Rights and Responsibilities on the Seesaw of American Life
After each mass shooting, the gun debate takes its usual trajectory. Those who want more controls are pitted against those who cite the right to bear arms. It's mostly liberals vs. conservatives. But if we shift to the argument over whether the state can compel childhood vaccinations, it's often liberals who demand their rights - to opt out - even though scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to the individual and public safety benefits of herd immunity.
On many other issues, the same debate between personal rights and community interests exists. The right to operate a business relatively free of government regulation is the conservative mantra, countered by liberal demands to address the social costs of the damage businesses can do. When the subject turns to recreational pot, it's often liberals asking the government to leave them alone, while many conservatives worry about the impact on people and their communities.
American history began with a demand for rights, but it also began with concern about social responsibilities. Amidst our incessant clamor for freedom, we forget this. When the Arabella entered Boston harbor in 1630, Puritans were looking for the right to practice religion as they wished. While still onboard, however, Jonathan Winthrop reminded them that "Wee must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities."
The seesaw between personal freedom and social obligations has waxed and waned. The last fifty years, however, has seen an imbalance: the demand for more rights without a corresponding balance with the need for social responsibility.
American culture and commerce have mushroomed with a focus on the individual, from the inward-focused "me-generation" to the struggle for rights among women, those with disabilities, ethnic and racial minorities, the aged, and those with varied sexual and marriage preferences. A great deal of good has come from this. Along a similar trajectory, business and industry have demanded the right to grow with less regulation, and a great deal of good has come from this.
The need to weigh personal rights against their social impact has been a lesser worry for liberals, and the need to weigh business rights against their social impact has been a lesser concern for conservatives. But the growth of rights is not an unalloyed good. Social media, for example, provides a platform for nearly unfettered personal freedom of expression. At the same time, they constitute a largely unregulated Petri dish on which personal and societal damage can grow. From lies, distortions of fact, and election meddling to the destruction of lives through bullying, trolling, and child pornography, protection of society has lagged behind personal freedom.
Nearly two hundred years ago, British economist William Forster Lloyd described a situation in which the right of each cattle herder to freely use a shared piece of pasture would result in destruction of the shared resource though overgrazing. In 1968, American ecologist Garrett Hardin popularized this "tragedy of the commons" by applying it to the atmosphere, oceans and fisheries. Only the balance of rights with social responsibility prevents the damage unrestrained freedom does to our "commons." Applied to fisheries, for example, this balance has required restrictions so that fish stocks can be preserved for use by future generations.
A society in which rights are emphasized to the near exclusion of responsibilities tends towards licentiousness. A society in which social responsibility is emphasized to the near exclusion of personal freedom tends towards a choking legalism. Neither is healthy. The productive solution is a balance, which is almost always difficult to strike.
Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence, with its clarion call for the protection of our "unalienable rights." We forget its concluding phrase, in which its signers acknowledged their joint responsibility as they pledged "to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." We celebrate the Bill of Rights, intoning its protections of basic freedoms. But the Constitution lacks a clear statement of a "Bill of Responsibilities."
We need to remember that when someone jumps off the seesaw, their partner suffers a very hard landing. Unless rights and responsibilities find a healthy balance, the same is true on the playground of our lives.
Photo Credit: Peter Bakke
