I Want It All

Occasionally, I hear people make arguments in favor of constitutional rights claims by arguing that the Constitution was set up to protect liberty. And it most certainly was—in part.

But I think that it’s a mistake to treat this as a goal above all others, as the Preamble to the Constitution itself reflects (and of course the specific provisions within the text of the Constitution and the Amendments—which are part of the Constitution—do as well):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution was set up to do many things at once, and I want them all. I would like our government to provide for justice, and protect domestic tranquility, and defend us against our enemies, and make the country wealthier, and protect liberty.

To be sure, these interests are sometimes in tension: For instance, national defense will often undermine liberty to some extent, and liberty will often undermine national defense. On the other hand, the interests often go together: For instance, liberty will generally produce more economic growth, and wealthier countries also generally find it easier to defend themselves. In any event, the Constitution sets up our federal government to try to secure all these benefits, rather than to categorically prioritize one (whether liberty or national security or the general welfare) above the others.

And that’s what I want, too. I love liberty, including freedom from oppression by my own government.

But I also want freedom from oppression by foreign governments (which requires an effective “common defence”), freedom from oppression by violent factions within our country (which requires protection for “domestic Tranquility”), and freedom from oppression by criminals and criminal gangs (which requires “establish[ing] Justice”).

I also want more “general Welfare.” First, that generally translates into more wealth, health, and opportunity for me, and therefore practical liberty for me to pursue the things I value. The concept of “freedom from want” can be overstated, but it captures an important point, and “freedom of opportunity” means more than just freedom from restraints on opportunity imposed by American governments. Second, providing the same things for other Americans tends to make it easier to prevent foreign oppression and violent revolution. And an effective Union of the states generally tends to promote these values as well.

Again, one should always watch for the ever-present risk that pursuing some of these goals may unduly undermine other goals. One should also watch for perverse consequences, for instance when attempts to promote the general welfare or the common defense actually undermine these very values.

And of course there’s always the possibility that the Preamble’s plan is mistaken, and that we should categorically reject one or another of these goals. For instance, perhaps a government should be categorically denied the power to act simply to “promote the general Welfare,” and should leave such promotion entirely to the nongovernmental actions of free and well-defended private individuals. Or perhaps the federal government should be denied some of these powers, and any governmental action to protect them should be at the state level. Or perhaps these values are better served by a looser Union, or no Union at all, than by the tighter Union that the Constitution created.

But at least until someone shows me a better plan, I’d be inclined to see our country stick with this one. And that is a plan that seeks to serve many goals at once, including securing the blessings of liberty, rather than just one goal.