Political Theory (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Name
16th April 2013
Political Theory
The concept of equal-liberty as advocated by Saul Newman refers to an idea that is both politically oriented and a concept that is based on an ideology. The concept rose out of the historical trend of treating equality and liberty as two separate entities. Consequently the idea main purpose is to merge two issues fairly and in a multi dimensional approach. As an ideological idea, the concept of Equal-liberty opposes the historic Universalist idea; universalism only comprises of a singular condition of either equality or liberty depending on the context. Universalism as expressed in the ideas of the Pauline enunciation advocates for the equality that is transferred from the faithful and consequently into the human/ man. In the classical anarchism theories, much emphasis is made on the idea of universalism and its direct link to the idea of equality. Universalism is a direct contradiction of the idea of a different civic principle of equal-liberty; the idea proposed by Newman when advocating for a condition of to simultaneous exercise or enjoyment of equality and while at the same time exercising or enjoying liberty; a condition that translates into a state of equal liberty translating into a singular noun, equal-liberty.
The formula of equal-liberty in English bears a historical root into the 17th century. The origin of the civic principle of equal-liberty indicates its direct link to the civic ideas of ‘the bourgeois revolution’. However, the ideological concept of equal-liberty as advocated by Saul Newman is historically older than the bourgeois revolution going back into the moral philosophy of the Roman law although in a situation that involved a problem and its translation in the legal system. The ideals of equal-liberty most significantly trace back to the discourse and the democratic ideals of the Greek polis. Over time, the concept of equal-liberty has become reiterated due to its production of a continuous effect. The idea has become reiterated and subsequently iterated by philosophers such as Saul Newman in the modern society. The reiteration has continuously been passed on through social movements and democratic institutions in both the socialist side and in the liberal side.
One of the most significant historical events applying the civic principle of equal-liberty was the twin formulation of the French and the American declaration in the years between 1776 and 1789. The twin formulation of the French and American declaration comprised of an iteration of the concept of equal-liberty that was engaging with the events that were original. The events of the French and American declaration inscribed the constitutive reciprocity of both the concept of liberty or independence or freedom and equality. The events occurred in a context that was both partially divergent and partially convergent. While describing the civic principles of equal-liberty, it is incorrect to refer to equal-liberty as a condition in which we have a constitution revolution of liberty at one hand, and, on the other hand, a revolution constituting of equality and happiness that accompanies liberty. Contrary to much misconception of societies in which equality and liberty exist side by side and only complement each other when necessary, the concept of equal-liberty consists of equal and absolute enunciation of equality and liberty, happiness and revolution or constitution/ freedom/ independence/ liberty simultaneously.
In a society that upholds equal-liberty, there is a complete link between equality and its outcome happiness with the concept of liberty, freedom or independence. It is a situation in which the two concepts cannot be split or separated. Any efforts in society shift to a simultaneous struggle to achieve both equality and liberty simultaneously. For instance in struggles for independences, the masses will be simultaneously striving for equality in the same instance. However, although the two concepts of equality and liberty constitutively link, they link with a tension that is permanent, and that subsequently leads to a situation of an ‘impossible’ equilibrium i.e. a balance that can be hardly achieved in society. Despite the level of democracy in a modern state, the state of equal equilibrium between the two concepts of equality and liberty is hard to achieve (Day, 42).
To understand the concept of equal-liberty, it is necessary to put three things into proper perspective. Firstly, it is appropriate and fair to understand the idea of a regulative structure of embodying an electus or preferably the proportion of a ‘negation of the negation’ i.e. Understanding the idea of equality in comparison to the proposition of a negation for negation. In more constitutional text, the concept of ‘a negation for negation’ sounds to be positive claiming that human are inherently equal and free or it is the birth right of human being by nature to be equal and free. By the very fact that we are human, we subsequently earn a right to be equal and free i.e. enjoy the concept of equal-liberty. Subsequently, this translates to the interpretation that only violence that is institutional can deprive human beings their inherent right to be fair and free. The institutional deprivation translates to the State deprivation, hence, since human being are all born free and fair, only the State can deprive us the right of being free. However, in the broad sense, the proposition, ‘negation of the negation’ arises from an insurrection or revolution and subsequently it gives a summary to the effect of an insurrection. Thus, the idea of a common preposition is made on the practical rejection and the theoretical critique of vested privileges, inequalities and subject relationships of human kind. To be precise, the base is a conviction of a history that holds absolute vindication. It is impossible to carry out discriminations without exercising subjections or in a more traditional language, tyranny. On the other hand, it is not possible to complete or carry out acts that are discriminatory without the acts of inequality. As a result of the double phenomenon, citizenship or preferably political institutions have to be based on a rejection that is double or two-way. Such institutions cannot be grounded on a single rejection since the concepts profoundly embody the negative connection between the two core values among the citizens or the political institutions. The double concept has been reiterated, in many instances, in the history of labor movements, anti colonialist struggles and the feminists’ movements.
There is a logical link of the logical contradiction that is ‘two-way’ to a key fact regarding the effectiveness, and power of universalism. This occurs without putting into consideration the practical limitation in the concept of equal-liberty and its failures in many States; the mere fact of impractical situations and societies in which an authoritarian relationship dominates a State, accompanied by inequalities that consequently destroy the civic principle of equal liberty. It is the sheer contradiction that is practical, and that shows the immortality of the concept of equal-liberty; political institutions and citizens’ who are Subjected and discriminated rebel for the sake, and in the name of the civic principle of equal-liberty. It is the deprivation of the concept that leads to a revolution of the masses in the spirit of the struggle of simultaneous achievement of both equality and liberty; equality in regard to an equal status of the oppressed and the oppressors and liberty in regard to the freedom to exercise the right that every human being possesses. In actual situations, equal-liberty is a principle that is denied virtually, although officially valid to every human being at an equal rate. However, as long as it makes the masses seize, as Karl Marx would put it, it will eventually enable a democracy to survive in the midst of civil wars and conflict. In the midst of internal and external conflict, a society will move forward in the essence of striving to achieve an equal-liberty state.
Secondly, it is significant to understand equal-liberty not just as any other institution. Equal-liberty in the democracies that are modern can be viewed as an arch-institution. Equal-liberty is an institution that conditions and comes before any other institution in the modern democracy. The development of profound reflections of Arenas on a ‘right to exercise rights’ was through Newman’s concept. It translated into an analytical context of the most profound human destruction forms and their causes. It applies the principle of a persons rights instituted by a nation-state universalistic nature in order to acquire a meaning. Equal-liberty is a concept par excellence for the ‘right to exercise rights’ and subsequently puts an emphasis on the notion: that practically citizens can hold a right to exercise their rights if they are in a state in which they do not receive the rights from a sovereign power that is external or from a revelation that is transcendent. Individuals and groups in the context of equal-liberty confer the right to exercise their rights unto themselves or reciprocally grant rights to them.
Consequently, a State cannot be in a situation of equal-liberty if individuals do not hold the personal capacity to be equal and free among them. In the context of an equal-liberty state, it is mandatory for the citizens and the respective political institutions to shift from a limited or restricted institutional idea of the state and progressively change into a more naturalistic state of human right discourse i.e. human or men who are equal and free by their inhere...