Is it possible for a country to support both freedom and equality?
I am of the opinion that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. By nature, any attempts to enforce equality within a nation actively places restrictions on freedom and visa versa. For example if a business owner refuses to serve an individual, they are exercising their freedom to choose who they desire to serve, but by refusing to serve this individual, they have now created a situation where inequality is propagated because the individual who was refused service is no longer equal to his peers who still have access to service. On the flip side of this, If you create a law which forces the business to serve everyone equally, you have now infringed on the owner's freedom to choose who he wants to serve.
Another major problem can be observed in the very nature of what equality means. For an example, imagine two households with different incomes: one is very wealthy and lives in a huge mansion and the other is very poor and lives in a ghetto. Based on the differences in their incomes these two households are by no means equal. So how is this wage gap remedied so that both parties are on equal terms? If you were to give money to the poor household and bought them a mansion to live in they would be on equal terms with the wealthy household. But by giving only one of the households money, a new source of inequality is created, because if the system were truly equal, both households would be given equal amounts of money. In this respect, trying to create equality only propagates more inequality. The only way to create an equal system without transferring the burden of inequality is to restrict the freedoms of the individuals in a society. In this household example, that would be accomplished by creating a universal income which would restrict the individuals freedom to pursue wealth.
TL;DR- Because of the directly contradictory natures of freedom and equality, and the inherent ambiguity of what it means to be "equal" I believe that it is impossible for a country to support both freedom and equality.
What are your thoughts? Is there a way that these two ideas can coexist within a society? I'm curious to see what suggestions people come up with to contradict this.
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The nature of the opportunity has not changed at all since the first time it was offered, but now one household now has a clear advantage over the other. Can the opportunity still be considered equal? I would argue that it is not, the equality of opportunity has been eliminated due to the inequality of knowledge between the two households. The only way that equality of opportunity can be restored to the system is if equality of outcome is employed and the poor household is given the same knowledge gained by the wealthy household. Now both households are able equally as likely to succeed when presented with the opportunity.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Household A and Household B both were presented with equal opportunity to start a business.
1. Household A succeeds.
2. Household B fails.
But why did A succeed and why did B fail? The reasoning for the failure is critical in determining whether or not any subsequent opportunity can be considered an equal opportunity. For example, if Household B failed at the initial business opportunity simply because they didn't research, plan accordingly or prepare sufficiently to run a business then I'm afraid that Household B is solely responsible, liable and accountable.
There's also another half of this example that must be taken into consideration before judging whether or not there exists an inequality in opportunity. Example: If Household A succeeded because they manipulated the system, took unfair advantages or managed to hinder Household B to gain an advantage...well then it's clear that the outcome would be the result of inequality of opportunity. But if these Households truly were presented with absolute equal opportunity and Household A simply made better decisions and thus succeeded...then any subsequent success would be a direct result of the work that Household A put into the business to begin with.
We all understand that there is no such thing as pure equality, we can strive for it but achieving true equality is virtually impossible due to the sheer number of uncontrollable variables. So in our accepted form of equality of opportunity, In my opinion, it really boils down to cause and effect. If we have the example that you presented above and the measurement of equality of opportunity was (As you said) "The same", then we cannot simply look at the outcome to determine whether or not inequality occurred along the way. We have to look at the cause of the noticeable difference and recognize that poor decisions are not indicative of inequality.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
In this scenario an inequality in the distribution of information was created by presenting an equal opportunity, in which success grants information which can be used to very substantially increase the probability of success in future opportunities. In this example one could potentially argue the continued failure of House B is technically the result of a "poor decision." But even so the circumstances revolving around the failure (poor decisions) of House B and success (good decisions) of house A were beyond their control. Inequality is becomes evidently propagated directly as a result of the outcome of the first "trial."
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
Economically, equal opportunity could indeed result in inequality, but that is no fault of the state or of freedom. The state could still treat a poor family as equal to a rich family under the law (or at least they should). Wealth inequality is not necessarily bad nor does it make those citizens fundamentally unequal in the eyes of the state. It is still necessary for a poor family to be EQUALLY FREE as a rich family so they have legally have equal opportunity to rise and attain wealth, in my opinion.
In short, true liberty always precedes equality; in a truly free society, there would be equality of opportunity, which is the purest form of equality there is.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
So lets say that you have a militaristic society ruled by a warrior class. The society is divided between the wealthy elite and the poor (there can be infinitely many divisions but I will stick with two for simplicity). Warriors will be selected from either class (poor or wealthy) on the basis of a competitive examination in military prowess. All are eligible to apply for a superior position and applications are judged fairly on their merits. It is a perfect system of equal opportunity where everyone is free to do as they please and success and failure is based on the choices and effort of the individual.
First I will ask you if you agree that this is, in fact, a system of equal opportunity before I continue with my argument.
*edit: Additionally, if you look at my response to Vaulk, you can see how the system of equal opportunity can fail even when amount of effort put forth by both parties is exactly identical.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let me try to address your first comment.
If we assume that equality of opportunity is, in fact the purest form of equality (some worldviews would disagree with this such as collectivism), Then yes, in the eyes of the STATE ITSELF the society is viewed truly equal.But the SOCIAL inequality is not eliminated from the system. If one of the wealthy people publishes a book on how to become successful in the system created by the state, but only gives it out to wealthy children (he has the freedom to do so, after all) then there is no longer equal opportunity because those born into a higher social standing are given an advantage in the system and have access to opportunities unavailable to the poor.
Additionally, if the state treats EVERY individual equally poor or rich, this can become detrimental in certain situations. For example the state, since It sees all individuals as equal, places a 20% income tax across all households regardless of wealth. Now wealthy families will be paying more money than the poor, but because they still have significantly more funds, their quality of life remains relatively unaffected. 20% of $100000 still leaves them with $80000. But poor families, on the other hand, are significantly more impacted by this. 20% of $1000 is only $800. If it costs $1000 to pay rent and food for each household, the rent is easily paid by the wealthy, while the poor cannot. Without housing and food, the poor family will inevitably die off, including their children who had not yet been able to be given the opportunity for wealth (assuming that the opportunity for wealth is something like how well you do in schooling where you don't finish until you're 18).
*edit: Sorry if my response time becomes delayed, I'm involved with 3 different discussions now so things are getting hectic.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
In a free, and even in a socially equal society, there is going to be economic inequality. It is one of the core tenets of capitalism that there are some wealthy and some poor people; that is arguably necessary in order for the poor to have a standard they wish to achieve. There can never really be full social equality either; some people are going to be racist and want to discriminate against others. While the government should ensure protection for targeted groups, it should not restrict the freedoms racist people are entitled to either - freedom of thought, freedom of expression, etcetera, as long as their bigotry does not infringe upon the natural freedoms of others.
I think I simply slightly misunderstood the question :-) @Reven851
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
A- Giving the house that failed the same knowledge gained by the successful house (tell them the correct answer). This, however, has created a society dependent on equality of outcome.
B- Removing the burden of freedom from the situation. By having a 3rd party (such as the government) eliminate 99 of the 100 choices, both houses once again have an equal chance for success and failure. While the society is technically not "dependent" on manually balancing the outcome of the opportunity AFTER the opportunity has occurred, the same end result means equality of outcome.
Therefore in summation: to achieve true equality within a system, freedom must be removed from the equation.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
As a society it is important to recognize which ideal is valued more, because the more freedom you have, the less equality there is (and visa versa).
In conclusion, a society which values freedom above all appears as Individualistic Capitalism, and a society which values equality above all appears as Collectivist Marxism/Communism.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
It would not exclusively be a system of institutionalized failure exclusively, because there is still a chance for success. Therefore it would be a system of universally shared success and failure.
So basically you're saying that freedom and equality cannot coexist? Alternatively you are proving that a system of total equality in any modern context is impossible. Either way you are proving my argument to be true.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is getting interesting and a great debate so far, I've been slacking on keeping up here. So let's get to the meat and potatoes. The key phrasing I'm going to focus on here is that "Poor decisions" while being a technicality, cannot be ignored as the proximate cause for the subsequent inequality in opportunity. You've presented some amazing points that make great arguments from a mathematical standpoint however, I don't think your arguments can be applied reasonably within our society.
Yes, it's undeniable that at some point in this scenario there will be an inequality of opportunity depending on multiple variables however, inequality of opportunity should not be measured past the fundamental stage. My argument for this is as such: The initial equality of opportunity can be established in our scenario however, after A and B succeed and fail respectively...subsequent success and failure is no longer a matter of equality of opportunity, instead it's a matter of actions and consequences. The system we installed to ensure equality of opportunity is not responsible for the outcome of A's success nor is it responsible for B's failure and therefor cannot be held accountable or liable for either. In short, A and B's results were purely consequences of their own actions. Granted the equality of opportunity was a factor but in this case was not the cause. By suggesting that the system be re-worked due to a supposed inequality of opportunity created by A and B's outcomes...well that's the problem. The system did not create the outcome, A and B did.
Essentially my argument comes from a point of thought that in order to achieve equality, you must at some point step back and allow natural forces to work. There truly is no such thing as pure equality, such an idea is a dream at best but if we're allowed to contextualize equality then anyone could see that it's not really about creating an absolute but more about achieving a standard that's acceptable to a degree.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Additionally, what if the houses have children? Wanting their offspring to succeed, both houses would give them their knowledge of the test. These new entities were not given a "choice" to be born into a poor house or wealthy house but they are now impacted by the choices of their ancestors. While the initial opportunity was equal for houses A and B, the opportunity for houses A2 and B2 are not.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
When it comes to who decides what an acceptable standard for equality is, I believe we have to go with what society has accepted or "Status quo". You can't have an honest discussion about equality without having an honest discussion about the fact that it's not possible for two things to be completely and totally equal. Understanding that pure equality cannot be achieved, we need to move to an area of discussion that includes the understanding that we're talking about an acceptable standard of equality, not true equality.
In this discussion, in this example, I believe that the initial provision of equality of opportunity is sufficient and acceptable for A and B. The decisions that A and B have made are the proximate cause for the resulting inequality of opportunity and therefor are individual constructs belonging to the Households respectively. Being that the Households are solely responsible for the creation of the inequality in opportunity I don't find it logical to deduce any fault in the system that provided them with the initial equal opportunity.
Another way to view this paradigm is from the opposite side. Let's say that the system included a fault measure, a sub-system that would identify the faults of the individual households and adjust the outcome of their actions respectively so that both households would arrive at an equal result. This would mean that if A made good choices and B did not then one of two corrections would have to be made:
1. Household A's success and subsequent achievements would need to be systematically reduced to match the level of failure of Household B.
2. Household B's failure and subsequent lack of benefits would need to be systematically overlooked and Household B would need to be rewarded to match the success of Household A despite B's substandard performance.
In either of these corrections, there exists a fundamental flaw. If you apply either correction then this indicates that there is no set standard for success...nor is there one for failure. This system would essentially kill competition and therefor capitalism, free trade, human rights, justice...ect...ect. The suggested system above would create inequalities on such a grand scale that "Opportunity" as an issue...would be forgotten in the wake of all the other areas this system would destroy.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The collectivist view on equality interprets it as the situation in which the differences between individuals' access to services, goods and societal benefits are eliminated. For example, if one person has a car, and another does not, then the individuals are not equal. Or if one person gets smiled at in a grocery store by the manager, while another is asked to leave due to wearing dirty clothes and smelling, then the individuals are not equal.
The original view on equality, however, was very different. It was about taking out economical and societal classes out of equation when it comes to people's legal rights. For example, if a car dealer sells a car for $22,000 as advertised, then he will sell the car for $22,000 to any customer that agrees on such a price. He cannot say, "I would sell a car for $22,000 to others, but you are black, and I dislike black people, so you get an offer of $25,000 and no less". If the person does not have $22,000, then they will not be able to buy the car - however, their inability to buy it comes from them lacking resources to do so, not lacking the legal ability to do so. The person does have the legal ability to find a job that will allow them to earn $22,000 and consequently buy the car for the same price as it is offered to anyone else.
Now, a person with a strong credit history and high income can get a much better deal than $22,000. Again, the individual resource possession can and often will affect what economical deals are offered to them - this is the consequence of the free trade. But these rules apply to everyone, and the final price is only affected by dynamic elements every individual has full control over. People can earn a lot of money or go bankrupt. It is not something people are legally barred from, regardless of their background, and this is something that defines equality.
---
It is easy to see that it is this latter definition of equality that not only does not contradict freedom, but is actually a part of it. When individuals are free, when their liberties are not limited by the government, the society or other individuals, based on arbitrary aspects of their lives - then equality comes out naturally. When you are a free individual, you are not prevented from exercising your rights based on your skin color, on your economical status, on your view on the governmental policies... This does not mean you are able to immediately obtain as luxurious life as Bill Gates can afford - but this means that no one can stop you from using the same social and economical opportunities Bill Gates did at his time to potentially get to the same economical level as him. Your success is in your hands and not in anyone else's, and this is the defining characteristic of both equality and freedom. One cannot exist without the other.
What is NOT equality is this: "Bill Gates' son has a much easier start than an orphan from Brooklyn. We must equalize the situation by taking from Bill Gates and giving to the orphan!" This is the opposite of equality; this is equalization. Which also has its place in a civil society, but it is detrimental to both freedom and equality; the goals of equalization are completely different, and equalization is in place to ensure that as many individuals as possible obtain the quality of life they need to be able to contribute meaningfully to the economy.
Equality is not when two people have $5,000 and have the same economical opportunities - of course they do, one does not need to have assured equality to guarantee that. Equality is when one person has $1,000 and another has $10,000, and both exist within the same general legal framework. If the richer person, for example, can exercise their freedom of speech, while the poorer goes to jail for that (as often happens in oligarchic dictatorships) - THEN the equality is violated.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
All any free society can do is offer equal opportunity. What one does with that opportunity is up to them.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra