Freedom should imply equality but it sometimes doesn't. Take for example the Native American. They were given their freedom when the Constitution was signed but never were treaded with equality. Just as the slaves weren't either after they were set free .
Giving so-called freedom on paper has nothing to do with actual freedom. In fact, putting it on paper implies that one is living within a system in which it does not apply.
Equality does not imply freedom, nor does freedom imply equality. You can be equal to your fellow citizens while you stand on a bread line; you could also be free to do whatever it is you wish while not sharing some of the same benefits of those who live in the same place you do. Consider homosexuals today, or blacks 50 years ago, or women before that. These were free people that could not say they were equal.
They were not free - as they did not have the same ability as everyone else to have a say in the government which controlled many aspects of their lives. Freedom implies self-determination. Laws are inherently restrictive. If you have no say in the creation of laws you have less freedom than those wo do.
If you look at it that way, there are only a half-dozen free people in the world. Stop playing semantics and contribute. For once. Please.
I'm not playing semantics at all, I am making a point about the relative aspect of freedom in real life. Aside from the hermit, no one is truly free - such is the nature of living with others and having one's decisions and actions affect the liberty of the others. The point of democratic systems, in part, is to work towards the ideal of freedom and equality for all. We take steps toward that ideal by affording people a greater degree of control over the factors which determine the quality of their lives and the measure of their liberty. If you limit one's ability to vote in a democratic system, you reduce their level of freedom, as compared to those who do have the right to vote. If you limit self-determination and control over one's own destiny, you limit freedom. You give one group the right to determine the laws which affect the other group, in effect, giving one group more freedom than the other. As I said, freedom implies self-determination and control over one's own destinty. If one person can vote and another can not, the person who can vote and determine laws not only has a greater meaure of personal freedom than the other by being allowed to make decisions about the factors which affect his life, but he has a greater measure of control over the other's life as well, as he makes decisions for him. You can not have freedom without equality.
Civil liberties aren't silly, because without them there'd be no point in living Political freedoms are silly though
