Debate over the application of abstract principles of individual liberty and freedom from collective or state control have largely reflected the concerns, customs, and instutions of the time. Perhaps the most well-known debate regarding individual liberty took place outside of the United States in the late 18th Century between two of the greatest philosophers Western politics has ever known: Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine.
Burke viewed humanity as too flawed to depend on its own faculties. According to Burke, humanity needed to rely on traditions and social institutions, such as religion and the aristocracy to control inherent human flaws. Burke was an ardent believer in gradual change and because of these views, he has become a celebrated figure within the modern American right. Paine, on the other hand, was the quintessential “radical.” Spurring multiple revolutions with the power of his words, he directed whole countries to break away from or topple the most powerful monarchs of his day. Unlike Burke, Paine felt humanity needed only its own faculty to reason and that “the principles of liberty will better protect individual freedom than the institutions of society.”
Their epic clash of competing pamphlets would debate the implications of the French Revolution. In his famous work Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke argued that England’s revolution in 1688 had produced the most stable relationship in the world between monarchy and the people. The revolution in France however, which rapidly dissolved virtually every traditional French institution including religion and the aristocracy, was to Burke a profane endeavor that would ultimately lead France to disaster. Burke’s predictions as to the outcome of the French Revolution were astoundingly accurate. In particular, Burke anticipated the ascent of Napoléon in near perfect detail. Such accurate predictions have inevitably led Burke to be revered. Although Burke was perfect in his prediction for the outcome in France, it was Paine who would ultimately win the larger debate as to the superiority of principled liberty over institutions of social control.
LexisNexis Practical Guidance Rolls Out Dedicated Practice Area for AI & Technology
The new generation of AI-related legal issues are inherently cross-disciplinary, implicating corporate law, intellectual property, data privacy, employment, corporate governance and regulatory compliance.
The evidence of Paine’s victory is all around us. Whereas Burke embraced a conservative fatalism that saw humanity as inherently sick and therefore required a life centered on tradition and the church to maintain order, history has proven this concept false. Capitalism and the industrial revolution drastically changed the traditional life of most Americans from the family farm to the cities in one lifetime. Religion, once the bedrock tenet of American daily life, has been abandoned or rejected recently by large sections of the population within a remarkably short period. And while many conservatives lament drastic cultural and traditional changes as the cause of all modern societal ills, especially in regards to the perceived disaster of the “sexual revolution,” our current reality reflects a much different outcome than what Burke and modern conservatives fear.
As the United States has increasingly rejected tradition and become more urban, diverse, secular, and yes more open sexually, society has become safer and safer, with the standard of living ever increasing. The cause for humanity’s growth is largely due to an embrace of the Enlightenment principles Paine was advocating for, rather than reliance on traditional institutions of social control Burke deemed essential to stability. In fact, virtually everything that is valued in today’s society stands in complete defiance to what most traditional institutions have historically advocated and represented. Nowhere is this fact more evident than in the realm of individual liberty.
Whether it be the ability to alter your state of mind with substances, possess firearms or express yourself verbally and sexually, the modern era has seen drastic increases in protection of individual liberty as government and social prohibitions have been either struck down or rejected. Along with greater personal freedom, and this is worth repeating and stressing upon, came an unprecedented era of safety and security. However, the fight over individual freedom is not over. The ability to possess firearms and certain drugs remain hotly debated issues. However, no topic of “personal liberty” is more disputed in the modern era than that of abortion.
Discussing abortion in terms of individual liberty has been criticized as an “argument by euphemism” by writers such as Charles Cooke as a side step from the truth that abortion involves the killing of a human life. With that critique in mind let me be absolutely clear: While I can conceive of situations where it could be morally ambiguous (such as where the life of the mother is in jeopardy or even in cases of rape and incest) I view abortion as a morally outrageous form of birth control. In other words, I find abortion to be a real problem of life and death crying out for correction. Also abhorrent, however, is the conservative solution resting on government-enforced prohibition.
Keeping Law School Accessible When Federal Loans Fall Short
As federal borrowing caps tighten financing options for law students, one organization is stepping in to negotiate the terms they can't secure alone.
Like abortion, drugs, medical malpractice, and guns rob society of human life on a tragic scale. But government prohibitions have been ineffective and incredibly wasteful of resources and human lives, damaging personal liberties and wreaking tremendous societal harm. In terms of bodies, the problem of medical malpractice dwarfs the number of American deaths caused by drugs and guns combined. When it comes to guns and the medical profession however, modern conservatives rail against liberal efforts to increase government control. On the other hand, when it comes to the problems of drugs and abortion, it is liberals who denounce conservative efforts to regain or establish government influence. What is it that prevents us from consistently insisting upon the principles of individual liberty to guide us through society’s life and death problems?
The greatest preventer of abortion is empowering individual women through available birth control to decide when they will have a child. The best safeguard against the destructive outcomes of drug addiction and violence remains the stable nuclear family, not government prohibitions. None of the very real problems of guns, drugs, and abortion requires government intervention and in fact, history has given us a guide that such interference causes even greater harm. In rejecting the influence of social instutions of control, including government, the world has become much safer and provided a better quality of life than when these institutions had far greater power and influence.
Embracing individual liberty solves real problems and allows individuals to escape larger tragedies. My refusal to support government prohibition of guns, drugs, and abortion does not mean I support addiction, gun violence, and abortion. It just means I believe a better solution lies in elevating and empowering personal liberty rather than relying on institutions to control human beings.
Tyler Broker is the Free Expression and Privacy Fellow at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review and the Albany Law Review. Feel free to email him to discuss his column.