Liberté or fraternité - which one is more ignored?

[Martinus]

Not sure where you are going with this Marti.  Freedom of association is a well recognized right.  Probably the most protected of the three.

Check out this link - fraternity is NOT only (or even not mainly) about freedom of association. It is a moral obligation of fellowship between men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9

I am still not sure what you are advocating.  Western democracies do not compel association.  That is the stuff of dictators.  We have preserved the aspect which is consistent with a pluralistic democracy.

I am not advocating anything. I am arguing about which of the three is the least popular today.

[Valmy]

Western democracies do not compel association.  That is the stuff of dictators.

Or particularly energetic committees.

[Valmy]

Yeah I think Mart was specifically saying it was not preserved in Western Democracies.

[crazy canuck]

Marti, well accepted public policy initiates such as progressive taxation and universal medical care, at least in the Canadian context, seem to be inconsistent with your thesis.

[crazy canuck]

Western democracies do not compel association.  That is the stuff of dictators.

Or particularly energetic committees.

Sure and freedom of association protects those communities

[Norgy]

I see it as solidarity with humanity in general.

[Valmy]

Western democracies do not compel association.  That is the stuff of dictators.

Or particularly energetic committees.

Sure and freedom of association protects those communities

Committees not communities. This one in particular.

[celedhring]

The way I see it the welfare state widely prevalent in Europe and the curling-loving parts of America is an example of fraternity enforced by the state.

[Valmy]

I see it as solidarity with humanity in general.

Yeah there were elements of that I guess. Though in the revolution itself it had more of a patriotic focus.

That was something liberals (19th century ones) thought would emerge naturally from their values. Boy were they sadly wrong.

[Valmy]

The way I see it the welfare state widely prevalent in Europe and the curling-loving parts of America is an example of fraternity enforced by the state.

We have shitloads of welfare and love it here in Texas. We just pretend not to.

[dps]

I thought that it was pretty widely acknowledged that in the modern West, a lot of the community ties that used to hold society together have become frayed or broken, and that feelings of alienation and isolation are problems affecting a lot of people.  I'd think that those community ties are largely what fraternity involves, so the weakening of those ties would support Marti's contention that fraternity is being ignored. 

I don't think any important political movement (left or right) is opposed to community ties per se, but I don't think any that actually put a lot of emphasis on it, either, if for no other reason than that it's hard to see how you could legally require people to feel connected to their neighbors.

[Monoriu]

Sounds pretty odd that fraternity is put together with equality and liberty.  It seems to be the odd one out that doesn't belong there in the first place. 

[Valmy]

Sounds pretty odd that fraternity is put together with equality and liberty.  It seems to be the odd one out that doesn't belong there in the first place. 

It made perfect sense in the era it was done. A huge thing was breaking down those social distinctions into a patriotic family.

[Malthus]

Not sure where you are going with this Marti.  Freedom of association is a well recognized right.  Probably the most protected of the three.

Check out this link - fraternity is NOT only (or even not mainly) about freedom of association. It is a moral obligation of fellowship between men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9

Reading the wiki article left me more confused than before. It seems different people meant different things by the term.

The third term, fraternité, was the most problematic to insert in the triad, as it belonged to another sphere, that of moral obligations rather than rights, links rather than statutes, harmony rather than contract, and community rather than individuality.[2] Various interpretations of fraternité existed. The first one, according to Mona Ozouf, was one of "fraternité de rébellion" (Fraternity of Rebellion),[2] that is the union of the deputies in the Jeu de Paume Oath of June 1789, refusing the dissolution ordered by the King Louis XVI: "We swear never to separate ourselves from the National Assembly, and to reassemble wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the realm is drawn up and fixed upon solid foundations." Fraternity was thus issued from Liberty and oriented by a common cause.[2]

Another form of fraternité was that of the patriotic Church, which identified social link with religious link and based fraternity on Christian brotherhood.[2] In this second sense, fraternité preceded both liberté and Égalité, instead of following them as in the first sense.[2][page needed] Thus, two senses of Fraternity: "one, that followed liberty and equality, was the object of a free pact; the other preceded liberty and equality as the mark on its work of the divine craftsman."[2]

Another hesitation concerning the compatibility of the three terms arose from the opposition between liberty and equality as individualistic values, and fraternity as the realization of a happy community, devoided of any conflicts and opposed to any form of egotism.[2] This fusional interpretation of Fraternity opposed it to the project of individual autonomy and manifested the precedence of Fraternity on individual will.[2]

In this sense, it was sometimes associated with death, as in Fraternité, ou la Mort! (Fraternity or Death!), excluding liberty and even equality, by establishing a strong dichotomy between those who were brothers and those who were not (in the sense of "you are with me or against me", brother or foe).[2][page needed] Louis de Saint-Just thus stigmatized Anarchasis Cloots' cosmopolitanism, declaring "Cloots liked the universe, except France."[2]

With Thermidor and the execution of Robespierre, fraternité disappeared from the slogan, reduced to the two terms of liberty and equality, re-defined again as simple judicial equality and not as the equality upheld by the sentiment of fraternity.[2] The First Consul (Napoleon Bonaparte) then established the motto liberté, ordre public (liberty, public order).

The notion of a positive moral obligation to foster community has little modern echo - OTOH the notion of "fraternity" in the sense of ethno-nationalism certainly does.

[Zanza]

The way I see it the welfare state widely prevalent in Europe and the curling-loving parts of America is an example of fraternity enforced by the state.

I think "enforced" sounds like these policies are against the wish of the electorate. Which can't be true as welfare in general - although not in the nitty details - has an extremely wide support in all Western societies. This institutionalized fraternity was created over a century with continuous democratic mandates. I guess it is fair to say that this all encompassing and anonymous form of fraternity has damaged all other forms that existed in the past as people are much less reliant on their fellow men. If not causation then at least correlation. Countries that lack a modern social state usually have much stronger informal networks.