View Full Version : To discuss
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Discuss.
Doggcow
03-14-2008, 02:19 PM
Yep.
kappys
03-14-2008, 07:51 PM
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Discuss.
Since most of his american commentary occured during the time of the civil war I suspect this had much more to do with a reference to real slavery rather than modern economic implications, which I suspect was your motivation for posting this.
Taco John
03-14-2008, 07:55 PM
This statement is exactly true for our times, IMO.
Most Americans confuse egalitarianism for Liberty.
elsid13
03-14-2008, 08:14 PM
This statement is exactly true for our times, IMO.
Most Americans confuse egalitarianism for Liberty.
TJ what is your defination of liberty?
Taco John
03-14-2008, 11:06 PM
I would defer to Thomas Jefferson's definition:
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
Depends on how down and dirty the slavery gets because Americans have grown weak as a result of losing moral purpose.
Since most of his american commentary occured during the time of the civil war I suspect this had much more to do with a reference to real slavery rather than modern economic implications, which I suspect was your motivation for posting this.
Seeing as how de Tocqueville died in 1859, I doubt he wrote during the Civil War - his "Democracy in America" came out in 1835 and 1840.
It's not just economics to which his comment applies - I found it most apropos in regards to public education. My personal experience with my kids has been that the school system is far more interested in equal mediocrity than helping students reach their fullest potential. It's not "fair" to have some students succeed, some spectacularly so, therefore, all students must be pushed down to the lowest level. That's a tragedy.
kappys
03-15-2008, 12:28 AM
Depends on how down and dirty the slavery gets because Americans have grown weak as a result of losing moral purpose.
Moral purpose in the sense of pro-life, family values, etc. or do you suggest we lack an ideal about what it is to be American and the will to project that in the manner that the Romans and Brits had an ideal of their societies and founded empires in such a fashion?
I mean a collective knowing a right thing and knowing it matters with all the resulting power that brings. The United States hasn't had that sense WWII. The further we drift from the truth the weaker we will get.
What truth should we believe to make America great?
That's a great question W*GS, I don't know but I'll know it when I see it. ;D
kappys
03-15-2008, 12:56 AM
I mean a collective knowing a right thing and knowing it matters with all the resulting power that brings. The United States hasn't had that sense WWII. The further we drift from the truth the weaker we will get.
Agreed.
Kaylore
03-15-2008, 01:01 AM
A lot of people believe that equality means sameness. It doesn't. There is also a belief that achievement through merit is unfair. These contribute to the state of our country.
Spider
03-15-2008, 01:11 AM
where do you people get this **** from ?
I dont agree with W*GS opening post ......
look a black guy , Hispanic , Jew , Indian , Asian , white , we all should be given the same opportunities in life , what one does with these opportunities is on that person ...... to believe W*GS post , you have to be prepared to tell me , if your Neighbor is doing crack , you are also willing do to crack to be equal .... load of horse**** .... buying these pseudo intellect rantings is 1 step away from a mental ward .......
Taco John
03-15-2008, 01:13 AM
where do you people get this **** from ?
I dont agree with W*GS opening post ......
look a black guy , Hispanic , Jew , Indian , Asian , white , we all should be given the same opportunities in life , what one does with these opportunities is on that person ...... to believe W*GS post , you have to be prepared to tell me , if your Neighbor is doing crack , you are also willing do to crack to be equal .... load of horse**** .... buying these pseudo intellect rantings is 1 step away from a mental ward .......
Yes, but we're supposed to believe that he's doing crack because society led him to do crack. Thus, society owes him money. It's only fair.
Spider
03-15-2008, 01:17 AM
Yes, but we're supposed to believe that he's doing crack because society led him to do crack. Thus, society owes him money. It's only fair.
most people dont give a rats ass what their neighbor is doing much less why they are doing it
Hogan11
03-15-2008, 01:28 AM
What if D-O-G really spelled Cat?
Kaylore
03-15-2008, 03:04 AM
What if D-O-G really spelled Cat?
They call them fingers, but they don't fing! Oodle on that for awhile!
Hogan11
03-15-2008, 07:30 AM
They call them fingers, but they don't fing! Oodle on that for awhile!
Kaylore, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi.
loborugger
03-15-2008, 09:37 AM
Funny, but didnt Tocqueville write this when we did actually have slavery in this country? I think Tocqueville really missed the mark on this one, as it relates to the Americans he wrote about in the early 19th cent. However, it does nail some of the more extreme political views of this day.
I don't think de Tocqueville was talking about literal slavery; he was talking about the obsession with egalitarianism, and equality of outcome. We certainly see that with the drive for ultraprogressive taxation and the constant drumbeating against "The Rich".
Hogan11
03-15-2008, 12:54 PM
Why is a carrot more orange than a orange? ???
loborugger
03-15-2008, 12:57 PM
The equality that early Americans were concerned with was equality of oppurtunity, not equality of results. Its only been with the modern liberal movement and PC that we have, IMHO, become obsessed with equality of outcome - and this obsession isnt limited to modern America alone.
Rohirrim
03-15-2008, 01:21 PM
I don't think de Tocqueville was talking about literal slavery; he was talking about the obsession with egalitarianism, and equality of outcome. We certainly see that with the drive for ultraprogressive taxation and the constant drumbeating against "The Rich".
The so-called "drumbeating" against the rich is not to protest the uneven distribution of wealth. It's to guard against their accumulation of political power through the abuse of that wealth. What de Tocqueville misses in his little quip (among many other things he missed as a political tourist in America) is that wealth disparity, if allowed to grow, will bring down any society, regardless of its beliefs. We've got plenty of history to prove it; France being a great example.
My contention is that, since Ur and the very first kingdom, human beings have been struggling against the separation between kings and serfs; between those born into the palace and those born into servitude. Nothing we have yet done has changed the continuation of that dynamic.
In America, we have written on our founding document that all of us are created equal (actually, only "men" ;D). We like to pussyfoot around that declaration by saying that it only refers to equality of rights while ignoring the fact that those at the bottom of the economic scale are, by the very nature of the system, less able to exercise their rights than those higher up on the scale, not to mention that in any basic hierarchy of needs, survival comes first. In other words, the poor are less concerned with freedom than they are with their next meal. Could democracy survive in a nation of serfs? Doubtful.
The so-called "drumbeating" against the rich is not to protest the uneven distribution of wealth.
Bull. What motivates so many levellers is nothing but envy. And as a proponent of the zero-sum theory of wealth, you fit right in with them, Ro.
It's to guard against their accumulation of political power through the abuse of that wealth.
The implicit argument you're making being that wealth is always abused to manipulate the political system. Of course, if the government didn't reach into every single aspect of our lives, manipulating it wouldn't work.
What de Tocqueville misses in his little quip (among many other things he missed as a political tourist in America) is that wealth disparity, if allowed to grow, will bring down any society, regardless of its beliefs. We've got plenty of history to prove it; France being a great example.
It's not mere disparity of wealth that causes discord - it's the belief that those lower cannot work their way up that results in societal upheaval. When the ladder is pulled up, that's when problems happen.
Taco John
03-15-2008, 04:24 PM
most people dont give a rats ass what their neighbor is doing much less why they are doing it
Now you're talking like an objectivist.
Taco John
03-15-2008, 04:25 PM
Why is a carrot more orange than a orange? ???
Now that's deep.
Rohirrim
03-15-2008, 05:27 PM
Bull. What motivates so many levellers is nothing but envy. And as a proponent of the zero-sum theory of wealth, you fit right in with them, Ro.
The implicit argument you're making being that wealth is always abused to manipulate the political system. Of course, if the government didn't reach into every single aspect of our lives, manipulating it wouldn't work.
It's not mere disparity of wealth that causes discord - it's the belief that those lower cannot work their way up that results in societal upheaval. When the ladder is pulled up, that's when problems happen.
There you go with your "zero sum" crap again. No doubt it's a tag line you picked up from The Economist. Wish you would define that. Just because you toss me into the bucket with everyone else doesn't mean I belong there. It's just an indication of the limitations of your own ability to argue political philosophy. Sure, there is envy, there is also fear of the abuse of power. Given the way our entire government is constructed, I'm guessing the Founders took the abuse of power rather seriously. I notice you disregarded my entire argument and just cherry picked a few bits, as per usual. Guess you had no argument with that bit.
Zero-sum is the concept that wealth is like a finite pie, fixed in size, such that every time one person has more wealth, someone else has to have less. The net of all transactions is zero. Obviously wrong.
Also, in regards to the poor being so concerned with mere survival that the cannot enact their rights, that's rather exaggerated as well. Considering the massive transfers of wealth to the poor, not many are reduced to scavenging just to live another day. Those that are tend to have far more serious problems than just being poor - mental health issues, drug addiction, and so on.
Lastly, the real issue is that (unless it's monitored and yanked back as needed) the state will abuse rights, whether or not the rich are pulling the strings. Think of North Korea - no rich people to speak of, and yet the most totalitarian state on the planet.
Like I said, it's not disparity in wealth that creates social conflict in and of itself (excepting that those whose base motivation is envy often agitate for conflict just because); it's the belief that the poor will stay poor and the rich will just get richer and richer that motivates strife. Considering that one of the US' greatest attributes is social mobility, it's not a surprise that the class warfare rhetoric imported from Europe isn't much of a big sell here.
Is the above enough political philosophy for you?