Unmasking the Illusion: Safeguarding Individual Freedoms in the Face of Common Good Debates
Irish Green Party Senator Pauline O'Reilly recently defended a piece of legislation being debated by stating; "When one thinks about it, all law and all legislation is about the restriction of freedom. This is exactly what we are doing here. We are restricting freedom, but we are doing it for the common good." She went on to state; "If a person's views on other people's identities make their lives unsafe and insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, our job as legislators is to restrict those freedoms for the common good."
This common yet inherently dangerous and deceptive idea is based on the premise that somehow one can irreparably violate the rights and freedoms of some individuals for the supposed benefit of other individuals without destroying the very concept of rights and freedoms. This is either idiotic lunacy at its finest or the most Insidious form of evil authoritarianism. In either case it should never be tolerated by any free nation.
It is true that in the dynamic political interplay between the "common good" and individual liberties, the question of imposing limits on freedoms for societal well-being has sparked intense debates. As advocates of individualism we posit that individual freedoms as enshrined in our Bill of Rights should be absolute, warning that any encroachment on these rights will inevitably lead us down a perilous path toward authoritarianism and, potentially, totalitarianism. Our perspective holds that the cornerstone of a thriving democratic society lies in the unwavering protection of individual rights, even in the face of pressing societal challenges.
The Erosion of Civil Liberties
Central to the argument against limiting freedoms for the common good is the perilous prospect of eroding civil liberties. In the pursuit of safeguarding public welfare, governments may be tempted to curtail fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, assembly, and privacy. Yet, it is precisely these liberties that form the bedrock of a democratic society. Once compromised, the very essence of democracy is at stake, posing a significant threat to the principles that underpin a free and just nation.
Politicians like O'Reilly even acknowledge that they are aware they are attacking our individual rights, but hold that because they are doing so with noble intentions this somehow is magically better for the individual. When stated plainly it's absurdity is plain for all to see. In essence they are saying; "I am in favor of unilaterally limiting your freedom to speak openly and honestly in order to prevent your speech from possibly offending this specific group of people because I value their arbitrary feelings more than I value your rights. I am hopeful that by catering and appealing to their emotions I can gain political favor with them."
The Slippery Slope
The problem with this is that once our true intrinsic rights - which should be absolute and should be protected by our elected officials - are violated, then is no end to the potential "reasons" why they can be violated. These very real and very necessary rights are not granted by government. They are ours by right of our existence. Every person has the intrinsic right to fully and freely express their own thoughts and opinions.
The individual's freedom of speech means nothing if it does not apply equally to all individuals but especially to those individuals whose speech we may find odious and offensive. There is no justifiable reason to ever prevent a human being from freely expressing themselves no matter how noble or offensive their thoughts or opinions might be. The effective counter to any offensive speech is contradictory speech not silencing the original speaker. As my father, Dr. Charles Murphy, famously states in all of his collegiate courses, "Truth never fears a challenge!"
As advocates of absolute freedoms, we individualists emphatically warn against the slippery slope that comes with even the slightest compromise on individual rights. History is rife with examples where incremental restrictions, justified by the supposed greater good, have led to a gradual normalization of authoritarian practices. The slippery slope argument rightly contends that once liberties are sacrificed, it becomes increasingly easier for those in power to justify further encroachments, setting the stage for a society that unwittingly accepts the erosion of its foundational freedoms.
The Abuse of Power
Allowing governments the ability to curtail individual rights under the banner of the common good poses a considerable risk of abuse of that power. History has shown that concentrated authority will always be exploited eventually by those in power, leading to the suppression of dissent and opposition. The danger lies not only in the initial restriction of freedoms but in the potential for these limitations to be leveraged for ulterior motives, ultimately undermining the very democratic principles that societies strive to uphold.
Our Constitution is specifically written to be a document of negative powers. It clearly lays out freedom of speech as being absolute though subsequent court decisions have repeatedly assaulted this freedom in clear violation of the plain language of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
We have examined this issue in several article such as this one and this one, so please read the other articles on this blog related to freedom of speech. Allowing the government to tread on this rights, rights they have a duty to defend, rights they did not grant, is a dangerous path that history has witnessed leading nations into tyranny and destruction. We must resist this abuse of government power by exposing the illusory promise on which it is usually based.
The Illusion of Safety
No "common good" concept is more frequently or more abusively used today by governments to destroy individual freedoms than the nebulous idea of "safety" or more commonly making citizens "feel safe." Indeed O'Reilly herself stated as much when she said, "make their lives unsafe and insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace." There is a real problem here though. Governments have never held that they have an individual duty to protect your life. Here's a brief rundown of some of the cases here in the United States that illustrate this promise of "safety" is just a illusion.
1. Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) is a notable legal case in the United States. The case involved a lawsuit filed by three women, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro, against the District of Columbia and several of its police officers.
The events leading to the lawsuit occurred on March 16, 1975. Warren and her roommates were at home when they became victims of a brutal criminal attack. Two men broke into their house, assaulted and raped the women repeatedly over the course of 14 hours. The victims had called the police multiple times during the ordeal, but the response was inadequate. Officers arrived at the scene, knocked on the door, and left without taking further action, assuming it was a domestic dispute.
The key legal issue in Warren v. District of Columbia was whether the police could be held liable for the harm suffered by the victims. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the District of Columbia and the police officers. The decision was based on the principle that the government and its agents, including law enforcement, generally do not have a duty to provide protection to individuals unless a special relationship exists.
In the majority opinion, the court stated that "the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." Essentially, the court held that the police did not have a specific duty to protect the individual victims in this case, and therefore, they were not liable for the harm suffered.
2. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) is a significant United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of government responsibility for protecting individuals from harm, particularly in the context of child welfare services.
The case involved Joshua DeShaney, a young boy who suffered severe and permanent brain damage as a result of child abuse by his father. Joshua's parents had divorced, and he lived with his father, Randy DeShaney. The Winnebago County Department of Social Services (DSS) in Wisconsin was aware of repeated instances of abuse but did not intervene to remove Joshua from his father's custody.
Joshua's mother, Melody DeShaney, filed a lawsuit against the Winnebago County DSS and its social workers, arguing that they had violated Joshua's constitutional rights by failing to protect him from harm, despite being aware of the abuse.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Winnebago County DSS. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect individuals from private violence. The Court reasoned that the government's duty to protect citizens is generally limited to situations where the government has deprived an individual of their liberty, and there is a special relationship between the individual and the state.
3. Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with issues related to the enforcement of restraining orders and the duty of law enforcement agencies to protect individuals from harm.
In this case, Jessica Gonzales had obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, due to his threatening behavior. Despite the restraining order, Simon abducted the couple's three daughters. Jessica promptly contacted the police in Castle Rock, Colorado, to report the abduction and invoked the restraining order. However, the police did not take immediate action, and tragically, Simon Gonzales later killed the three girls.
Jessica Gonzales filed a lawsuit against the town of Castle Rock, claiming that the police's failure to enforce the restraining order and take prompt action to find her children violated her constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled in favor of the town of Castle Rock. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the restraining order. The Court concluded that restraining orders are not a guarantee of police protection, and individuals cannot sue law enforcement agencies for failing to enforce such orders.
Safety is always an illusion. You are not safe at any moment in your life from a variety of potential dangers to your health and safety, let alone your peace of mind. To hear politicians trying to justify violating their solemn duty to defend your intrinsic individual rights based on some farcical promise of "peace of mind" should make us all recoil in abject disgust. It's a naked lie and should not be tolerated. Protect our rights and let us each worry about our own subjective peace mind and sense of safety.
The Lack of Accountability
Authoritarian tendencies flourish in an environment lacking transparency and accountability. When governments prioritize the common good at the expense of individual freedoms, decision-making becomes centralized and less subject to scrutiny. The absence of robust checks and balances can pave the way for unbridled power, leaving citizens vulnerable to the whims of those in authority. The call for absolute freedoms, in this context, is a call for a system where accountability remains paramount to prevent the unchecked concentration of power.
A perfect example of this abuse without accountability is the FISA court. The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court is a specialized court established by the United States government to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies and agents of foreign powers inside the United States. The court's purpose is to ensure that national security surveillance activities comply with the law and protect the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens.
There is no real oversight or accountability of the FISA court as recent revelations have proven. The FBI has demonstrably lied multiple times in seeking warrants from the FISA court. The Center for Democracy and Technology reported that; "In one stunning disclosure, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) found that the FBI used the identifiers of 16,000 Americans to comb through the data collected under this program, even though the FBI could legally justify only seven of those 16,000 queries based on the required foreign intelligence or crime-fighting purposes." Yet the FISA court has overwhelmingly approved practically every request for a warrant from the FBI, basically becoming a mere rubber-stamp process.
Conclusion
Democracy is more than a political system; it is a set of values and principles that enshrine the rights and dignity of individuals. When these principles are compromised, democracy itself is under threat. As advocates for absolute freedoms, we argue that any erosion of these values weakens the democratic fabric, making it susceptible to manipulation and distortion. Preserving individual liberties is not just a matter of personal preference but a safeguard against the erosion of the very foundation upon which democratic societies are built.
Perhaps the most dire consequence of limiting freedoms for the common good is the potential descent into totalitarianism. Authoritarian measures, if unchecked, can escalate into full-blown totalitarianism where the state seeks to control every aspect of public and private life. Once certain freedoms are surrendered, it becomes increasingly challenging to reverse the trend. The argument for absolute freedoms is a stark warning against underestimating the potential consequences of compromising on individual rights.
In conclusion, the debate over limiting freedoms for the common good is a complex and multifaceted discourse that goes to the heart of what kind of society we want to live in. We argue passionately that the path to a robust and flourishing democratic society lies in the unwavering protection of individual rights. We also contend that any compromise on these rights, even in the name of the common good, carries profound risks, including the erosion of civil liberties, the slippery slope towards authoritarianism, the abuse of power, the lack of accountability, the diminished democratic values, and the ominous potential for totalitarianism.
While the common good is undoubtedly a noble pursuit, the argument for absolute freedoms asserts that it is possible to address pressing societal challenges without sacrificing the very principles that define a democratic society. Striking a delicate balance between communal well-being and individual liberties is the key to navigating the complexities of governance without succumbing to the unintended consequences of authoritarianism and, potentially, totalitarianism. As we engage in this ongoing discourse, it is imperative to recognize that the protection of individual freedoms is not merely a preference but a safeguard against the encroachment of tyranny and a bulwark for the endurance of a just and free society.