Freedom vs. Eqaulity

During the latter part of the presidential elections, the discussion seemed to shift toward wealth distribution and freedom versus equality. To an extent, the discussion continues. Whenever I hear an issue broken down into some kind of dichotomy, I immediately become suspicious. But the difference between parties might be a genuine dichotomy, between freedom and equality.

In the short story “Harrison Bergeron,” by Indiana native Kurt Vonnegut, a futuristic dystopian society exists where the innate abilities of everyone are in some way counter-balanced so that all members of society are finally equal.

Each character is physically impaired in such a way that their superior abilities are lowered in order for them to become average. George, a man naturally more intelligent than most, was made average by forcing him to wear an earpiece that disrupted his train of thought every 20 seconds. Others, who might have been naturally strong, were required to carry cumbersome weights. There were handicaps for every attribute.

The story brings up an interesting question, and one which Americans have been thinking about since Alexis de Tocqueville’s book “Democracy in America”. Are absolute equality and absolute freedom mutually exclusive?

Interpreting Vonnegut, it seems that in order to bring about absolute equality, sacrifices to our freedoms must be made. It’s funny, then, that both are associated with America.

But, in a somewhat unorthodox literary analysis, we can also apply this question to economic policy. Are free choice, which maximizes efficiency, and governmental programs that seek to improve equality also exclusive? Maybe that’s where the tension during the debate over wealth distribution came from – those in favor of “freedom” and those in favor of “equality.”

That is, because absolute freedom and absolute equality are exclusive, then finding the right balance between the two is very subjective. And during the process of collectively pooling together like-minded people, a dichotomy must arise, between those leaning toward “freedom” and economic efficiency and those leaning toward “equality” and a progressive tax system.

I’m reluctant to place myself completely in either camp, seeing merits in both. And it’s impossible to say who is right. More than likely whichever becomes politically ingrained as habit will become “right.” It’s somewhat analogous to what Rudolf Rocker said of political rights: “They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace.”

Looking back at the discussion’s timeline, and its different manifestations – from Tocqueville’s work to turn-of-the-20th century collective bargaining and labor to modern-day welfare politics – it makes me wonder when it will end, and which side’s position will become habitualized enough to resist if threatened.

It would be naive to say, even during today’s democratically controlled government, that the issue will be resolved. More than likely we’ll be having this same debate during the 2012 presidential elections.