The uncomfortable truth about freedom and equality

Human beings are not born equal in ability, circumstance, or temperament. Some arrive in the world with intellectual gifts or athletic talent. Others are born into families that nurture emotional strength, creativity, or resilience. Still others face immense hardship from the start — poverty, illness, or social marginalization. These differences aren’t flaws; they’re simply part of what it means to be human. But that leads to a deeper truth that makes many people uncomfortable: If we are free, we are not equal. And if we are equal, we are not free.

That might sound harsh — especially in a culture that champions both freedom and equality as moral ideals. But the tension between these two goals lies at the heart of almost every political debate, education policy, or workplace decision today. We want both, but in reality, the more we try to force one, the more the other begins to slip away.

From the very beginning, no two people start life from the same place. Their differences multiply as life unfolds. And in a free society, these differences shape outcomes. The student who studies relentlessly will likely outperform the one who doesn’t. The entrepreneur willing to take big risks might build a fortune, while someone else might prioritize stability and earn a steady wage. These diverging paths are a feature of freedom, not a bug.

If we decide that unequal outcomes are intolerable, then freedom has to give. To engineer equality of result, governments and institutions must start managing individual lives — redistributing wealth, limiting ambition, regulating behavior. Over time, these efforts can suppress exactly the qualities that drive human progress: creativity, risk-taking, and personal responsibility.

History offers sobering lessons. Regimes like the Soviet Union and Maoist China sought to eliminate inequality entirely. They stripped people of their right to own property, to pursue merit-based success, or to speak freely. Yes, they achieved a kind of equality — but it came at the cost of liberty, innovation, and in many cases, human life.

By contrast, free societies — though messier and often more unequal — tend to be more vibrant, prosperous, and open. They don’t guarantee equal outcomes, but they strive to provide equal opportunity: public education, civil rights, legal protections.

Of course, freedom and equality don’t always have to clash. A healthy society should aim to strike a balance: protecting individual liberty while making sure no one is trapped by their circumstances. Equal opportunity matters. A child born into hardship should have a fair shot at a better life. But that’s not the same as guaranteeing equal success. People will always differ — in effort, goals, and abilities — and their outcomes will differ, too. The modern democratic ideal is built on this tension: equality under the law, freedom of thought and speech, and the right to rise or fall based on one’s own merit. It’s a system that allows for compassion without coercion, support without control.

Still, the tension remains. The more a society tries to force equality, the more it must limit freedom. The more it embraces freedom, the more inequality it will have to tolerate. There is no perfect resolution. The best we can do is be honest about our differences, committed to fairness, and fiercely protective of liberty. That might mean living with some inequality. But it also means living in a world where people are free to try, to fail, to rise, and to become who they are. In the end, that’s the kind of society most of us still want to live in.

This guest essay reflects the views of Michael Finnegan, a retired health industry magazine editor and public relations professional who lives in Fort Salonga.