Which Came First: Freedom or Equality?

Milton Friedman, an economist who received a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, once said, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” As citizens of a nation, we must give up some freedoms to receive benefits from the government, including public goods and social order. In all countries, a persistent tension exists between freedom and equality, as governments try to identify the values that best dovetail with the goals of the political or economic structure (liberal, conservative, socialist, etc.), with each system leading to its own consequences. In the Soviet Union, for example, the apparent prioritization of equality and freedom due to the pervasiveness of communist ideology led to a social state in which everybody, regardless of their occupation, would receive the same meager quality of life. On the other hand, a total disregard for social equality has spurred large income inequality and impaired the freedoms and political mobility of the poor in many countries. With the words of Gyasi Ross not far behind us, are we willing to expand our definition of equality passed “equal opportunity,” or should we focus more on our rights and freedoms as a means of promoting a more just social palette?

During MLK Day, speakers suggested that we must transcend our status quo definition of equality as being equal opportunity and ensure the equality of outcome. In our attempts to redistribute wealth and secure economic equity, we undermine the freedoms of our democracy. Ross in his keynote address used the example of the Monopoly board to illustrate the concept of equity. I believe, however, that we must strive for the equality of opportunity rather than the equality of outcome. Affirmative action sought to ensure that the outcome of the college admissions process would favor minority students. In doing so, the government minimized the weight of our freedoms in society by asserting that our rights possess no value unless they produce equal results for every individual. The government must shift its focus from ensuring equity to promoting equal opportunity, recognizing that only the latter can incentivize individual growth and economic development. Whereas equal opportunity allows for freedom and equality to coexist, equal outcome eliminates the need for freedom. Our Founding Fathers established inalienable rights—life, liberty, pursuit of happiness—as a way to consolidate a representative democracy in which every person, regardless of his or her socioeconomic level at birth, is granted the same means by the government to succeed. However, a government that regulates externalities gains too much power for itself and takes away mobility from its citizens.

In the end, Friedman’s saying reflects the degree to which a government involves itself into its citizen’s personal lives. I believe that the freedom to receive equal rights from the government is perhaps the greatest freedom and in essence the best road to equality. So when people tell me “We need to shrink income gaps,” or “We need to make them equal,” I shrug. Those people do not fully comprehend what equality means. Equality should not be measured by our incomes, salaries or level of college education but rather by the freedom a nation gives to its citizens to succeed. We will never fix income inequality by redistributing wealth, a short-term solution that lacks sustainability. We will only fix it if we give everybody more freedom—opportunity and independence—by tackling the root: improving public schools, improving health care.

Freedom, in other words, is the stepping stone to equality, but never vice versa.