The Freedom to Choose

ByBrian Phillips

Both “progressives” and conservatives speak about the freedom to choose. Yet, they do so very selectively. They adamantly support an individual’s freedom to choose in regard to some issues, and then are equally adamant in opposing an individual’s freedom to choose in regard to other issues.

For example, “progressives” support an individual’s freedom to choose a romantic partner, regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. Conservatives are generally opposed to gay marriage, and often, homosexuality. On the other hand, conservatives support choice in education, while “progressives” are vehemently opposed to any proposal that gives parents and students more choices. Why? Why are both “progressives” and conservatives inconsistent when it comes to freedom of choice?

Both believe that, because some individuals will make poor (or in their view immoral) choices in regard to certain issues, choices and/or the freedom to act on one’s choices should be restricted.

But the restrictions apply to everyone: the responsible and the irresponsible, the informed and the ignorant, the ambitious and the slothful. The restrictions do not protect the irresponsible, the ignorant, and the slothful. But they do place shackles on the responsible, the informed, and the ambitious.

Freedom of choice, consistently applied, means the freedom of each individual to choose the values that will bring him happiness, as well as the means for attaining those values. Of course, he must respect the freedom of others to do the same. Morally, he cannot impose his choices on others though bullets or ballots.

If you want the freedom to live as we choose, then you must accept the fact that others will make choices with which you disagree. If you don’t want that freedom, or can’t accept that fact, North Korea would welcome you with open arms.

Similar Posts

  • Wanna Bet?

    ByBrian Phillips

    The recent Supreme Court ruling striking down a federal law that prohibited most states from allowing betting on sporting events was a double-edged sword. While it struck down a right-violating law, it will do nothing to prevent states from violating individual rights. According to CNN, The court said the federal law violated constitutional principles limiting…

  • The Nihilism of BLM

    ByBrian Phillips

    In mid-August, Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters marched through a Seattle neighborhood demanding that the white property owners give up their homes. The neighborhood, which has undergone gentrification, was once predominantly black. One protester said, Give black people back their homes! You’re sitting there comfortably — comfortable as f—k as if they didn’t help gentrify…

  • Conceding Principles

    ByBrian Phillips

    The mission of the Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) is to be the voice of Texas agriculture. As such, it frequently voices support for property rights. As an example, in a recent opinion piece, TFB President Russell Boening calls for eminent domain reform to protect property owners. Boening writes: Corporations with this powerful, often abused tool…

  • The Onion Files Amicus Brief

    ByBrian Phillips

    The Onion, which calls itself “America’s Finest News Source,” recently filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in defense of Anthony Novac. In 2016, the aspiring comic created a parody of the Parma, Ohio, Police Department’s Facebook page. He was subsequently arrested and charged with “disrupting police operations.” The Onion’s brief brilliantly…