Your Country And Freedom
The main focus of a nation should be its people and their happiness. This statement could be generalised as - Democracy. Countries like the Scandinavian nations, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland etc.. have taken this model and created some of the best environments for people to live harmoniously and happily irrespective of their social standing. Absolute equality is still a dream, but freedoms or the illusion of freedom is pretty high in those nations. Absolute freedom will not be possible in a society for various reasons - human nature being the most important. For example, you might think bullying people, travelling everywhere naked and even murdering people etc.. are basic freedoms, but that would not be acceptable in any community.
There are always lines to be drawn and freedom in any country would be based on a collective consensus, or on points largely agreeable to the general populace. Freedoms are not absolute and should not be. Freedom should mean being able to live as an individual, without discrimination based on social status, monetary status, religion, race or political leaning. Everything else is a bonus. If you live on an island somewhere in the Pacific or Atlantic ocean which you own (alone), then absolute freedom is achievable. You can literally do what you want - a digression granted but with intent.
Equity
In addition to individual freedom there is the misconceptions about these two important concepts equality of opportunity and equality of outcome which affects your freedom in a subtle way. The common counter-argument against equality of opportunity is that, there is no equality of opportunity - a child born to a rich CEO will have more opportunities than a child born in a poor household.
That's all well and true. But equality of opportunity, the way many libertarians and classical liberals conceptualize it, is achieved when there are no artificial barriers created by the government to impede on anyone's success, development and progression in their respective endeavours. And the corollary from the latter, everyone is held to the same standard. Some people will have to work harder than others at secondary school to get into Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard, but the opportunity is there for all.
If your parents have more disposable income to send you to a private school as oppose to your local comprehensive or afford you a top of the range laptop to enable your studies, it is only human nature for some to sneer or be envious. Provided the syllabus for each subject matter is the same, you still have to put in the work, listen to your teachers and do your home work irrespective of the location - Eton or Leyton Comprehensive.
Put another way, if your journey to school is at the back of a Range Rover or Bus-253 you still need to be on time for roll call. The Periodic Table is same for everyone and the Arithmetical operations of Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division are universal.
Equality of outcome, where everyone is kept to the same level and no one is allowed to step forward economically, is bad because it requires extreme totalitarian force for its implementation. It's antithetical to human nature. People are unequal and it is the default state you have no control over - eugenics notwithstanding.
Some people will be tall, others short, some over-weight, some skinny, some smarter, others not so smart but hard-working, and so on and so forth. All the aforementioned will sort themselves out in numerous hierarchies regardless of how equal they're kept. That said, it should not be conflated with the false dichotomy from Marxist Practitioners that everyone is left to their own devices - survival of the fittest.
Marxism has never been "fully realized" because it runs counter to the instincts and impulses of human beings. Where it has been tried, it has always ended in state coercion, restriction of freedom - and, ultimately, rejection and failure. It is like a mirage - you cannot quite get to it despite the tremendous amount of effort used. If there is an immutable law in societal doctrine, it's this - "do not underestimate the length human beings will go to, to exert or assert their freedom of choice, which for all intents and purposes is inherent". This has borne out repeatedly as history recalled.
Just look at where this doctrine is being practiced (North Korea, Russia, China etc.etc.) you hardly see a queue of refugees dying to get in - because they certainly know which side their bread will be buttered. All bona fide democratic governments would institute fail safe legislation to accommodate and provide for anyone who falls below a certain threshold - often called social welfare.
The Real World
So much semantics in politics these days, people make a game of morals and use it as justification to treat people poorly. What they seem to be oblivious to is that politics is not about what you want to do, it’s about what you can do. People who don’t understand this are either blissfully ignorant or never got tough love as a child.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe any politician these days, care about individuals. But I do hope they care about their country. Politicians don't seem to have their own beliefs anymore. Their priority seems to put policies in place to gain the most votes. Time for politicians with backbones so over due.