Egalitarianism.

I had a thought after one again dwelling on the differences between libertarians, liberals, and conservatives.

Democracy is not an end. It is a means. It is the best way to acheive freedom for the people, and in that sense needs to be completely egalitarian: all people must be equal, or there is no real freedom.

However, what applies at a national level or an international level doen’t at all scale to, for instance, the church or the home. The home and the church are both not democracies for a reason, and in that context egalitarianism is a very bad plan. The elders aren’t equal to everyone else. Parents aren’t equal to children.

My point being, egalitarianism itself can’t be egalitarian in that it doesn’t scale. It must be in place in some points, and must not be in place at other points. Just, where to determine those intersections?

Tags:
Posted March 8th, 2006 in main. Tagged: .

3 comments:

  1. Roger:

    You’re talking politics. Watch the subject matter go way over my head.

    March 9th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
  2. Hanna:

    My big question, and something I’ve always wondered about (or at least since Bill C-250) is when you’re aspiring to the equality of all and therefore (in this case) the freedom of all…doesn’t that include homosexuals? If we try to restrict their “rights” in any way, can’t we just expect our own rights as Christians to be restricted?

    Because after all, we do live in a democracy - which nobody ever said was a Christian ideal, I’m not even sure if egalitarianism is. Although, they’re both sound ideals…but that’s contingent on the state of the hearts within the polity (in my opinion).

    Anyway, given my tangential discussion of marriage rights for all you’re probably bemoaning the fact that I missed the point of your post but I didn’t…it just wasn’t the most provocative point…

    March 10th, 2006 at 11:43 am
  3. daniel:

    I think the answer lies in whether or not a liberal democracy can exist in tandem with the principles of scripture, at least as we know liberal democracies. I also think that answer is no.

    What would a scriptural liberal democracy look like? Would it have freedom or religion and expression and a do-whatever-you-like attitude? Interesting question. Well, at least, I find my own question interesting.

    In our society, however, we can’t mandate any sort of morality other than the kind that can be deduced by infering what makes an orderly society function: that is to say, what rights people are given or what rights are held to be basic, and how far one can violate those rights with the rule of law.

    Theft, murder, rape, driving on the right side of the street, and not owning a nuclear bomb are easy to discern. Homosexuality, nudity, pornography, fashion, and what words one may say on television… well, that’s harder, if not impossible. Especially with fallen human hearts doing the reckoning.

    So no, I don’t think that egalitarian liberal democracy is the ideal - but then again, it’s the best we’ve gotten so far, I would say.

    Another interesting thing: the average lifespan for a democracy is something in the 300 year range. Monarchies, on the other hand, are much longer-lived… wierd, eh?

    dan

    March 10th, 2006 at 8:31 pm

Leave a response: