- After his parents file an application for an Extreme Risk Protection Order against him, a judge approves it, and the police confiscate the firearms and ammunition at his home, a young man complains about the confiscation of his guns on social media and obtains help from a second amendment activist organization to file a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the red-flag law used to execute the Extreme Risk Protection Order.
- A woman with an ectopic pregnancy, after failing to find a provider that would perform an abortion, appeals to the supreme court of her state and is denied legal permission to have an abortion. She chooses to travel out of state to have the abortion.
- Ranchers vie with native American tribes and environmentalists over the designation of a national monument in northern Arizona. Ranchers may lose the freedom to graze cattle on those public lands if it is declared a national monument. The tribes have lost the freedom to protect sacred sites in that area and would like to reclaim it. Environmentalists want to prevent mining interests from polluting the area by mining uranium.
- The FTC issues a rule to nullify employee non-compete agreements for almost all employees of American companies. The purpose is to grant employees greater freedom to seek better opportunities in the same industry. The US Chamber of Commerce sues to block enforcement of the new rule, claiming that it takes away from businesses the freedom to protect their intellectual property from theft by employees departing to competitors.
Did you notice how in each scenario above one person or group’s freedom impinges on another’s? Did you notice that in each case laws or rules enacted by government were used to expand or restrict some individual’s or group’s freedom? You may also find yourself rooting for one side or the other based on additional knowledge of the situation or your own opinion on similar issues.
The first two of these situations are composites of multiple, real, recent events. The last two are real events. In each case I’ve left out significant details that could change your own view about what freedoms are at stake and what approach to the situation could produce the best outcome. It is also true that in each of these situations the majority of the leaders in the Democratic and Republican party have an opposing view of the best way to resolve the issue. Finally, although in each situation the competing individuals or groups are all seeking to protect or expand some type or realm of freedom — which their advocates exploit to stir up outrage and anger against the opposing individuals or groups — it is also the case that the types of freedom at stake and the costs involved in gaining or losing their freedom differ for those involved.
Nearly every issue that will be addressed in this entire series has to do with someone’s loss or gain of freedom. It is incumbent on me as the author and you as the reader to weigh carefully the costs and benefits to all parties involved in the exercise or restriction of freedoms discussed in the posts to come, and not let any advocate’s cries of “liberty!” prejudice us against a solution that ends up doing the most good.
In the next post we’ll wrestle over the competing benefits and costs of employee non-complete agreements for employees and companies.