, or democratic values, have slowly disappeared with the increasing outcry for individual rights which have lowered government regulation. Freedom and equality clash constantly because no two human beings are the same. If two people have the freedom to make a choice and they choose differently, then some would argue that they are no longer equal. Others say that the ability to make the choice its self implies equality. Government places limits on absolute freedom to uphold the equal opportunity and equal participation in government. For example the first amendment grants free speech, but slander is illegal because it ruins another persons reputation, thus harming their equal
Wilmer 2 opportunity. It is the governments role to find a middle ground between absolute freedom and absolute equality. Todays political system in the United States has a party that leans towards equality, the Democratic Party, and a party that leans toward freedom or personal liberty, the Republican Party. The fundamental differences between the two show in their policies and party platforms. This problem wont disappear any time soon. According to John Locke our natural state is free, and once we are bound to a social contract we give up that absolute freedom for protection of our property. Locke is a minimalist in this sense, which the government should only intervene if ones property, or his being, is at risk. However, in the same breath, Locke writes that when one is giving his or her consent to be governed, he or she is joining a community, and a majority that determines the law. So in other words man is equal under natural law. Man has equal opportunity that should not be infringed on by others or government. John Locke would possibly have a different view about what natural rights are today. Locke thought that property extends from our being to our actual property by labor. In modern day Locke may extend his definition of property further, as governments around the world already have. The increase in technology and increase in the diversity of labor has extended far past what Locke imagined. Thus his sense of what property is would change, and his definition of natural law as well. Contrary to John Locke, John Mill believes that individual liberty is given to man; we are not born with it. This is reflective of John Mills faith in the individuals influence over society and government. Mills philosophy of utilitarianism is a perfect example of the tension between freedom and equality. He believes that individuals should do whatever makes the people collectively happy. Society flourishes when society its self has limited effects on individuals. Thus Mill believes that a strong individual will in turn create a more successful society. Mills
Wilmer 3 social philosophy translates into his governmental philosophy. He has faith in the individual to make decisions that influence government. The government is not legitimate without the active participation of individuals. Mill believes that all adults are equally able to partake in the political discussions and decisions. This idea also extends to the minority, and I must for a democracy to be fair. If the majority were to crush every idea by a minority, even if it was one person, that would not be a democratic government. This shows that every adult opinion is valued, because it assumes all adults are equally able. Mills ideas have some large flaws, however. First in todays times there is an increased variety of jobs and degrees of expertise. As a result today we have experts who are undoubtedly the best in their field whether it be law, engineering, fiscal policy etc. This is almost impossible to stop because of the increased development of technology. To try and stop this diversity of labor would be a violation of liberty in the worst way. Today government tends to delegate vast amounts of responsibility to officials who are not elected, but are experts. The electorate may
be equally able to elect public officials, but not everyone is equally able in deciding specific things like defense spending because we dont know enough about it. Therefore one could argue that the inequality in ability does not necessarily make for a less affective government, but possibly a less democratic one. Past experience has not exactly encouraged the idea of equality in the United States. The prime example of equality being looked upon negatively would be the Red Scare and the mass fear of communism that still exists today. This fear of economic equality is not the same as social equality, and many people cannot distinguish the difference. Since the 1950s the United States has gradually been shifting over to the right more and more. The consequences have been
Wilmer 4 a separation of ideologies that is currently causing problems at the federal level of the U.S. Government. Equality and liberty has no perfect middle ground. The common theme of an accepted medium is that individuals have equal opportunity and equal rights. Whether or not each person has equal ability to partake in government functions is a matter of opinion and values. This difference in ideals will continue to butt heads as long as there are democracies.