Essay about Choosing Freedom over Equality

•Information, independent thought, and freedom are restricted in this society. Equality must think about “the will of all men together” and how they are all supposed to be “one in all and all in one”. No one may think of or for themselves and everyone decision is made by the grace of every brother.

Liberty, a peasant girl meets Equality and in a sense helps him find himself and correct his morals. His plan is to sneak out during the social interaction time to his secret tunnel underground where he writes after he stops writing in his room. One night he forgets to keep track of his hour glass and continues writing and experimenting with his light box and gets caught. He gets thrown in a cell block until he informs the council of his sins, holding this information, to him, is morally wrong in the eyes of the council. Anthem is a communistic society, so the council controls any and everything occurring within. According to http://www.governmentvs.com/en/totalitarian-countries/model-58-4 Totalitarian nations include, China, North Korea, India, Uzbekistan, Austria, Germany, Belarus, South Africa. Meaning these nations are controlling the states by not letting them take part in certain aspects of their own life, just as in Anthem. By the beginning of the book Equality knows that sinning is morally wrong and he should not take part in it. The council forbids any form of self interest or anything to do with thinking about oneself to prevent individualism, but by the end of the book things turn out differently for the better sake of

Once a society elects the government they classify as “ideal,” the government that establishes authority will have the ability to set harsh restrictions against the citizens who supported them without any knowledge on their plans. To demonstrate how sinful he has been, Equality describes the kind of life people conform

Over the years the Government or some other authoritative figure have tried to shape society into what they think is best. This quite often backfires due to an eventual difference in views or ideas. In trying to make an equal society any uniqueness or individuality is condemned. Comments drawn from these two works, “1984 by George Orwall” and “Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.” will show a comparison of how a government’s attempt to create a perfect society can go wrong and how an official can change the people with in a country through physical force into obeying.

“I never doubted that equal rights was the right direction. Most reforms, most problems are complicated. But to me there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality.” – Alice Paul (Alice Paul Quote)

Is it possible to achieve equality based on the Constitution? It is possible to achieve equality for individuals in society.

In the United States of America, there is a common idea of freedom; that is being able to do as one wishes, as long as he or she does not push harm onto others nor limit the freedom of others. In addition, there is another common ideal of everyone being treated as equals. In fact, the Founding Fathers, the founders of the United States, wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

Having perfect equality would grant each person equal access to any and all goods and services. Government constants of freedom by nature, however; it is a matter of if we receive negative or positive freedom in each situation. Negative freedom is the liberty given ”freedom to,” while “freedom from” enacts positive freedom. While order becomes more controversial when talking about social order versus police order. Police order is a direct protection of life and property for social order, that is how a society responds to authority through modes of behavior. To have a social order a police order needs to be enforced, arguments arise between how much power a police order should have to maintain an equal social order. Where equality is defined as the state of being equal, where there is no true way to measure equality as a whole nation. The equality is measured from person to person, but as human nature nobody feels exactly the same. As a nation there is a tendency to group people into sections and equal out the playing field between the two major groups of

Equality was demolished in the twentieth century when capitalism took over the world. People’s desire for wealth dismantled the idea of equality and freedom.

Whenever human rights is brought into question, may it be locally or internationally, It is very common for people to point out their lack of equal rights in order to further explain how they are being robbed of some naturally given right(s). Those who point out rights and the lack of them are using it to argue for justice. Today, equal rights are adamantly fought for by people from all walks of life. If we look at the United States of America, we can see that, the inequality that people point to is a result of actions that took place many years ago and actions that are being taken today. May it be modern day slavery, institutionalized racism or the mistreatment and alienation of women in the American society; people are continuing the fight for the fair treatment and equal rights for various groups. In our studies in class we focused on several thinkers who, despite all fighting for some sort of justice, had very clear differences. Each of these thinkers identified that some group or groups were being denied equal rights. They argued that these groups were being deliberately denied of equal rights by the ruling elite and because of that, they saw it an injustice.

A questions asked is: Can freedom and equality exist together in a society or does one overpower the other? Well, when one is more free, they are less equal according to Professor Jurgen B. at CSUEB. A great example to use is taxation. We tend, as Americans, to tax the rich more than the poor. If the rich got taxed as much as the poor- the poor would either

Freedom and equalities are the undeniable rights of a person that were confirmed by God and the humanities. However, there is no easy way to have those rights , they are only deserved for the people who fight for it. Let’s take the film Hidden Figures as a good illustration for this point. The movie describes the three brilliant black women--Katherine Johnson, Mary Jackson, and Dorothy Vaughan-- who worked in NASA and their fights to gain the respects from the white men with two factors: their talents and their character-traits.

Throughout history there has always been a dilemma between freedom and equality. Some people think they are one in the same but there are differences. Freedom is the ability of individuals to be their own person and make choices that are based on their own individuality. Equality is the ability to exercise rights so that everyone is treated fairly in all parts of society. I do not believe you can have freedom without equality, but total equality takes many years and is often impossible to achieve. There is a dilemma because often in order to achieve one aspect the other has to be given up.

Liberty and equality have been principles of the Western world in one form or another almost as long as its existence. Today, particularly, these values are held in high regard by those living in this part of the world. It is, therefore, little wonder that these principles have often formed the central line of reasoning in philosophical works. Two examples of these are works by Robert Nozick and John Rawls, both of whom value liberty as the first principle of justice. In their specific arguments for this viewpoint, however the two philosophers diverge significantly, with Rawls focusing on the collective principle in terms of equality and justice, while Nozick focuses on the individual right and historical principle and its role in this right.

What is equality? If one man in a room has five dollars and another man in the same room has fifty dollars are we supposed to hold a gun to the temple of the man with fifty dollars in order to force him into giving the man with five dollars some of his wealth? This is type of consequentialist or utilitarian equality of outcome that was supported by some Socialist political economists of the nineteenth and twentieth century such as Marx and Engels who would dare to go even farther in advocating for the abolition and confiscation of property on top of a heavy graduated income tax (Marx 18). Other theorists from the Enlightenment that were more liberally inclined such as Adam Smith and John Locke advocated for a more deontologist framework where some would consider equal opportunity takes precedent. This can most notably be seen through Smith when he called for an exact administration of justice, and the creation and maintenance of public institutions that would be advantageous for society as a whole (Smith Lecture). In other words, a just infrastructure that would be just for all men, (women still did not possess the same rights as men at this time) in which they hoped gave citizens an equal shot at the market and life. Bakunin, on the other hand, had similar views as Smith in regards to equality but still maintained collectivist undertones in his writings. Bakunin believed that freedom should be the basis of equality and that “freedom of each is therefore realizable only in