A question that came out during the interview that I want to address somewhat is the tension between individual liberty and common good. Senator Blackwell wants to have the debate, so let's have it.
First, I'd like to make a point that good ol' Tommy Hobbes made in his Leviathan some time ago: in order to establish a society, or have any sort of common good, man must lay down some individual liberties. Common good always presupposes a sacrifice on the part of individual liberty. What is total individual liberty? Hobbes' state of nature, the condition of war of all against all, the "solitary, nasty, brutish, poor, and short". A lawless state.
But what is the other side of the coin? A state purely devoted to common good, with no individual liberty? 1984 comes to mind. The purpose of Orwell's "thought crime" was to show how far a deprivation of individual autonomy can be taken, and what horrors result.
No one would advocate either wholly pursuing individual liberty, or wholly pursuing common good. So, I'd like to point out to Senator Blackwell, and his conservative friends, that the choice we have to make is not one or the other. I don't think they seriously think it is. I am simply attempting to frame the discussion. Clearly, what we want is some kind of balance between the two things. There must be a balance point between individual liberty and the common good.
What our debate must ask is two questions: first, where is that balance point? Second, is that point fixed? Both of these questions speak to our current political discourse, whether it be over healthcare reform, financial reform, appellate court appointees, or what have you.
I'm not sure how to answer that first question, but let me attempt to answer the second question: No. The balance point between common good and individual liberty should not be fixed. It must be possible to move it according to the needs of our society, and the possibility of expansion on either side of the equation. A mass upswing on the individual liberty side, say, in a "free" market system where banking institutions are betting against the very stocks they are selling, carries with it a mass downswing on the common good side. Adjustments must be made to balance things, and keep them in balance.
This maybe provides a glimpse at how we might go about answering the first question: since neither thing is absolute good, sacrifices have to be made on either side. They must be made whenever one side of this balanced equation overtakes the other side, and threatens it.
How much does Obama's administration threaten the side of individual liberty? As far as the eye can see, not very much at all. Blackwell's inability to give Stewart one specific example of how the administration is threatening it, even after ostensibly writing a book on the subject, is a strong testimony to that very fact.
