The Battle of Common Good vs Individual Rights
Our government has been mandating the common good on a regular basis since the inception of American Federalism in 1787, yet suddenly, it seems that people are up in arms about government interference
A society cannot function and be united if the common good is not a major part of the political and social reality.
The bulk of the individual rights protected by the Constitution is located in the First 10 Amendments called the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers debated dozens of individual rights that should be included, or not be included, in the Constitution during the ratification years of 1787-1789.
The original Constitution did not contain a bill of rights. Several key members debated the necessity to safeguard individual rights against the potentially expanding authority of a central government by including a Bill of Rights and would not ratify the Constitution until one was added. So the final copy of the Constitution was drafted with the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights and finally ratified by 1789.
The truth is that our government has been mandating things for the common good on a regular basis since the inception of American Federalism in 1787, 11 years after the Constitution was written.
The benefits of federalism are that it can encourage political participation, give states an incentive to engage in policy innovation, and accommodate diverse viewpoints across the country. The disadvantages are that it can set off a race to the bottom among states, cause cross-state economic and social disparities, and obstruct federal efforts to address national problems [1].
Commenting on the many economic and social problems that American society now confronts, Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson wrote: "We face a choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a common good or a more contentious society where groups selfishly protect their own benefits."
Appeals to the common good have also surfaced in discussions of business' social responsibilities, discussions of environmental pollution, discussions of our lack of investment in education, and discussions of the problems of crime and poverty. Everywhere, it seems, social commentators claim that our most fundamental social problems grow out of a widespread lack of commitment to the common good, coupled with an equally widespread pursuit of individual interests.
The common good primarily consists of having the social systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people.
There has always been a healthy discourse in our society about balancing the common good with individual rights and freedoms.
Given these differences, some people urge that it will be impossible for us to agree on what particular kind of social systems, institutions, and environment we will all pitch in to support. And even if we agree upon what we all value, we would certainly disagree about the relative values things have for us [2].
Recently, I came across a good example of this dichotomy in a social media discussion about the US Government mandating a changeover from incandescent bulbs to LED technology.
Incandescent light bulbs are being removed from store shelves in 2023 under new rules established by the Biden admin. The Biden administration is pulling the plug on incandescent light bulbs in favor of energy-efficient light-emitting diodes, or LEDs. The phaseout of the old-fashioned bulbs is aimed at reducing utility bills and conserving energy [3].
Our government and our international trading partners have agreed to nationwide CO2 emissions reductions in each host country. The DOE stated that discontinuing inefficient incandescent lights will save Americans nearly $3 billion yearly and substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions over 30 years. Swapping out the bulbs is projected to cut planet-warming carbon emissions by 222 million metric tons over the next 30 years, an amount equivalent to emissions generated by 28 million homes in one year [4].
Many people have been quick to characterize this as an overreach by the Biden Administration. However, the new rules were decades in the making, and reflect a bi-partisan undertaking. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed under a Republican administration. Energy efficiency standards were part of legislation approved during George W. Bush's presidency, and then picked up by the Obama administration. And that Act wasn't restricted to light bulbs. Some of the other provisions in the Act call for higher gas mileage in automobiles; transportation electrification; increased reliance on biofuels; and training for green jobs [5].
Yet, Republican lawmakers in recent months have continually derided the Biden administration’s efficiency actions on everything from more efficient stoves to laundry machines and dishwashers. And people on the right have been beating the drum about the government forcing them to make changes. But this is nothing new. The Government has ALWAYS taken actions similar to this for the common good. And it's been going on since the advent of Federalism in 1787 [6].
So these kinds of actions are neither new, nor infrequent. And they never have been. And there are myriad examples of this.
Around 1980, according to the CDC, only 11% of Americans wore seatbelts. Today, thanks to considerable prodding and legislation, seatbelt usage is almost universal with 90% of Americans buckling up. In 1966, no states had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. In what is a complicated legislative history, Congress has used “carrots and sticks” in an attempt to prod states to adopt them. In 2020, 19 states and DC had universal requirements, 28 had requirements for a subset of riders (usually age-based), and only three (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire) had no such requirements. These motor vehicle safety laws presented Americans with a trade-off between personal liberty and the common good.
Restrictions of the speed at which you can drive your car (speed limits) on public roads represent a government mandate for the common good.
Roughly three-quarters of Americans support zoning laws and minimum building codes for construction sites. These laws were established to protect all homeowners and businesses in communities across the nation.
Other examples include requiring children to be vaccinated against measles, diphtheria, tetanus, or chicken pox.
OSHA regulations and inspections were established to protect America’s workforce by limiting exposure to toxic chemicals and other unsafe working conditions.
Bank regulations limit your loss if someone steals money from your account with your ATM card.
Enforcement of the federal Clean Air Act guarantees commitment toward providing safer air to breathe for all of our citizens. But maintaining an unpolluted environment, for example, may require that particular firms that pollute install costly pollution control devices, potentially undercutting profits.
We have regulations prevent the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors.
Public water systems provide safe drinking water based on standards set by the EPA. But to maintain an adequate supply of water during a drought, people must sometimes conserve water, which entails sacrifices. Some individuals may be reluctant to do their share, however, since they should know that so long as enough other people conserve, they can enjoy the benefits without significantly reducing their own consumption.
Thanks to the Federal Aviation Administration, the United States’ air traffic control system is the safest in the world. Imagine what would happen if there were no federal standards and laws regarding aviation safety! [7]
For most Americans, the common good outweighs the individual rights concern [8].
The construct of the common good urges us to reflect on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. It also challenges us to view ourselves as members of the same community and, while respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, to recognize and further those goals we share in common.
The common good has, and will always represent an uneasy balance between proponents of individual rights and those who promote the common good construct.
Which begs the question "what has changed to cause all this uproar?" The government appears to be doing what it always has done to the benefit of most Americans, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet suddenly, some people on the right are up in arms about government interference in their right to buy and use inefficient and much more costly to operate light bulbs?? I think we have a people problem, not a government problem.
Sources
[2] https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v5n1/common.html
[3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/incandescent-light-bulb-phase-out-2023-biden-rule/
[5] https://www.epa.gov/mercury/how-energy-independence-and-security-act-2007-affects-light-bulb
[6] https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/27/incandescent-light-bulb-led-00107935
[7] 50 Ways Government Works for Us - SEC.gov https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/sec-employees/psrw50ways.pdf