Define, rank, and harmonize order, liberty, and equality

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

Define, rank, and harmonize (if possible), the following political values: order, liberty, and equality. Defend your ranking.
You will post one thread of at least 250 words. For each thread,
you must support your assertions with at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any sources cited must have been
published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include the textbooks, course
presentations, scholarly articles, and the Bible.

“If one considers the standard international ideological spectrum based on the French Revolution we see that right-wing conservatives and reactionaries generally favor order. The moderate classical liberals in the center emphasize liberty. The left-wing radicals emphasize equality. Let me reiterate–this is NOT the American spectrum but the international spectrum based on the French Revolution. The 1776 and 1787 American experience means our spectrum generally starts in the center and moves left. In other words, the American “right” is more often than not fighting for the preservation or the restoration of classical liberalism in the form of a constitutionally limited federal republic. The American “left” seeks expansive federal powers to pursue so-called social justice.

So what does this mean for the discussion board? I submit to you that any tension between order, liberty, and equality depends on HOW these concepts are defined. By way of example, consider the following:
In his book Liberty, Order, and Justice, James McClellan rightly points out that the American founders embraced an ordered liberty. That is, they made a distinction between liberty and licentiousness. True liberty–or exercising liberty responsibly–was no bar to order; in fact, true liberty was synonymous with self-government and thus produced order. Stated jurisprudentially, virtue yielded the common good. This is entirely biblical. While one has the power to sin one is not technically “free” to do so. Indeed, quite the opposite; the sinner is a slave to sin. (Adam had the power to eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil but he did not have the authority or the “liberty” to do so. He was a lawbreaker and fell into bondage.)

In her book Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality, Danielle Allen argues that liberty and equality are not antithetical. She argues further that Americans have so embraced the libertarian notions found in that document that they have failed to give consideration to the foundation of liberty–equality. First, whether liberty and equality are antithetical depends entirely upon how one defines it. Equality of opportunity–a level economic playing field where the state is an umpire–and equality before the law are not antithetical to liberty. However, equality of results–economic egalitarianism–is destructive of liberty and property rights. To say that one has a right to or is entitled to free healthcare or education is to say that another has a duty to supply the means. Instead of being an umpire the state must intervene; it must take from A so that B can realize his “right”. (As for her claim that Americans are overly libertarian? In rhetoric perhaps but certainly not in practice.)
In his book The Snapping of the American Mind, David Kupelian traces the definition of the word “equality”.

It once “meant equal in our God-given rights before the law. Then we adopted the socialist goal of equality–not just of opportunity, but of results. Today, however, in Bizarro America, a truly radical notion of equality is evolving, one necessitating the virtual repudiation of meaning, of morality, of God Himself, with good and evil basically being equals.” Then he cites PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk who said, “[T]here is no rational basis for saying a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all mammals.” Newkirk may believe she is elevating animals but in equating man with animals she is actually denying the image of God in man and reducing him to a creature without God-given rights. In such a world, might makes right.

In retrospect perhaps my intent here was not so much to clarify the DB1 prompt but to demonstrate how the definition of words matter and how much we as mature Christians must be able to reason in a nuanced manner, especially given the state of our culture.”
Wacks, R. (2020). Understanding Jurisprudence (6th Edition). Oxford University Press Academic UK.
Bahnsen, G. L. ([Insert Year of Publication]). By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today. The American Vision, Inc..

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now


Calculate the price of your paper

Total price:$26
Our features

We've got everything to become your favourite writing service

Need a better grade?
We've got you covered.

Order your paper