IndexIntroduction1.1. 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. Friedrich Hayek4. Frédéric BastiatFreedom and equality are mutually contradictory:a. Natural inequality under the “rule of privilege”b. Intrinsic value of freedom Conclusion Works cited: Introduction 1.1. Scope: Freedom is a far-reaching thought and changes with the difference of time and different things, for example, point of view, physical condition, state of mind and so on. By freedom we must not only mean political freedom or some other specific type of freedom. The purpose of freedom is very goal oriented: to make the improvement of man's good characteristics feasible and for this reason a wide range of freedom may be needed and in this sense it is broad in nature. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Freedom is, once again, a dynamic idea. If people's mood and point of view change, the circle or degree of freedom should also change. For example, women in today's society demand more occupations or job opportunities and consider it as their privilege and ensure that they have the freedom to work.1.2. Definitions: The word liberty comes 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 “freedom movement”, “freedom fighter” etc. but not freedom movement. Laski calls freedom an atmosphere.1.3. Sources: books, court documents, recorded statements, original research, academic journals, web documents, databases and textbooks.2.1. What is freedom? Freedom was seen as the protection of the free expression of individuality in all its forms, and equality as a set of limitations on human action. There is probably no word in the dictionary, be it scientific, philosophical or non-technical, that has so many different meanings as the term "freedom". One might compare the term to those tools constructed by man for a special purpose, which are sometimes used, with more or less success, in the service of other purposes. In regular dialect, freedom means the absence of everything that can hinder the conceivable development of a man, a creature or a question. We say of a wild creature closed in its enclosure that it is not free. In a similar sense, we say that the gas has been given its freedom when it is allowed to exit a test tube after generating a compound response, or when we say that the bird that escaped from the bars of its enclosure has regained its freedom. his freedom. The meaning we have recently given is simply mechanical. It alludes to a simple plausibility of development where there are no obstacles capable of devastating or limiting it. Thus the English essayist Hobbes, alluding to the idea that we are dismantling, said that we cannot consider a man deprived of his freedom who is not ready to move (a paralyzed individual, for example), or a stone that has been thrown onto the broad road . Freedom according to the law can appear in relation to the exercise or non-exercise of subjective rights of first degree; freedom of the will, on the other hand, refers to boththe fulfillment and violation of duties as well as the exercise or non-exercise of faculties. Legal freedom is usually conceived by some philosophers as a limitation or deformation 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 individual.2.2. What is equality? In common usage, equality is deciphered as the important complete correspondence between treatment and reward for all. It is requested as ordinary correspondence. It is said that all men are born normal and free. In any case, despite a strong interest in our spirits, the possibility of a typical and true correspondence of all cannot be fully recognized and attributed to it. Men are not proportionate either with respect to their physical characteristics or their mental limitations. Some are more grounded, some are weaker, and some are brighter and more skilled than others. Their capabilities and limitations are evident. Anything regarding the decency of treatment and rewards cannot be guaranteed. The rewards must depend on the real limits and the work of various people. In this way, reasonableness does not mean pure and simple value. Decency really suggests a plaza with open entrances for development. When we speak of the correspondence of all men we largely mean general and sensible equality and not general parity. We really look at a reasonable dispersion of compensation possibilities and not a proportional reward for all. Characteristics of equality: Equity does not remain for total matching. It recognizes the proximity of some regular imbalances. The uniformity remains due to the non-appearance of all unnatural man-made imbalances and uniquely special classes in the general public. Equity assumes the granting and guaranteeing of equivalent rights and opportunities to each of the general population. Equilibrium suggests the provision of equivalent and sufficient open doors for each of the general population in the eyes of the public. Equity involves balancing the basic needs of a considerable number of people before the unique needs, and extravagances of a few people could be satisfied. Correspondence supports an impartial and reasonable circulation of wealth and goods, i.e. the minimum imaginable gap between rich and poor. The correspondence recognizes the rule of defensive separation to help the weakest areas of society. In the Indian political system, the ideal of uniformity has been given to all, but then there are well-established arrangements to grant special security posts and reservations to people belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes of Other Backward Classes, minorities, women and children. Consequently, Equality remains for 3 Fundamental Characteristics: Absence of exceptional benefits in the eyes of the public. Presence of sufficient and equivalent open doors for improvement for all. Equal satisfaction of everyone's basic needs. There are many types of equality but we will only study political and legal equality here. Political equality: Equivalent doors remain open for everyone's cooperation in the political procedure. This includes the idea of ​​giving equivalent political rights to each of the natives with some uniform capabilities for all. Legal Equality: Finally, legal equality remains for correspondence under the gaze of the law, approach to the submission of all to the same legal code, and an equivalent open door for all to ensure the legitimate guarantee of their rights and opportunities . There should be control of law and laws must limit the sameway all enemies. In every society fairness 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 smarter, sportier or more aesthetic than others. Freedom and equality go together as an inseparable unit. However, can there be a match of results when everyone has different goals and objectives? Life is not reasonable and individuals will never be totally equivalent. There will certainly be brilliant individuals, idiots, rich people, poor people, and so on. While coping with legal security is great, complete correspondence is unattainable, and people who have attempted have encountered calamities like in the Soviet association. While not all individuals will be totally equivalent, everyone can have freedom. To put it plainly, correspondence is a fundamental element of freedom, but when the pursuit of fairness slips away, it can remove the freedom of groups of people. Essentially, when equality and freedom are in conflict, freedom must win. When freedom is grasped, individuals are free to act naturally, as long as they do not physically harm, flee, or kill others. Freedom, reliably proven, stimulates extraordinary development. Why? Since some people accomplish more than others. Some improve the situation more than others. Some have better planning or luck, however, some with better planning and luck get more with it, while others waste it. The fact of the matter is: people are not equivalent. They cannot be and never will be. Freedom implies opportunity for all. The level of opportunity for everyone matters. Equality before the law is important; anyway that's how it is! This implies that the government cannot take one part of our money to pay for another, regardless of how wealthy we are. Of course, we will most likely take those riches, if we have them, and spend them on goods/benefits or invest them in new ventures. In any case, we will create work and wealth for others, without taking them into account. Furthermore, even if blindfolded we will improve the situation compared to what the government would do, in light of the fact that we as a whole know how fair and capable the government authorities have been in spending other people's money or, in simpler words, our taxes. For a society, freedom is much more important than equality; people don't always get out what they put into life, but life is never really fair! Forcing life to be fair is even more unfair, which is why a fully fair 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. Resources are limited and the most entrenched groups will surely have the preferred point of view to obtain them. Equality cannot exist in today's society as resources are limited. Groups with more liquidity and training have a favorable position in asset recovery. Individuals are narrow-minded by nature, so once they obtain goods they are not required to share them. This implies uneven dispersion and an unbalanced general public. It will never be a reality. Equality is incomprehensible with respect to the individual since hereditarily we are unique, that is, non-equivalent = non-equivalent in the supreme sense. As far as society is concerned, there has never been one of complete fairness. Some people oversee or uphold the standards and that means they have separate jobs and specialists. Equality is a very profitable thing, but a matchflawless may be unwanted. Consider, if everyone were actually equivalent, experts would get identical benefits from mixer partners. Both are useful to society, however, clearly, a specialist is more significant to what remains of humanity. It is also MUCH harder to become a specialist. So it seems really reasonable to forgive the tie in terms of meaning, access to resources or privileges to both the kneader's partner and the specialist. Doing as such can really cause problems as fewer people will attempt the in-depth preparation with the end goal of hiring a specialist on the off chance that they can get indistinguishable benefits from the cook's partner or some other business. Immaculate Equality and Perfect Liberty/Freedom are two finishes from a similar range. If everyone is perfectly equivalent, they are not allowed to increase their status or membership. This implies that they are not allowed to do as they see fit. Complete freedom implies that there is no equality. When it comes to science, brain research and ability, we are not all equal. Implementing similarity in a separate world means leveling everything down to the smallest shared factor. In case individuals have the opportunity, they will use their extraordinary qualities and favorable circumstances to do as they see fit, change things as they please. So, we can say that total equality is an unattainable fantasy as it is a very far-fetched idea. Total equality cannot exist in society as every individual is born with different talents and abilities. We cannot expect an intelligent person to stop enhancing the capabilities of his mind just because others are stupider than him. Therefore, equality is practically impossible but freedom is not. Main libertarian thinkers:1. Herbert SpencerSpencerian views in 21st century diffusion derive from his political hypotheses and his major attacks on the developments of late 19th century change. It has been vouched for as a precursor by libertarians and anarcho-entrepreneurs. Market analyst Murray Rothbard called Social Statics "the single best work of libertarian political rationality ever composed." freedom', his emphasis on the breaking points of prescient information, his model of unconstrained social demand, and his warnings about the 'unintended results' of collectivist social change. Henry David Thoreau Thoreau was a supporter of constrained government and independence. Although he was happy that humanity could conceivably have, through self-promotion, the kind of government that "does not supervise in any way", he separated himself from contemporary "non-stewardship men" (agitators), expressing: "I ask not immediately any legislature, but rather a higher government." Thoreau is sometimes referred to as a rebel. Yet 'affable disobedience' seems to require a strengthening rather than abrogation of government - 'I demand, not without a moment's delay, no legislature, but rather a double superior government' - the process of this improvement instead indicates rebellion: 'That administration is better if he does not supervise in any way;' and when men are ready for it, that will be the kind of government they will have." Friedrick Hayek Friedrich August von Hayek (8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992), regularly referred to by his initials FA Hayek, was an Austrian financial expert and thinker. known primarily for its barrier to traditional progressivism. The human personality, says Hayek, is not limited simply in its ability to combine a wide range of solid realities, it is also limited in its ability to give a deductively stable foundation to morality that is createdtension, as it also needs to provide good expected protection to the free market. He is a cynical academic who needs to give political logic a safe academic institution. It is therefore not surprising that the results are confusing and conflicting. Frédéric BastiatClaude-Frédéric Bastiat (29 June 1801 – 24 December 1850) was a French market analyst and essayist who was a leading individual of the French liberal school. Bastiat developed the monetary idea of ​​random spending and presented the illustration of the broken window. He was also a Freemason and member of the French National Assembly. He was a truly brilliant promoter of an unhindered free market. Be that as it may, Bastiat himself stated that appropriation should be accessible, but constrained: “In unusual conditions, for critical cases, the State should reserve some goods to help some tragic individuals, to allow them to adapt to the situation.conditions evolving." Among his best-produced works is Economic Sophisms, a series of articles (initially distributed in the Journal des économistes) containing a safeguard of organized trade and numerous emphatic attacks on statist arrangements. Bastiat composed the work while living in England to inform modelers with respect to the French Republic of the dangers from which to maintain a strategic distance. Financial Sophisms was interpreted and adapted for an American audience in 1867 by the business analyst and specialist in the history of money Alexander del Mar, composed under the pseudonym Walter. Freedom and equality are mutually contradictory:a. Natural Inequality Under the “Government of Privilege” Freedom and equality have been shaped and perfected constitutionally by a philosophy of minimum government. In this context, they have tended to diverge. It is highly likely that their future constitutional development will be reshaped by expanding government controls over ever-larger areas of individual activity. In this context they will likely unite, providing a unified doctrine as our dominant ideal and constitutional demand. Furthermore, the disappearance of geographical, economic and social borders has intensified collisions and conflicts between individuals and between social groups. As a result, the encroachment of individual liberty by private action is becoming an equal, if not greater, threat to the fabric of liberty than the encroachment by government action. To control these private invasions and maximize liberty, the government must be as concerned with equality of regulation and similarity of treatment as with the preservation of some negative liberties. The result promises a further fusion of the doctrines of liberty and equality. “Not all men are the same, nor can they ever be. The argument of the natural inequality of mankind remains valid in light of the 'rule of privilege.'”b. Intrinsic Value of Freedom Arguments in political theory often suffer from reduced intellectual returns. The main participants in the debates know the basic arguments for and against socialism, legal abortion, torture or property rights. Some participants perform the movements better than others. For this they get better salaries, better academic positions and, sometimes, better sales. However, the basic countermoves almost always remain, and at most require a little more refinement after particularly ingenious interventions. The result is academic trench warfare, in which each side expends a great deal of energy to gain a few feet of intellectual ground. For Mill, nothing governs utility. Opportunity is being allowed or forced to adopt behavior that yields maximum utility. There.