Write your comment in the form below. Be sure to 'Preview' your comment to make sure that it will appear as you want it to.
You Are Replying To This Comment:
Re: Freedom is attainable, Equality is not
By austin
Mar 11th 2007
at 3:40 pm EDT
x's unlimited freedom unchecked will eventually infringe upon y's. Some value judgment about equality then becomes necessary. Equality instituted through justice have been staples of civilized societies for centuries. Liberty sounds great but what happens when one wants to take your liberty to enhance his own? Freedom FROM then becomes an important aspect of your society. Brutality, and exploitation should not rein free in a "free" society. Equality is obtainable for a civilization. Perfect equality no, but the degree to which we live in a just society matters to the survival of society itself.
Also, the amount of freedom in America is limited to the extent of the capital one has access to. If I am starving and there is a Red Lobster near by, I do not have the freedom to come inside and eat without the money to pay for a meal. To a larger and more relevant extent, with out resources freedom is severely limited for the working class and the poor. We are reduced to living meager lives free to consume, and free to work, but can rarely afford the many freedoms and luxuries of the wealthier classes. Liberty in America for most of it's citizens is a fantasy world they only witness on television. If you were really dedicated to the ideal of liberty, you would also believe in economic justice.
You Are Commenting On This Post:
Laissez-Faire with Honesty: Libertarian Denial of Income Inequality
Income inequality? Conservatives say it’s not happening. Libertarians don’t care. Sadly, Reason Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie bucks the trend, seeming to have no problem with deliberate misrepresentation.
Predictably, Gillespie dismisses concern for the financial security of the middle-class as mere politicking. While this may be true to some extent, a closer look at his evidence reveals selectivity and misdirection. He cherry-picks a few self-fulfilling statistics, failing to recognize the inevitably more complex nature of these economic issues, and ignores more pertinent indicators of economic mobility and security.
- Responding to claims that income inequality is widening, Gillespie admits that the rich are getting richer, but then points to Census data showing that each income group is becoming wealthier. What matters, however, is not income growth itself, but relative rates of income growth. This Census table paints a more accurate picture: the share of aggregate income for the bottom 80% of Americans has declined over the past 30 years. The income levels accessible to the vast majority of Americans clearly do not correspond to the same status within the national economy as they once did.
- Gillespie points out a study showing that overall economic mobility has not changed much over past decades, that roughly the same percentage of Americans change income quintiles. Underneath this aggregate measure is evidence that mobility no longer means what it once did. A larger percentage stays in the same quintile, while a smaller percentage moves up or down by two quintiles. Furthermore, except for those who enter the fifth quintile, moving up by one quintile no longer corresponds to the same increase in purchasing power.
- Gillespie notes that more Americans than ever before own homes. There is a flipside, however. With housing especially, the value of these assets is less impressive when debt is taken into account. Though all income groups have increased debt as a percentage of income, the trend is more pronounced with lower income levels. In fact, middle-income families devote the highest percentage of their income to debt payment. Further more, these middle-class homes, as a larger percentage of total assets, make net worth less liquid than in the past.
Of course, if libertarians couldn’t engage in gross over-simplification of economics, they wouldn’t have much to go on, would they?
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Also, the amount of freedom in America is limited to the extent of the capital one has access to. If I am starving and there is a Red Lobster near by, I do not have the freedom to come inside and eat without the money to pay for a meal. To a larger and more relevant extent, with out resources freedom is severely limited for the working class and the poor. We are reduced to living meager lives free to consume, and free to work, but can rarely afford the many freedoms and luxuries of the wealthier classes. Liberty in America for most of it's citizens is a fantasy world they only witness on television. If you were really dedicated to the ideal of liberty, you would also believe in economic justice.