“Freedom versus Government”.

A lot of the political arguments these days seem to pit freedom against government. While we can all agree that freedom is generally a good thing, having a democratically elected government that puts some reasonable regulatory controls on that freedom in service to the common good is also something that we all should be able to agree on. The big question is where the limits of that regulatory control should be. No one thinks that we should be free to murder. So, where should the limits to government control be? That is a question worth debating. The debate should not be able to be co-opted by those who would argue for a simplified all-or-nothing Freedom versus Government question.

I believe that human nature is such that the majority of people generally act in their own self-interest. It pretty much makes sense, though I wish it wasn't so. Do that which you perceive to benefit you own life. The problem with this is that there are conflicting self-interests and that promotes conflict. If it was true that human nature had the majority of people acting for the common good, there would be less conflict.

Democratic government is in place for the purposes of the common good. Even if we all vote in our own self-interest, the results of the vote should be favorable for the majority of voters. So, as this election year progresses, let us focus on the issues of how government regulates, and not let the debate fall back on the default “Freedom versus Government” generality that creates a divisive dichotomy that polarizes our people, making the true goal of the common good harder to achieve.