INDY, let me just say that I hate your signature, since you're not going to reply to my post. The idea that valuing equality means spitting on liberty is such a perfect example of your ass-backwards view of the people you disagree with so fervently. It's really difficult to maintain an argument when you don't bother trying to understand where we are coming from.
You hate my signature? Odd coming from someone named PhilsFan whose team has in its own logo the, wait for it... Liberty Bell (note the name).
In fact, how many buildings in Philadelphia have the name Liberty in them compared to Equality? You get the point. Now I'm more than happy to respond because your "hate" arises, I think, because we understand and strive for a different definition of equality.
Equality--as understood when the Liberty bell was still being rung--was that of a natural (or God given) right to live freely under self-government, to acquire and keep property (including wages) gained through one's own labor and enterprise and to be treated without prejudice before the law. That all men are created equal before the law and before God but that inequality is the natural state of man because each individual is born with unique talents and strengths and therefore some will prosper or succeed more than others. We have the right "to pursue happiness," not a right to happiness.
These are high ideals but we are mere men so grave injustices and base prejudices have, are and will always exist. The promise of the Constitution, the blindfolded Lady Justice and of natural law demands redress in these cases but when taken too far you have the equality of the Left.
The equality of the Left is not that of equality of opportunity but of equality of economic and social outcomes. The Left envisions an egalitarian society with an ever growing government leveling the playing field through "social justice" and redistribution schemes, i.e., authoritarian collectivism. This form of equality, over time, creates a culture of uniformity and dependence and crushes individual initiative, self-reliance, risk-taking and independence that can only thrive when men live free. Extreme example, North Korea. Now that's a country where
equality reigns.
I should also note one way in which liberty or freedom is defined differently. The freedom of the founders was the "freedom from harassment." This is enumerated in the negative rights of the first ten amendments. The Left from FDR to present pushes "freedom from want" through the Welfare State. This was first enumerated in FDR's Second Bill of Rights if you doubt me.
In short, you can't be for; big government, a progressive tax-code, affirmative action, minimum and equal wage laws, quotas, positive rights, etc without realizing they come at a cost... that of liberty.
