People on the Right are always talking about their rights and how the government is taking away their rights. Whether it’s the issue of gun ownership or restriction of movement during the pandemic, people on the Right don’t seem to understand what it means to be a citizen of the United States. Yes, we have rights. But with rights, come responsibilities. Not even the vaunted right of free speech, let alone the right to gun ownership is absolute.
Man is by nature concerned solely with his and his family's wellbeing. That is his biological imperative. Socially, however, man has evolved into being a member, a citizen, of a larger society. And so, from the most primitive communities to contemporary societies, that driving instinct has been reigned in for the greater good of the community.
In primitive societies and in many Asian societies, a collective culture developed that enforced working for the good of the group largely through strong social pressure; the individual was of lesser importance. In the West, where the concept of individualism took root, societies have instead depended upon laws to control the relationship between man's individual liberties and rights and his part in the larger society.
There are thousands of laws that control the right of an individual to do what he might want to do. Whether it's the criminal law, traffic laws, building codes and zoning laws, or product liability law, laws have been developed that balance the individual’s rights against the greater public good; they tell the individual what the limits are of his freedom to act. Without such laws we would have anarchy.
As our society became more civilized and enlightened, the concept of man's pro-active responsibilities to the larger society developed. Existing along side his rights, are concomitant shared responsibilities for the community that go beyond the responsibility not to harm others.
In the current political context, there is a uproar on the Right regarding this fundamental aspect of the relationship between government, individual rights, and the greater public good that came to define the American social contract in the 20th century. This post will look at several examples. The most topical is the restriction on people’s movement in the pandemic. The second is the ongoing issue of the right of gun ownership. Other less emotional, but equally deep concerns, are the regulation of business, progressive taxation, and the government's responsibilities towards those less fortunate.
1. The government has wide power to regulate matters that concern public health and safety. Certainly in this period of pandemic, they have the power to restrict movement and take other measures to control the spread of the virus, to protect individuals from each other. Yes, this restricts our normal rights in numerous ways, but these restrictions are necessary for the public good.
2. As for gun ownership, even if one agrees (whjch I don’t) in the Constitutional right to individual gun ownership recently-found in the 2nd Amendment, that right like the right to free speech found in the 1st Amendment is not absolute. It can be limited when necessary for the greater good. So whether it’s broader background checks or prohibiting private ownership of assault-type weapons, these are restrictions that meet the constitutional standard. The NRA’s argument that ultimately pro-gun control advocates want to take away your guns is just fear-mongering. There is no basis in that claim.
3. Then there’s the issue of business regulation. The primary interest of any business is self-interest ... that is its nature as much as it's man's nature. As we saw during the industrial revolution and the early decades of the 20th century, if business is not regulated, it will show no concern for either its workers or the greater public good.
Because of this self-interest and the resulting efforts through lobbying and other means to avoid any restrictions, regardless how necessary to protect the public good, I have argued in earlier posts (“What Is the Role of Corporations in Our Society”) that because corporations are a creature of the law and have received many benefits under that law, corporate law should require that part of the decision making process be the impact of corporate action on the public good, whether it be directly or through the environment.
4. Taxes. No one likes paying them. Most taxes, likes sales taxes, are unfortunately regressive … the lower a person’s income, the larger the share of their income that goes to paying taxes. (With regard to the sales tax, that’s because lower income people spend a larger share of their income on the purchase of necessities and other goods, accounting for the tax taking a larger share of their income.)
As the United States developed into a more progressive society, it realized that regressive taxes posed an unfair burden on the poor. A socially fair tax would work in the opposite way … the higher ones income, the greater the share of that income that would be paid in taxes because such people have much more discretionary income and therefore a higher tax would not pose any hardship. And so when the income tax was instituted, that’s how it was designed … as a progressive tax.
In 1932, the income tax for the top bracket was 63% of income over $1,000,000. In 1950, it was 91% of income over $400,000. As recently as 1980, the rate was 70% of income over $212,000. Today, the rate is 37% of income over $510,000. The rich are paying a smaller portion of their income as taxes to support the greater public good than at any time since the income tax was instituted.
5. Finally, there is government action to support the poor. Over the course of the past 100 years, again as society has become more civilized and enlightened, government has taken a greater hand in both directly providing for those in need as well as ensuring in various ways that they have the opportunity to better their position in life.
This was a fuller implementation of the role of government stated in the Declaration of Independence … “to secure” the right to life, liberty, and happiness. Programs that were once considered radical or socialist by Republicans, such as Social Security and Medicare, which they fought tooth and nail at the time, are now accepted by most as necessary programs ... not without their problems, but vital to the wellbeing of a large proportion of our citizens and thus the stability of our economy.
In all these areas, the current radical brand of Republicans, egged on by the energy and anger of first the Tea Party and then President Trump, have argued that the government’s role should be reduced or eliminated. People should be free to do what they think best. Business should not be regulated. The wealthy should not pay more taxes. The poor should have to fend for themselves … if you don’t succeed, it’s your fault. (Programs like Social Security are distinguished because it’s been earned, and corporate subsidies are necessary because of their importance to the economy.)
Each of these positions is against the balance that our nation has historically struck between private rights, the public good, and the role of government. These positions violate an enlightened concept of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.
Republicans wish to take us back to an era where individualism ran rampant and success was limited to the few. America’s strength in the 20th century evolved by broadening the base of prosperity among its citizens and creating a more vibrant, intelligent workforce through the intervention of government programs and regulation.
That is where we need to continue heading in the 21st century to ensure America’s continued strength. Trump’s policies will not make America great again because they are against the empowerment of people and thus actually weaken America. Radical Republicans need to be recognized for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people. They are not responsible citizens of this great republic.
