When Everyone means Some

A Democratic candidate in a TV ad says, “We value liberty and privacy above all else. … We must protect everyone’s freedoms, even if we don’t feel personally affected.” That statement portrays a very libertarian slant from a proudly progressive candidate.

The specific liberty and freedom, which is the subject of the ad, is the supposed “right” to an abortion. Notwithstanding the well-intentioned but judicially flawed opinion in Roe v. Wade, there is not today and never has there been a “constitutional right” to an abortion. Nevertheless, from the perspectives of individual liberty and personal freedom, it is possible to make a colorable argument that there is no legitimate, or at least no sufficient, state interest that justifies or requires government involvement or intrusion in a woman’s personal decision to secure a (necessary or beneficial) medical procedure, including an abortion.

However, in the incessant struggle to exclude government from illegitimate intrusions upon individual liberties and personal freedoms, we do not get to cherry-pick only those rights and privileges, which are most significant to us personally. The candidate seems to acknowledge this fact in the closing sentence.

However, one might ask: Does that candidate and those of her ilk actually mean “everyone” or just those persons, with whom the candidate and the party agree, and just those issues, which are consistent with the adopted party platform and preferred narratives?

Would such candidates agree that the “pursuit of happiness” extends to acting inconsistent with mask mandates, travel restrictions, prophylactic quarantine, forced business closures, and shelter-in-place orders? Or, must we “balance” the interests of one group against the inconsistent and competing interests of another and trust or accept that government will advance the interests of the more “favored” group.

Are the interests of more favored parties necessarily right, proper, and just? If so, as to whom: that group, the collective, disfavored minorities, or individuals generally? If government actions proceed at the behest or to advance the supposed interests of an electoral majority, then what “inalienable” rights, liberties, and freedoms exist among disfavored minorities or individuals? Practically speaking, what is to prevent majority rule from devolving into mob rule?

Would such candidates support the proposition that ownership of private property should include the right to be free from forced takings (without adequate compensation or reciprocal benefit) so as to effect blatant wealth redistribution on the pretext of “social justice”? Does liberty and freedom mean conforming to the dictates of Central Planning and surrendering one’s property, the fruits of his labors, and his very life to advance the interests of the collective and its self-serving minders?

I would proffer that the purported embrace of liberty and freedom represents political expediency and blatant opportunism. When such an argument is adopted by statists and those, who see government as a panacea for all societal ills, it is conspicuously disingenuous, if not entirely laughable.

Most political candidates and would-be beneficiaries are eager to use the coercive and compulsory powers of the state in order to advance the interests of “me and mine.” However, should government (at the direction of a differently constituted numerical majority or controlling voting bloc) use those same powers against them or to actively advance the interests of “others,” then government is invariably deemed abusive, oppressive, or tyrannical.

It has been said, “A government, which is capable of giving you everything that you want, is capable of taking everything that you have.” Government has no lasting “favorites.” It is a fickle and capricious master. Its subjects are never more than convenient means to ignoble ends. The people are mere fodder for the ravenous and insatiable cravings of the beast. The Leviathan cannot be tamed or domesticated, and the only way to limit the destructive powers of government is to actively restrain and fetter it. Otherwise, it is certain to sow wanton destruction widely and indiscriminately.