Conservatives avoid personal rights hypocrisy

First of all, absolute freedom for each and every individual in a society is a fundamental impossibility. It always has been and always will be. It is a fact of human nature that individuals have desires upon which they cannot freely act without impeding the freedom of another. It is then the role of a third party, namely the government, with authority over the individuals to determine which freedoms must take precedence over others when they cannot coexist. Therefore, the very role of government is to keep our inborn personal freedoms in check for the good of ourselves and for the good of others. These assertions, I assume, should be very familiar and intuitively obvious to all of us.

Having said this, I will grant you, Mate, that any conservative — or any other government official for that matter — would indeed be hypocritical to promise, or even promote, unlimited personal freedom. Before continuing with my original line of thought, though, I feel compelled to mention that I have found in my own observation that conservatives tend to promote this “smaller government” philosophy in specific reference to economic matters but are often misinterpreted to intend it as a blanket statement concerning all societal matters. I don’t know about anyone else, but to me, the very thought that any government official would seriously advocate a complete lack of government intervention in societal matters should automatically seem a bit silly.

Returning again, though, to the bigger picture, I would like to further my point by drawing upon the example of abortion, for you seemed to harp on that issue quite a bit. Abortion provides a perfect example of the personal freedoms of two individuals coming into direct conflict. In the situation of abortion, the mother’s personal freedom to end an unwanted pregnancy comes into direct conflict with the unborn individual’s freedom to live. Because both freedoms cannot coexist, the government, by virtue of its entrusted authority, has no choice but to intervene and determine which freedom is to take precedence over the other. This intervention by the government is simply a fulfillment of its responsibility, not authoritarianism as Mate contended.

I know that the issue of abortion has a strong polarizing effect, so hopefully my point will not be lost on readers because of this fact. But I am not putting forth anything radical here; everything I have said is simple Philosophy 104. As much as we would like to think so, we as people often do not know what is best for our own good and need government to guide us toward what is. We may not be inept, but we are imperfect. Unfortunately, we sometimes are not humble enough to admit to this fact.

As a closing note, I also wish to point out that Mate’s version of the Michael Schiavo story is an oversimplified one. I would suggest that readers not hastily form opinions on this situation until obtaining a greater understanding of it, because the reality of the story is far more complicated. And I would especially hope, Mate — as I expect is the case — that you have also formulated your opinions based on a greater knowledge of the story than you presented in your column.

Bergl is a sophomore civil engineering major.