Individual Rights vs. The Public Good – How do you Draw the Line?
With all the news and political commentary I keep up with, I see one dichotomy which comes up often, and seems to summarize the ideological rift between Republicans and Democrats: “Individual Rights” vs. “The Public Good.”
In one corner, you have the Republicans, who champion individual rights. For example, one reason Republicans oppose the Affordable Care Act is because it takes away individuals’ rights to choose their own health care, and essentially takes away individuals’ money and distributes it to the public.
In the other corner, you have the Democrats, who fight for the public good. Keeping with the health-care example, Democrats support the Affordable Care Act, precisely because it is for the good of the broader public, even if it does take away some individual rights.
Of course, this isn’t a comprehensive description, free of exceptions. Republicans like to talk about the public good when defending foreign wars (it’s for protecting the public), and Democrats like to espouse individual rights in their support for abortion (the woman’s right, that is). Both support an individual’s right to free speech, and both support taxes for building roads for the public good. But for the most part, I think this dichotomy sums it up.
So, here’s my question to all of you: How do you draw the line between the two? Or, when faced with the choice of one or the other on a particular issue, how do you choose between supporting individual rights, or supporting the public good? And if you’re coming at it from a Christian perspective, how does this influence your thinking?
I continue to wrestle with the Bible, church history, and the role of the church in society, and I have come to this simple conclusion: it’s complicated. Policy is complicated. History is complicated. Matching religious belief with your take on either of these is even more complicated. It’s way too complicated for one party to have the holistic, right answer. The one thing I’m sure of is that Jesus has called us to do all of these things in love for our neighbors, even if it’s not politically expedient.
Related Posts
About The Author
Dr. Brian Franklin
Dr. Brian Franklin is the Associate Director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. He holds a Ph.D. in American History from Texas A&M University, and has a special interest in the intersection between religion, politics, and society in 18th- and 19th-century America.
Scripture in both the OT and NT is unapologetically in favor of personal property rights. While it is hailed as a virtue for one to be generous with their money and possessions, Scripture is clear that doing so should be rooted in the freedom of one’s heart and not compelled by the state.
I do not identify as a republican (I’m more independent or libertarian), but I have to concluded in such matters that compared to democrats, republicans are closer to the heart of scripture in that they vehemently oppose the right of the state to take wealth belonging to some and distributing it to other. Each individual is responsible to be generous with what God has given and to steward it well. That isn’t possible when the govt dictates what they must do with their wealth.
To me Scripture seems to present the theme of sacrificing (notions of) one’s individual rights. Take up your cross… Die to live… And in regards to personal property rights: Render unto Ceasar… Let him take your cloak as well…
The Bible doesn’t say much about how the people should engage the political process because, well, the original audience didn’t have that option.
Jon, I agree that Scripture has plenty to say about the importance of personal property rights, hence all the warnings against stealing. However, I haven’t yet met a person who argues that the government shouldn’t be able to require SOME taxes on behalf of the public good. The question then isn’t whether we are obligated to give some of our wealth in order to benefit the public, but how much, in which ways, etc., don’t you think?
Prohibitions against stealing is an interesting example because in that case, the Bible prohibits violating (the rights) of others and in other instances, it demands we defend (the rights) of others, but again, when it comes to MY rights, we’re exhorted to develop a disciplined heart toward self denial.
Be careful, John. That same OT requires people to not harvest all of their crops so that the poor can eat, sets limits on what you can and can’t take from the poor (even for legitimate debt), etc. Giving to others is not only voluntary.
And in the case of land ownership in the OT, the “ownership” is not predicated upon the notion of personal property rights, but rather on the idea that God has granted that particular family that particular portion of His land as their inheritance. That’s why moving boundary stones can be punished by death: it’s a sin against God, not against the property owner.
Speaking about personal property rights in the Scriptures is not only limiting, but anachronistic at times.
Be careful, John. That same OT requires people to not harvest all of their crops so that the poor can eat, sets limits on what you can and can’t take from the poor (even for legitimate debt), etc. Giving to others is not only voluntary.
And in the case of land ownership in the OT, the “ownership” is not predicated upon the notion of personal property rights, but rather on the idea that God has granted that particular family that particular portion of His land as their inheritance. That’s why moving boundary stones can be punished by death: it’s a sin against God, not against the property owner.
Speaking about personal property rights in the Scriptures is not only limiting, but anachronistic at times.
Be careful, John. That same OT requires people to not harvest all of their crops so that the poor can eat, sets limits on what you can and can’t take from the poor (even for legitimate debt), etc. Giving to others is not only voluntary.
And in the case of land ownership in the OT, the “ownership” is not predicated upon the notion of personal property rights, but rather on the idea that God has granted that particular family that particular portion of His land as their inheritance. That’s why moving boundary stones can be punished by death: it’s a sin against God, not against the property owner.
Speaking about personal property rights in the Scriptures is not only limiting, but anachronistic at times.