I think I am a fairly rational person, or at least I aspire to be. Having hit the septuagenarian mark, I also think I am a pretty good judge of character, based on years of experience working with, teaching, raising and just observing my fellow humans. But I do admit to being puzzled at times when I witness behavior that appears to go against the grain, to be the opposite of what I think it sensibly should be.
For example, when the consequences are so well known, why do some motorists persist in not wearing seat belts and why are there still motorcyclists refusing to wear helmets? Why do I see a fair number of folks talking on their cellphones while driving, and why do some weapons collectors insist on pushing the envelope by buying arms and explosive devices that rival the fire power of a platoon of combat Marines? It just doesn't make sense to me, and I can understand why a civil society thinks it necessary to enact laws to restrict such risky behavior that threatens both the violators and their fellow citizens.
I recently came across a small chunk of history that helped explain why some folks think as they do. In the 2015 book, "The War that Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters," author James McPherson tells a story about Lincoln and slavery that adroitly addresses two different interpretations of freedom. Speaking in Baltimore, Lincoln told a parable about a shepherd who protected one of his sheep from a wolf. The sheep "thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep is a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed on a definition of liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures. …"
In this transparent tale, Lincoln is the shepherd, the black sheep is a slave, and the wolf his owner. Southerners wanted the freedom to have slaves, and the slaves wanted to be free from slavery. McPherson relies on 20th century philosopher Isiah Berlin to categorize such a dilemma as a conflict between positive and negative liberty, or a "freedom to" versus a "freedom from." And power has a vital role to play in this calculus. As president and commander-in-chief of the superior Union army, Lincoln had the power to get his way; with the "freedom to" people the losers.
McPherson reminds us that this brand of unbridled power can also be the enemy of freedom, and that's why the colonists fought the Crown for independence, and why we have two houses of Congress and a system of checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. We should ever be mindful of 19th century historian Lord Acton's oft-quoted warning that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Incidentally, negative and positive liberty are not mutually exclusive. Once the slaves were free, they were granted the liberty to seek jobs and an education, in other words the "freedom to" work for a salary and learn to read.
As you might appreciate, this discussion can easily wander into the Libertarian's camp. Those of this political stripe absolutely believe that they have the right not to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. According to their 2014 party platform, "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the choices they make." They should have the right "to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risk they accept to their health, finances, safety or life."
I have a right-leaning brother-in-law who was angered when new federal safety standards mandated that lawn mowers have an automatic cut-off after the handle is disengaged. He said it hampers his use, and he is not fond of what some call our growing nanny state. I can see his point, but also appreciate how many hands and feet have been saved by this simple safety feature.
I may not agree with Libertarians, but I believe I understand their worldview a bit better now with the help of Lincoln and Berlin. However, I am not happy when my car and medical insurance rates increase because people don't wear seat belts "on principle." They have to understand that their rights end where my rights begin.
Frank Batavick writes from Westminster. His column appears Fridays. Email him at fjbatavick@gmail.com.
