Table of contentsIntroduction1.1. Scope: 1.2. Definitions:1.3. Sources:2.1. What is Freedom?2.2. What is equality?Characteristics of equality:Accordingly, equality remains for 3 basic characteristics:Political equality:Legal equality:2.3. Why is freedom more important than equality?2.4. Is it possible to achieve equality in the contemporary world?Main libertarian thinkers:1. Herbert Spencer2. Henry David Thoreau3. Friedrick Hayek4. Frédéric BastiatLiberty and Equality are contradictory:a. Natural inequality under the “rule of privilege”b. Intrinsic value of LibertyConclusionWorks cited: Introduction1.1. Scope: Freedom is a thought of extremely wide scope and it changes with the difference of time and different things, for example, point of view, physical conditions, state of mind, etc. Freedom does not necessarily mean only political freedom or another specific form of freedom. The purpose of freedom is very goal oriented: to make possible the improvement of the good characteristics of man and for this reason a wide range of freedom may be required and in this sense it is wide in nature. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Freedom is, once again, a dynamic idea. If people's mindset and perspective changes, the circle or degree of freedom should also change. For example, women in today's society demand more professions or work opportunities and consider this as their privilege and guarantee that they should have the freedom to work.1.2. Definitions: The word liberty is derived from liber. Many people are used to using freedom. But both words mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, there is a difference. We call it “freedom movement”, “freedom fighter”, etc. but not freedom movement. Laski calls freedom an atmosphere.1.3. Sources: Books, court records, recorded statements, original research, scientific journals, web documents, databases and manuals.2.1. What is freedom? Liberty was seen as protecting the unfettered expression of individuality in all its forms, equality as a set of limitations on human action. There is probably no word in the dictionary, whether scientific, philosophical, or non-technical, that has as many diverse meanings as the term "freedom." We could compare the term to those instruments constructed by man for a particular purpose, which are sometimes used, with more or less success, in the service of other purposes. In regular dialect, by freedom we mean the non-assistance of anything that may obstruct conception. developments of a man, a creature or a question. A wild creature locked in its enclosure is said to be not free. In the same sense, we declare that the gas has been given its freedom when it is allowed to escape from a test tube upon the generation of a compound response, or when we say that the bird which escaped from the bars of his enclosure and regained his freedom. The meaning we have recently given is simply mechanical. This hints at a simple plausibility of development, where there are no obstacles to devastate or constrain it. Thus, the English essayist Hobbes, alluding to the idea that we break, said that we could not consider a man deprived of his freedom who was not ready to move (a paralyzed individual, for example), or a stone that had been thrown onto the broad path. Freedomaccording to the law may appear in relation to the exercise or non-exercise of subjective rights of the first degree; freedom of will, on the other hand, refers as much to the fulfillment and violation of duties as to the exercise or non-exercise of faculties. Legal freedom is generally conceived by certain philosophers as a limitation or distortion of natural freedom. The latter appears in the eyes of many thinkers as an absolute right, free from any regulation, whose limits coincide with the power of each person.2.2. What is equality? In common usage, equality is deciphered as the complete and important correspondence of treatment and reward for all. It is requested as ordinary correspondence. It is said that all men are born normal and free. Be that as it may, despite a powerful and ardent interest in our minds, the possibility of a typical and total correspondence of all cannot be fully recognized and understood. Men are not proportionate either to their physical characteristics or to their mental limits. Some are more grounded, some are weaker, and some are brighter and more skillful than others. Their capabilities and limitations are remarkable. Everything regarding decency of treatment and prices cannot be guaranteed. Prices should depend on real limits and the work of different people. In this way, reasonableness does not simply mean value. Decency truly suggests a square with open entrances for development. When we speak of the correspondence of all men, we largely mean general and sensible equality and not parity in general. We are truly considering a reasonable distribution of opportunities for compensation and not a proportional reward for all. Characteristics of equality: Equity does not remain a total correspondence. It recognizes the proximity of certain regular imbalances. Uniformity remains due to the non-appearance of any artificial artificial imbalances and uniquely special classes in the general public. Equity involves granting and ensuring equal rights and opportunities to each member of the general population. suggests the provision of equivalent and sufficient open doors for each member of the general population in the eyes of the public. Equity implies breaking even with the satisfaction of the basic needs of a considerable number of people before the unique needs, and the extravagances of a few people could be respected. Correspondence advocates a fair and reasonable circulation of wealth and of assets, that is, the least conceivable gap between the rich and the poor. The correspondence recognizes the rule of defensive separation to help the weaker areas of society. In the Indian polity, the ideal of uniformity has been given to all, but then there are consolidated arrangements for granting extraordinary security offices and reservations to people having a place in the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, d other backward classes, minorities, women and youth. As a result, equality remains for 3 basic characteristics: Absence of exceptional advantages in the eyes of the public. Presence of sufficient and equivalent open doors for the well-being of all. Equal satisfaction of the basic needs of all. There are many types of equality but here we will only study political and legal equality.Political Equality:There remain equivalent open doors for everyone's cooperation in the political procedure. This includes the idea of ​​giving equivalent political rights to each indigenous person with uniform capabilities for each.Legal equality: Finally, legal equality remains for correspondence under the constant gaze of the law, in an approach of submission of all to the equivalent legal code. , and an equivalent open door for all to anchor the legal assurance of their rights and opportunities. There should be control of the law and the laws should likewise restrain any enemy. In every society, equity must be guaranteed.2.3. Why is freedom more important than equality? Freedom is what brings equality and joy. Every individual on the planet is extraordinary and interesting in their own way. Some people are sharper, more athletic, or more aesthetically pleasing than others. Liberty and equality form an inseparable unit. However, can there be a correspondence of results when everyone has different objectives and goals. Life is not reasonable and individuals will never be completely equivalent. There are bound to be individuals who are brilliant, stupid, rich, poor, etc. Although security under the law is great, completed correspondence is inaccessible and individuals who attempted met with calamities like in the Soviet association. Although not all individuals are completely equal, everyone can have freedom. To put it plainly, correspondence is a fundamental part of freedom, but when the pursuit of fairness escapes, it can rob groups of people of their freedom. Essentially, when equality and freedom are in struggle, freedom must win. When you understand freedom, individuals are free to act naturally, as long as they do not physically harm, sneak up on, or murder others. Freedom, reliably repeated, causes extraordinary development. For what? Since some people accomplish more than others. Some improve the situation more than others. Some have better planning or better fortune, however, some with better planning and better fortune make more, while others waste it. The fact is that people are not equivalent. They cannot be and never will be. Freedom implies opportunity for everyone. The level of opportunity for everyone matters. Equality before the law is important; but that's all! This implies that the government cannot take part of our money to pay for another, regardless of our financial situation. Obviously, we will probably take this wealth, if we have it, and spend it on products/benefits or put it into new businesses. Either way, we will create jobs and wealth for other people, without thinking about it. Furthermore, although we would improve the situation blindfolded, more than the government would, given that we know by and large how fair and competent government authorities have been in spending government money. others or, in simpler terms, our taxes. Freedom is far more important to a society than equality; people don't always get back what they put into life, but life is never really fair! Forcing life to be fair is even more unjust, which is why a fully egalitarian society would never be fair.2.4. Is it possible to achieve equality in the contemporary world? No, uniformity cannot exist in today's society. Assets are limited and the most entrenched groups will always have the privileged position to obtain them. Equality cannot exist in today's society since assets are limited. The gatherings with the most liquidity and training occupy a favorable position in asset recovery. The individuals arenaturally narrow-minded and once they get the assets, they are not required to share them. This implies uneven dispersion and an unbalanced audience. This will never be a reality. Equality is incomprehensible with regard to the individual on the grounds that we are hereditarily unique, that is to say not the equivalent = not the equivalent in the supreme sense of the term. As far as society is concerned, there has never been a perfect fairness society. A few people supervise or enforce standards, which implies they have distinctive jobs and specialists. Equality is a very profitable thing, but a perfect match might not be desired. Consider that if everyone was truly equivalent, specialists would get indistinguishable benefits from the dough puncher's partners. They are both beneficial to society, but clearly a specialist is more important to what remains of humanity. It is also MUCH harder to become a specialist. So it seems really reasonable to forgive the break-even point in terms of importance, access to assets or privileges for both the dough puncher partner and the specialist. Doing this can really cause problems since fewer individuals will attempt thorough preparation with the end goal of calling in a specialist if they can get benefits indistinguishable from the cook's partner or other activity. Immaculate Equality and Perfect Liberty/Freedom are two finishes from a similar range. If everyone is perfectly equivalent, they are not allowed to elevate their status or membership. This implies that they are not allowed to do as they please. Total freedom implies that there is no equality. When it comes to science, brain research and abilities, we are not all equal. Implementing similarity on a separate world means leveling everything down, down to the smallest shared factor. In the event that individuals have the opportunity, they will use their extraordinary qualities and favorable circumstances to do as they please, to change things as they please. Therefore, we can say that complete equality is an unrealizable fantasy because it is a very far-fetched idea. Total equality cannot exist in a society since each individual is born with different talents and abilities. We cannot expect an intelligent person to stop improving the capabilities of his mind just because others are dumber than him. Therefore, equality is practically impossible, but freedom is not.Major Libertarian Thinkers:1. Herbert Spencer Spencerian views on diffusion in the 21st century arise from his political assumptions and his overarching attacks on late 19th century developments of change. He was recognized as a pioneer by libertarians and anarcho-entrepreneurs. Market analyst Murray Rothbard called Social Statics "the best work of libertarian political rationality ever composed." Spencer had anticipated many of the explanatory perspectives of later libertarian scholars, for example Friedrich Hayek, particularly in his "Law of Equality". freedom,” its emphasis on the breaking points of prescient information, its model of unconstrained social demand, and its warnings about the “unintended results” of collectivist social change.2. Henry David ThoreauThoreau was a supporter of constrained government and independence. Although he rejoiced that humanity could eventually have, through its own progress, a kind of government that "does not supervise in any way," he separated himself from "men without administration."(contemporary agitators), expressing: “I am not immediately asking for a legislature, but rather a higher government. » Thoreau is sometimes described as a rebel. However, "Affable Disobedience" seems to call for strengthening rather than repealing government – ​​"I demand, not without delay, no legislature, but rather immediately a higher government" – the course of this improvement indicates to the reverses the rebellion: “This administration is best that which does not supervise in any way; » and when men are prepared for this, this will be the kind of government they will have.'3. Friedrick HayekFriedrich August von Hayek (May 8, 1899 – March 23, 1992), regularly referred to by his initials FA Hayek, was an Austrian financial expert and thinker best known for his barrier to traditional progressivism. The human personality, Hayek says, is not merely limited in its capacity to combine an immense range of solid realities, it is further limited in its capacity to give morality a deductive and stable foundation. This is where the pressure builds, because he also wants to ensure good protection of the free market. He is a cynical scholar who needs to give political logic a secure scientific establishment. It is therefore not very surprising that the results are confused and contradictory.4. Frédéric BastiatClaude-Frédéric Bastiat (June 29, 1801 – December 24, 1850) was a French market analyst and essayist who was a prominent figure in the French liberal school. Bastiat constructed the monetary idea of ​​random spending and presented the illustration of the broken window. He was also a Freemason and a member of the French National Assembly. He was a true enlightened promoter of an unfettered free market. Whatever the case, Bastiat himself affirmed that appropriation must be accessible, but constrained: "In rare conditions, for critical cases, the State should reserve some means to help certain tragic people, to enable them to acclimatize to changing conditions. Among his best-executed works are Economic Sophisms, a series of articles (originally distributed in the Journal of Economists) which contain a safeguarding of organized commerce and many emphatic attacks on state arrangements. Bastiat composed the work while living in England to inform shapers regarding the French Republic of the dangers of maintaining a strategic distance from. The Financial Sophisms were interpreted and adapted for an American readership in 1867 by business analyst and cash history scholar Alexander del Mar, writing under the pen name Walter. Liberty and equality are mutually contradictory: a. Natural inequality under the “rule of privilege” Liberty and equality have been constitutionally shaped and refined by a philosophy of minimum government. In this context, they tended to diverge. It is quite likely that their future constitutional development will be reshaped by the expansion of governmental controls over ever larger areas of individual activity. In this context, they will likely merge, providing a unified doctrine as the dominant ideal and constitutional requirement. Furthermore, the disappearance of geographic, economic and social borders has intensified collisions and conflicts between individuals and between social groups. Therefore, invasion of individual liberty by private action becomes an equal, if not greater, threat to the fabric of liberty than invasion by government action. To control these private invasions and maximize freedoms, government must be as concerned about equal regulation and similarity of treatment as it is about preserving certain freedoms..