In one corner, you have the
Republicans, who champion individual rights. For example, Republicans oppose health care, because it takes away individuals' rights to choose their own health care, and takes away individuals' money, distributing it to the public.
In the other corner (now, weighing in at much less),
you have the Democrats, who fight for the public good. Keeping with the health-care example, Democrats support public health care, precisely because it is for the good of the broader public, even if it does take away some individual rights.
Of course, this isn't a comprehensive description, free of exceptions. Republicans like to talk about the public good when defending foreign wars (it's for protecting the public), and Democrats like to espouse individual rights in their support for abortion (the woman's right, that is). Both support an individual's right to free speech, and both support taxes for building roads for the public good. But for the most part, I think this dichotomy sums it up.
So, here's my question: How do we draw the line between the two? Or, when faced with the choice of one or the other on a particular issue, how do you choose between supporting individual rights, or supporting the public good?
To my Republican friends: How do you decide where individual rights should end, and the public good should begins? (Think of things like taxes and medical care)
To my Democrat friends: How do you decide when the public good should end, and individual rights should begin? (Think of things like property-ownership and parental authority over childhood education)
Most of the time, I think I like the Libertarian answer best: "I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure it's not the federal government's job to figure it out."
5 comments:
Somewhat like the Libertarian, the Catholic answer is subsidiarity: when it comes to distributing social goods the level of society closest to the issue (for lack of a better term at midnight) should be left to author the decision unfettered relatively by larger levels of society. There is less of a dichotomy between “individual” and “state” in this view considering it acknowledges that important institutions like the family have a voice in these decisions. I am still educating myself on this teaching, but Pope Benedict XVI places it at the core of his most recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate.
I don't think this is a free-standing dichotomy. In any endeavor in which more than one person is involved, we need agreement on ground rules. In our case we have the constitution, with respect to which this dichotomous argument should be framed. Your final libertarian comment seems to indicate respect for the constitution, which, I would argue, is sorely lacking in many on the public-good side of the debate. In my view, we can't have a legitimate argument about where to draw this line without strong deference to the constitution. To flippantly say the commerce clause allows a federally mandated health care system is to give only lip service to this principle.
Individual rights terminate in individual responsibilities. Though few recognize what are these responsibilities anymore, the basic command to love thy neighbor as thyself is still the best summary. It is never the responsibility of the Civil Magistrate to enforce good, but rather to punish evil. It is always the responsibility of the individual to pursue the good, which often means depriving oneself of immediate wants to aid another.
You can always go back to asking the question: who knows what will work better for oneself? One who argues that a group of people thousands of miles distant and light years of concern removed from oneself have a better ability to decide how one ought to use his resources in order to live well for oneself and others is a person who desires slavery over freedom.
I think you left out one major area where Republicans talk about the public good: putting the federal government on a disciplined budget is portrayed as a PUBLIC good, and so are lower taxes, as any supply-sider wil tell us.
Furthermore, we should not carelessly accept the idea that there is a significant distinction between public good and individual rights. We can't reason about such notions as "public good" or "rights" until we determine the end to which all our ethical activities are directed. But who is to say that this end doesn't harmonize the good of the individual with the good of his community? Isn't such a harmonization of goods the Old Testament idea? the New Testament idea? the Catholic tradition's idea? Plato's?
I haven't read enough, but I would wager Calvin as well!
Great post, Brian! I think I agree with the Libertarian view as well.
Post a Comment