April 24, 2003

Santorum and the rights of an individual

Arthur Silber at Light of Reason has an interesting post on the Santorum flap. In it he makes a couple of points that I wish I had recognized, because I think that they are very important. First, Santorum seems to be under the impression that the basic "unit" of society is the "stable, healthy family", NOT the individual, and second, that the governments purpose is not to protect the individual but rather to protect society. Both of these concepts fly in the face of what America is supposed to be - a pluralistic society where individuals have freedoms and it is the freedom of the individual that is necessary to protect, not society.

The entirety of the interview, and these last statements in particular, make it unmistakably clear that, for Santorum, the purpose of government is not to protect individual rights, but to protect "strong healthy families," "the basic unit of our society." Note that his idea of "strong healthy families" is one growing out of his particular beliefs, including his religious beliefs; you might have quite a different idea of a "strong healthy family," as might many millions of other people. But beyond this, Santorum could not be more mistaken: "the basic unit of our society" is the individual, not "a healthy, stable, traditional family" or any other "unit" that someone might put forth. The smallest minority is the individual -- and it is the individual's rights that government properly should protect, especially against people with views like Santorum's.

The other element worthy of note is the breathtaking arrogance of this statement: "The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire." Please keep in mind the following: what Santorum is talking about in this interview is sexual activity conducted in private by consenting adults. But Santorum proceeds from what is, in fundamental terms, a collectivist premise: he believes that government properly has the power (or in his terms, the "right") to criminalize behavior which might endanger "strong healthy families," thus in his view endangering society in general. In other words, the purpose of government is to protect "society" (which presumably includes those who thinks as he does, but no one else at all), but not to protect you specifically, or any other individual.

When individual rights become subordinate to one particular view of society, we step away from being a free nation and begin to more closely resemble the fundamentalist theocracies that our own government decries on a regular basis. That many of Santorum's views derive from his own particular religoius belief just make the comparison that much more apt.

Posted by thorswitch at April 24, 2003 03:18 AM | TrackBack


Comments