https://www.facebook.com/jerry.hale.54/posts/337845472959173?notif_t=like
As Americans, we pledge allegiance to the flag as a symbol
of our loyalty to “liberty and justice for all.” As citizens of Utah, we share values that make
us very sensitive to government over-reach that treads on our liberty. We often neglect, however, to recognize
government’s role to ensure that justice for all goes hand-in-hand with liberty. We often let our ideals cloud our judgment and
impede pragmatic solutions.
The moment a person, business, or organization takes actions
that restrict the freedom to pursue happiness or obstruct the use of our
property, the government is charged to take action. As goes the saying attributed to Oliver
Wendell Holmes, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s
nose begins.” This analogy can be
extended even further to say that if the man’s nose were broken, it would affect
not only his liberty and happiness, but that of those in his sphere of
influence. At some point in this
analogy, liberty must be limited to resolve the conflict. Public policy and governance deals with
exactly that concept—deciding how much of whose liberty must be sacrificed in
order to ensure the greatest liberty and justice for the population as a whole.
One example that is still fresh on our minds is health
care. Many conservatives and
libertarians in Utah were up in arms when the Supreme Court ruled that we could
be compelled to purchase insurance or face a tax. And rightfully so, for many reasons. But the predominant voice was in opposition
to socialized health care and a government takeover. The debate was full of patriotic defense of
the Constitution, but it lacked a sincere discussion to seek solutions to the
problems of our health care system.
Gone are the days that we can sit on our porch with a
shotgun to protect our family and property.
Gone are the days when individualism and hard work alone gives us the
best chance for prosperity and security.
We are now too interdependent to ignore the plight of our neighbor—for
even a truly self-interested person must recognize that no man is an
island. If your neighbor is diagnosed
with a treatable cancer and their insurance denies them coverage, you may feel
it is as sad story, but that it would be unjust to have the government force you
to pay for their treatments. But if
untreated, the cancer patient will eventually end up in the emergency room and
cost you thousands of dollars anyway, either through taxes or higher medical
payments. And now your neighbor is dead and
his wife and children become a greater financial burden on society.
Wouldn’t it be better if instead of arguing over whose
political views were more constitutional, we discussed how we could implement
specific and practical policies? Using quotes
from our Founding Fathers to argue ideology may be fun, but why don’t we do
what the Founding Fathers actually did and
sit down and deal with the conflict through compromise. Find a common-ground solution and then go out
and take action and make it work.
Even John Locke, the father of classical liberalism, felt
that the sole right to defend our liberty in the “state of nature” was not
enough. In Utah we have an abundance of
land and ample opportunity to build individual prosperity with less
interference from government than many more urban parts of the country. But with advancing technology, increasing
population, and changing demographics we are going to be forced to find new
solutions to these new problems.
This is not an endorsement of bigger government, but of
smarter government. This is not to say
that we simply need to elect better officials so that our government can take better
care of us. It is to say that we need a
stronger government for the people—by
the people.
As Robert Putnam put it, we need more “social capital.” We need to be engaged in the solutions, not
just the debates. Governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed. If we think
that government is going too far, it means that we as a people are not going
far enough. Pragmatic Idealism does not
mean being untrue to your strongly held ideals.
It means recognizing that just as the United States would have never had
been a successful experiment without compromise, so too will we be unsuccessful
in achieving liberty and justice for all if we are more loyal to our
philosophies than we are to finding practical solutions.
