I had just about reached the point of being able to decide whether or not I agree with:
3. The superiority of liberty to equality in the hierarchy of human values and social purposes.
I had, for those of you just joining me, decided that the purpose of agreeing or not agreeing is for rule-making and pattern-matching purposes, and I had divided up the equalities and liberties into three categories (each) and pretty much decided that the highest-ranked equalities and liberties out-rank lower equalities and liberties, either way, cross-cut, and all. So all that's left, really, is to decide whether the fundamental liberties (speech, religion, association, etc., distinguished by being personal and content-based) take priority over equality before the law.
Then, I reread an email from one of my wonderful readers, where he said, in part: "I guess being heard (receiving respect) is a matter of equality, and speaking (giving respect) is a matter of liberty, which essentially makes liberty a matter of equality; a hierarchically-based denial of one person's declaration of respect squashes the liberty of others whose likes are similar." I thought about this for a while, and came to agree with it, although I'll take the liberty of restating it to my own satisfaction.
In any society which values liberty (and if it doesn't, the whole question if Tenet 3 would never rise), is never going to impose a rule that restricts fundamental liberties equally. It's going to be imposed based on what a person or group is doing with those liberties: speaking unpopular thoughts, associating with criminals, practicing a particular religion or refusing to practice one. The majority, or "OK" (if it's not the majority) position will be privileged over the other, making it inequitable. So by placing equality before the law as high as possible, fundamental liberties will be protected naturally.
The reverse is not true, as far as I can tell: there are protections equality provides that do not directly involve liberty (for instance, universal suffrage), so I'm comfortable putting equality before liberty at that level.
How can I phrase all so that it more or less covers my thinking on this ...
In order to make rules, the values of liberty and equality are both very high, and both should be infringed only with caution and in surpassing need. Personal content-related liberties outweigh resource equality and equality of antecedent burdens and benefits, but equality before the law supercedes liberty and should be considered first.
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.