Me versus We

The age old debate of the rights of the individual versus the common good seems to be coming back to the forefront with the Obama Administration pushing for mandated universal health care, increased regulation, unprecedented bailouts of banks and auto companies, and a general higher priority for issues that affect the general common good. There’s even renewed interest in Ayn Rand for her fierce stance against socialism, and of course Marxism. Our Constitution addresses both the individual and the common good for a wide variety of topics. People on one side or the other tend to read and interpret it with a filter for their personal beliefs. People on both ends of the political spectrum would probably like to shred it and start over.

I heard a Libertarian on the radio the other day say that the Constitution just defines our rights as individuals, not for the group, and that individual rights should always take precedence over the group. What’s interesting about that view is Libertarians can only exist within a group. If one person lives alone, isolated from society, every action is both libertarian and for the common good. There is no conflict or priority. The need to state an importance of one view over the other only exists when the group exists. So without a group there can be no Libertarianism. Taken to the extreme, Libertarianism is pure chaos, every individual living however they choose with no consideration for the group. Marxism goes to the opposite extreme by placing little or no value on the rights of the individual over the common good. That form of government hasn’t proved to be too successful either- - although some people might argue to the contrary. We confuse Marxism and Dictatorships. All Marxist governments have been dictators. A Marxist society born out of a true democracy has never existed. The Socialist democracies of Sweden and Denmark may be the closest thing to it.

I’m no expert on the Constitution, but there are several factoids that give evidence to the group being more important than the individual. For instance, the Preamble starts with, “We the people…” not, “Me the person”. Imminent Domain, while not stated explicitly, is derived from the 5th Amendment and considered settled law. It specifically states that persons shall be compensated for any property taken for use by the public for the public good. This has been extended with some controversy, to include property that can be taken by Imminent Domain for private commercial use as well, as long as the public good is served by the use. The Constitution also explicitly states that roads shall be provided by the Federal Government for the postal service. That granted the government the authority to take land by imminent domain for any federal road, and in so doing, was serving the common good.

I suppose Libertarians would prefer to each build only private roads and not allow anyone else to use it without their permission, which of course would include a toll. Many bridges and roads were privately owned when the country was young. The government wasn’t equipped to administer and maintain nationwide projects. Besides, we were only just evolving as a nation. So Libertarians are free to enjoy the largest government public works project ever built for the common good. A true Libertarian should probably stay off all Federal roads to avoid compromising their principals.

The tension between the rights of individuals and the common good will always exist. Since we first gathered in tribes as prehistoric people, we’ve had to make rules and consider the common good to preserve peace and tranquility. Our need to address the common good will probably increase as our population grows. The rights of individuals will likely continue to erode. Environmental protection laws and smoking bans are recent examples. It’s unfortunate in some respects, but how else can six billion people live in peace and harmony?